Washington District Judge Issues Policy Decision on Guns, Ignores Executive Power, First Amendment, Law

Judge Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge of the Western District of Washington, at Seattle, has taken the task of deciding what may or may not be lawful, based on the principle of potential harm. He has issued a permanent injunction against the Trump Administration State Department, to prevent the State Department from reaching a court settlement with Defense Distributed, allowing them to exercise their First Amendment rights. The permanent injunction was issued on the 27th of August, 2018, in Seattle, Washington State.  The temporary restraining order had been issued on 31 July.

It is a principle of law that in order to have standing for a lawsuit, the plaintiff must have suffered actual harm. Potential harm in the future is not an allowed reason for action.

Judge Lasnik ignores this principle, and holds that in his opinion, allowing computer files to be published, in accordance with the First Amendment, might allow a person to be able to create a firearm, that might be used in the commission of a crime, that might cause a person to be harmed, that would cause harm to the State of Washington. Judge Lasnik simply ignores the multiple other ways that equally effective non-detectable firearms can be made. He deliberately shows technological ignorance. From the decision: 

Irreparable Harm

Plaintiffs have submitted evidence, including declarations and the federal defendants’ prior findings, showing that the States will likely suffer irreparable injury if the technical data for designing and producing undetectable weapons using a commercially-available 3D printer are published on the internet. Many of the same concerns that prompted the DDTC to conclude that the CAD files are “defense articles” within the scope of the USML apply with equal force to the States. A gun made from plastic is virtually undetectable in metal detectors and other security equipment intended to promote public safety at airports, sporting events, courthouses, music venues, and government buildings. The portability and ease of a manufacturing process that can be set up virtually anywhere would allow those who are, by law, prohibited from manufacturing, possessing, and/or using guns to more easily evade those limitations. The publication of the technical data would subvert the domestic laws of states with more restrictive firearm controls and threaten the peace and security of the communities where these guns proliferate.

It is unlikely the plaintiffs will prevail. The legal and technical arguments are bizarre. The State Department reached the settlement on the basis that they would lose the case in court, and because the technical arguments are not reasonable or rational. Judge Lasnik ignores that the State Department has responsibilities in international trade, not in domestic affairs.  The judge openly states his opinion that this information will harm communities. He ignores the harm done to communities by ignoring First and Second Amendment rights.

The decision is a classic case of judge shopping and judicial activism. Judge Lasnik does not like what the executive branch is doing. He issues an injunction. He suffers no harm when he is ultimately overturned. He is a Senior Judge already retired, taking cases voluntarily. In the meantime, he causes considerable harm to the defendants. As the defendants in this case are in the Trump administration, that may be his desire.

The decision will probably be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned Circuit, and the most leftist leaning Circuit.

Judge Lasnik grew up in New York City and was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1998.  He assumed Senior status in January of 2016.

This action is the latest of a dangerous trend to allow any one of 600 district judges in the United States to stop actions of the executive branch for the entire United States. It allows opponents of an administration to search for a sympathetic judge out of a field of hundreds, to launch a lawsuit to stop the ordinary processes of government for partisan purposes.

This injunction could eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court. Both sides would have reason to do so. It would be a good case for the Supreme Court to issue guidance on the ability to District Courts to make decisions in law for the entire nation. Justice Clarence Thomas alluded to this problem in a recent decision. From Trump v. Hawaii:

In sum, universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious. If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.

 An unintended consequence of this action is more publicity for Defense Distributed and Cody Wilson. More publicity means more 3D files will be downloaded from other sources. More people will become interested in creating their own firearms outside of commercial factories.

All this works to end the possibility of gun control as currently considered in the United States.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch