3 ms·
This story seems complicated - could someone correct my understanding if it's incorrect? From the article: * In 2015, federal courts stated that plans for wea
by distortedsignal 5y ago
This story seems complicated - could someone correct my understanding if it's incorrect?
From the article:
* In 2015, federal courts stated that plans for weapons posted online needed State Department approval (I assume this is referred to as "export controlled weapons"?).
* In 2018, the State Department settled a lawsuit by ordering the removal of these plans from the list of export-controlled weapons?
* Directly after this settlement, 22 states (and D.C.) sued to keep those plans on the list of export-controlled weapons.
* In 2021, the State Department upheld their decision to remove the plans from the "export-controlled weapons" list.
Is that... mostly right?
- setr 5y ago>* In 2021, the State Department upheld their decision to remove the plans from the "export-controlled weapons" list. >the appellate panel found 2-1 that a 1989 federal law prohibits courts from overruling the State Department’s decision to add or remove a weapon from the Munitions List nit: As I understand it, they didn't uphold the decision, they decided the courts had no say in the matter, and could not overrule even if they wanted to. Which makes the dissenting judge's opinion a little concerning, because he seems to have been trying a different decision making process -- the courts should have a say, because he wanted to have a say in the matter. but I'm basing this on the one quote from the article.