What a lot of people don't understand is that these are freedom of speech concerns, not second amendment concerns.
As an aside, it is already legal in the US to manufacture your own gun at home. There are countless sources of information in printed form that show you how to do that -- gun manufacture for personal use is 100% unregulated by any existing federal law and, as of 2018, in states other than California (Updated - see https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/homemade-gun....). It is the sale and distribution of guns that is regulated at the Federal level, and in states other than California.
The issue here is whether the state department can take down websites that show instructions for gun manufacturing, whereas no one is arguing that printed books with the same information would be subject to similar bans. But something about the internet makes a lot of regulatory bodies think that freedom of publication and prohibitions on prior restraint just don't apply there, and this ruling is one small step to setting that straight.
As an aside, it is already legal in the US to manufacture your own gun at home. There are countless sources of information in printed form that show you how to do that -- gun manufacture for personal use is 100% unregulated by any existing federal law and, as of 2018, in states other than California (Updated - see https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/homemade-gun....). It is the sale and distribution of guns that is regulated at the Federal level, and in states other than California.
The issue here is whether the state department can take down websites that show instructions for gun manufacturing, whereas no one is arguing that printed books with the same information would be subject to similar bans. But something about the internet makes a lot of regulatory bodies think that freedom of publication and prohibitions on prior restraint just don't apply there, and this ruling is one small step to setting that straight.