The law's main reason for existing isn't really about handguns, but that doesn't stop it for being applied to them. I don't think the U.S. government is really all that concerned about a single shot pistol, but someone got all in a tizzy about it and decided that it should be shut down before it becomes a problem (not that I agree with that thinking).
These export controls primarily exist to keep our advanced military technology out of enemy hands. I am not a lawyer, but I am reasonably certain that these laws would be upheld by the courts. Even though the first amendment promises free speech, the Supreme Court has said that there are some things you still aren't allowed to say, like "Fire!" in a movie theater. Things that could harm public safety, such as distributing weapons plans, are not protected under the first amendment.
> Even though the first amendment promises free speech, the Supreme Court has said that there are some things you still aren't allowed to say, like "Fire!" in a movie theater. Things that could harm public safety, such as distributing weapons plans, are not protected under the first amendment.
The "clear and present danger" thing has not been true for many decades now. The current standard is if the speaker intends to cause imminent lawless behaviour.
Of course the case where the "fire in a movie theater" thing first came up was about a war protester telling people that the draft was unconstitutional...
These export controls primarily exist to keep our advanced military technology out of enemy hands. I am not a lawyer, but I am reasonably certain that these laws would be upheld by the courts. Even though the first amendment promises free speech, the Supreme Court has said that there are some things you still aren't allowed to say, like "Fire!" in a movie theater. Things that could harm public safety, such as distributing weapons plans, are not protected under the first amendment.