Typically the recent activity has been ballot initiatives requiring a simple majority in the state to protect long-standing laws before the legislature or state courts can expand it.

There are quite a few such sizes just for nominally 9mm calibers (ranging from 9mm to 9.25mm). You'd effectively be banning printing things with cylindrical holes.

Trying to restrict what can be 3D printed like this is the equivalent of some of the less well-thought out DRM schemes, e.g. those which prevent you from copying your own creations.

Specifically, they can subpoena Google for such records and any records provided by Google wouldn't be protected. Technically, for emails there are some statutory protections which need to be met first under the Stored Communications Act, but no Constitutional protections on firm ground currently due to the Third Party Doctrine.

Because they don't have access to the contents as part of the ordinary course of maintaining it, thus it's still protected. In fact, many of the procedures around safety deposit boxes are, at least in part, designed such that they keep the bank from being a third party under the doctrine. They never see what you put in it, etc.

But Google has access to them. And the Third Party Doctrine, endorsed by the US Supreme Court, doesn't extend your 4th Amendment rights to information of yours held and accessible by others.

If you give me something which would incriminate you in the clear and I put it in a safe (say a letter in an unsealed envelope), all that's needed to require me (under the 4th) to turn that letter over to the government is a subpoena, not a search warrant. If it was in your safe, it would require a search warrant. Having an email in plain text sitting on someone else's hard drive is analogous.

I'm not saying I agree with this doctrine (I don't), but that's the current state of the law in the US: once your information leaves your possession you've pretty much lost 4th Amendment protections to it from anyone else who obtains it turning it over.

Ok. Just making sure. It's a common mistake.

It's not misconduct to follow procedures ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court, e.g. United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979).

To be clear, I think they should be protected, but as far as I can tell, that's not the current state.

Hell, Boston proved that the Fourth Amendment is no obstacle to searching people's houses without a warrant. Not only did the people there let them do it, but they were happy to let them do it.

Yes. And there's no violation of the 4th Amendment if you willingly wave that right and say, "Come right on in and look around!" The 4th is only about coerced searches.

Yes, those all apply to email in your possession. But, not necessarily to those stored with third parties. It's called the Third Party Doctrine.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_data_question_should_the_third-party_records_doctrine_be_revisited/

In essence, the doctrine holds that information lawfully held by many third parties is treated differently from information held by the suspect himself. It can be obtained by subpoenaing the third party, by securing the third party’s consent or by any other means of legal discovery; the suspect has no role in the matter, and no search warrant is required.

Safety deposit boxes are different since you have a lock on it.

If I simply give you an unsealed packet of papers, I am assuming the risk you'll had those over to the government if they ask you for them even if I ask you not to. There's no 4th amendment protection under those circumstances. This is analogous to using a web mail provider like gmail, hotmail, etc. where you're asking them to store plain text emails. You've arguably lost the 4th amendment protections in this case. Any protections are statutory, not constitutional.

One if you're comparing European MPG ratings (i.e. British) and not the liters/100 km more often seen, yes the MPG seems inflated. You need to remember these are usually in miles per Imperial gallon, which is larger than the US gallon and so the MPG number is higher by roughly 20% from this difference alone.

Or the negligent discharges from failing to clear a Glock properly before disassembly. The, IMO, major unsafe part of the Glock is pulling the trigger on a (presumably) empty chamber to disassemble it for cleaning.

Additionally, with some designs it is actually fairly common to remove safety features. For example, it's pretty common to remove the magazine disconnect (a safety which requires a magazine be inserted to fire) on the Browning Hi-Power to improve the trigger pull.

Many popular firearms don't have safeties, at least not manually operated safeties when the shooter needs to do something other than grip the firearm normally and pull the trigger. Glock, Springfield XD/HS2000, Sig Sauer, revolvers in general, etc. do not have such manual safeties. Some of the have a grip safety (XD) which must be depressed by gripping the pistol, or a multipart trigger safety (XD, Glock), but Sig Sauer and revolvers generally rely on a heavy trigger pull (at least for the first shot) as the safety.

In this case, it's presumably adding this on top of any other safety mechanism(s). The concern is it's adding additional points of failure and, probably critically, one that isn't purely mechanical. Defensive firearms have less tolerance to a safety failure than, say, a purely competition one.

Except for security updates, presumably.