SAF Seeks Rehearing in New Jersey 3D-Printing Firearms Case

A significant but relatively quiet legal dispute over 3D-printed firearm files may not be over yet. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has submitted a petition requesting a rehearing in the case Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the lawsuit. SAF argues that the decision should be reconsidered and is pushing to have the matter brought back before the court.

Background of the Case

Although the issue involves firearms, many of the legal arguments surrounding 3D-printed gun files in the United States have centered on First Amendment protections rather than the Second Amendment. Courts have historically treated the publication of computer code as a form of speech, which has played a major role in the distribution of digital files used to manufacture firearms and components with 3D printers.

Despite this precedent, several states have attempted to restrict the distribution or production of such files. Recent legal action in California targeting Gatalog and CTRLPEW reflects this broader pushback. New York officials have also taken steps aimed at stopping the creation of 3D-printed firearms within the state.

The conflict with New Jersey dates back to 2018, when the state’s Attorney General issued a cease-and-desist letter to Texas-based Defense Distributed, ordering the company to halt the release of digital files that could be used to manufacture firearms with 3D printers.

Defense Distributed challenged New Jersey’s actions and sought a ruling from the Third Circuit that would prevent the state from interfering with the publication of those files. However, the appellate court recently dismissed the case, prompting the current effort by SAF to revive the lawsuit.

SAF’s Response to the Dismissal

According to the Second Amendment Foundation, the Third Circuit panel dismissed the case based on procedural issues rather than addressing the underlying constitutional questions.

SAF stated the court ruled against the plaintiffs “on legal technicalities and perceived factual deficiencies in the record presented to the court”, rather than evaluating the broader constitutional claims. Because of this, the organization argues the case deserves another hearing.

“The Third Circuit’s panel opinion included a number of analytical errors that run contrary to well-established legal precedent,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack in the foundation’s press release. “We are hopeful that our petition for rehearing inspires some additional reflection and research and either the panel, or the entire bench, is willing to step in and set things straight.”

SAF maintains that the case has implications beyond firearm policy alone. The organization argues that the dispute involves both Second Amendment rights and First Amendment protections related to free speech, particularly regarding the publication of computer code.

“This case has languished in the system since 2018 and it’s entirely unacceptable how the Third Circuit panel found every reason it could to avoid facing the issues we’ve presented head on,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb in the foundation’s press release. “This case has been plagued by complicated legal gamesmanship and a tortured procedural history, all aimed at undercutting protections guaranteed by the Constitution that the court may find distasteful.”

What Happens Next?

It remains uncertain whether the court will agree to rehear the case. Federal appellate courts rarely grant such petitions, making the request an uphill battle for SAF.

Still, the outcome could have far-reaching implications. A ruling in favor of Defense Distributed could strengthen legal protections for publishing firearm-related 3D printing files, while a loss might signal how courts are likely to treat similar disputes in the coming years.

For now, SAF is continuing its effort to bring the case back before the court and push for a decision that directly addresses the constitutional questions at the heart of the dispute.