CTRL+PEW Sues California in Federal Court Over 3D-Printed Gun Files
A Florida company and its operator filed a federal lawsuit yesterday challenging what they describe as an unconstitutional attempt by California authorities to suppress their online publications about 3D-printed firearms and firearm components. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division), accuses the San Francisco City Attorney and California Attorney General of attempting to enforce state law extraterritorially against speech created and hosted entirely within Florida.
The plaintiffs are CTRLPEW LLC, a Florida limited liability company based in Orlando, and Alexander Holladay, an Orlando resident who operates the website ctrlpew.com. The defendants are David Chiu, San Francisco City Attorney, and Rob Bonta, California Attorney General, both of whom are sued by the plaintiffs in their official capacities.
The case centers on California Civil Code §§ 3273.61 and 3273.625 provisions that prohibit the knowing distribution of computer code or digital instructions intended for use in 3D-printing firearms, receivers, precursor parts, or certain prohibited accessories. Plaintiffs argue these sections are being weaponized to create a nationwide prior restraint on protected First Amendment expression.
According to the complaint filed February 11, 2026, CTRLPEW LLC maintains ctrlpew.com, which links written guides, photographs, and digital design files, including 3D models, hosted primarily on the third-party platform Odysee. All content is created, uploaded, and managed from Florida. The site does not specifically target California residents, does not run any California-directed advertising, and maintains no physical presence in the state. Holladay states he has not visited California since 2008 and has no intention of doing so in the future.
The dispute arose on February 6, 2026, when California officials filed a civil enforcement action in San Francisco Superior Court entitled The People of the State of California v. Gatalog Foundation Inc., et al. That suit names CTRLPEW LLC and Holladay as defendants, accusing them of unlawfully distributing and promoting “digital code” and “instructions” for 3D-printable firearms in violation of the cited Civil Code sections and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The California complaint seeks a permanent injunction, substantial civil penalties (potentially reaching $7,875,000), and other equitable relief.
California officials accompanied the filing with a public press release labeling the action a “landmark” effort to curb the spread of 3D-printed gun technology. Plaintiffs contend that this publicity, combined with the pendency of the enforcement action, even without formal service of process, creates a credible, immediate threat of prosecution that has already produced a severe chilling effect on their speech.
Holladay alleges he has:
- Refrained from publishing new works,
- Paused planned releases,
- Stopped registering copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office (fearing that deposit copies could be accessed by California residents and used against him),
- Become unable to enforce existing copyrights (because attaching example files as exhibits in litigation could make them publicly available via PACER to Californians).
- The federal complaint frames these self-censorship measures as direct injuries traceable to the defendants’ actions.
The plaintiffs advance four causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act:
- First Amendment prior restraint and content-based restriction: Arguing that the California statutes and their threatened enforcement function as an impermissible prior restraint on protected speech. Plaintiffs emphasize that technical information, computer code, and 3D design files are recognized as expressive conduct under precedents such as Bernstein v. U.S. Dept. of State.
- Fourteenth Amendment due process violation (extraterritoriality): Contending California lacks authority to regulate speech and conduct occurring wholly outside its borders, violating fair-notice principles, and inviting arbitrary enforcement.
- Dormant Commerce Clause violation: Asserting the statutes impermissibly project California policy onto the national Internet and regulating commerce beyond state lines.
- Second Amendment burden: Claiming enforcement suppresses information that facilitates the lawful manufacture of arms and arm components, thereby infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
The suit seeks declaratory judgments that the extraterritorial application of the California provisions violates the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions barring defendants from enforcing the statutes against the plaintiffs’ Florida-based publications. Plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys’ fees.
Jurisdiction is predicated on federal-question and civil-rights statutes, with venue proper in Orlando because the alleged chilling effects and self-censorship are occurring there. Plaintiffs invoke personal jurisdiction over the California officials under the “effects” test of Calder v. Jones and recent circuit precedent involving similar out-of-state enforcement attempts against online publishers of firearm-related information.
The filing notes that the action does not seek to enjoin the ongoing California state-court proceeding itself (avoiding Anti-Injunction Act concerns) but requests only prospective relief against future extraterritorial enforcement.
This lawsuit arrives amid ongoing national debate over “ghost gun” technology, 3D-printed firearms, and the ability of states to regulate Internet speech with national reach. Similar disputes have produced appellate rulings in other circuits addressing whether officials may lawfully target out-of-state publishers for content accessible to, but not specifically directed to, their residents.
No response by the defendants has been filed to the complaint, and the California state-court action remains pending. The Orlando federal court has not yet assigned the case to a specific judge or ruled on any initial motions.
Legal observers note that the outcome could have broad implications for state efforts to regulate online speech, digital publishing, and the intersection of gun-rights advocacy and First Amendment protections in the digital age.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
