Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu have launched a new legal assault on free speech and the right to keep and bear arms, filing a complaint on February 6, 2026, in San Francisco Superior Court against the Gatalog Foundation Inc., CTRLPew LLC, and individuals Alexander Holladay (known online as “CTRL Pew”), Matthew Larosiere (known online as “Fuddbusters”), and John Elik (known online as “Ivan The Troll”). The suit targets the distribution of digital files, computer code, and instructions for 3D-printing firearms and certain firearm accessories, claiming violations of California Civil Code sections 3273.61 and 3273.625, as well as the state’s broad Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.).
To gun rights and free speech advocates, this lawsuit represents yet another overreach by California officials desperate to suppress technological innovation and individual liberty in the face of advancing 3D printing capabilities.
The core allegation is that Gatalog and related entities make available over 150 designs for “lethal firearms and prohibited firearm accessories” via websites such as thegatalog.com and ctrlpew.com, which link to file-sharing platforms such as Odysee. Prosecutors even boasted that investigators downloaded files from a San Francisco IP address and allegedly built a functioning Glock-style handgun.
But what the complaint really attacks is information; pure speech in the form of code, blueprints, and instructions.
Distributing digital files that describe how to manufacture items using widely available tools is constitutionally protected expression. Code is speech, as federal courts have long recognized in cases involving encryption software and other digital designs. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the principle that the First Amendment shields expressive conduct, including the publication of technical data. Attempts to criminalize or enjoin the dissemination of such information echo failed efforts to block online gun blueprints in the 2010s, when states sued to prevent Defense Distributed from posting files, efforts that ultimately crumbled under free speech scrutiny.
California’s laws at issue prohibit distributing “digital firearm manufacturing code” to unlicensed individuals and, as of January 1, 2026, knowingly aiding or facilitating the “unlawful manufacture of firearms” by unlicensed persons using 3D printers. These statutes are viewpoint-based restrictions that single out disfavored speech about firearms while ignoring similar code for other tools or devices. They also run afoul of the Second Amendment’s core protection of the right to possess arms for self-defense. The Supreme Court’s Bruen (2022) decision demands that gun regulations be consistent with historical tradition. Yet, there’s no 1791 or 1868 analog for banning the sharing of manufacturing instructions in an era before modern manufacturing existed.
The complaint paints a dire picture of “ghost guns” as an escalating crisis, citing recoveries rising from 26 in 2015 to over 11,000 annually (including auto-sears) from 2021 to 2025. It claims 3D-printed firearms are “easy to produce” and “fully assembled in less than a day.” Yet these statistics often lump together traceable and untraceable incidents, and many “ghost guns” are simply homemade firearms built legally by individuals exercising their rights. Federal data from the ATF shows ghost gun recoveries increasing nationally, but correlation isn’t causation; rising numbers may reflect better reporting or law enforcement focus rather than a direct link to online files.
More importantly, the real threat to public safety isn’t informed citizens accessing open-source designs; it’s criminals who disregard laws anyway.
Background checks and serialization requirements target law-abiding people, while bad actors build or acquire weapons illegally regardless of digital availability. 3D printing empowers individuals to exercise self-reliance in manufacturing, much like home gunsmithing has for centuries. Banning code doesn’t stop determined criminals; it only disarms responsible citizens who might use such knowledge for lawful purposes, such as prototyping or personal defense tools, in restrictive jurisdictions.
The defendants, successors to groups like Deterrence Dispensed, operate as a community-driven effort to democratize access to firearm knowledge. They sell related merchandise and solicit donations, activities protected as commercial speech tied to expressive content. The suit’s alter ego and conspiracy claims appear designed to pierce the veil of limited liability and chill association among like-minded individuals.
Matthew Larosiere, an attorney and legal commentator known online as “Fuddbusters,” told AmmoLand that California’s lawsuit hinges on a fundamentally flawed premise:
“California’s hook appears to be ‘The Gatalog Foundation LLC,’ and they tie all the named Defendants to it, and allege the Foundation is responsible, in some way, for all their woes. There is one problem with this. The Gatalog Foundation is an entity I founded with the intent to make a newsletter about gunsmithing. That never happened. The idea stalled, and the newsletter never left the planning stage. The Foundation previously had a bank account with $4 in it, which was closed due to inactivity. Another entity sued the Foundation in the past, but dropped all claims against the Foundation when they learned that the Foundation was nothing more than a stalled prospect of a hobby journal. Again, this would have been obvious to California if they had bothered to do any kind of reasonable pre-suit investigation.”
This case fits a pattern of California officials targeting 3D gun innovators. Past suits against Defense Distributed and others sought to block the distribution of files, often failing on jurisdictional or constitutional grounds. By framing code as “facilitation” of crime, the state attempts an end run around First Amendment protections, similar to how some jurisdictions have sought to hold platforms liable for user-generated content.
Pro-2A advocates see this as an existential fight: If governments can ban the sharing of manufacturing data, what’s next, prohibiting books on gunsmithing, CNC milling tutorials, or even chemistry texts for reloading? The right to keep and bear arms includes the practical ability to acquire and maintain them, which, in the digital age, encompasses information on how to lawfully produce them.
The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, civil penalties, and other relief to shut down these operations. Supporters of liberty hope the court recognizes this as censorship dressed as public safety. The fight over 3D-printed firearms isn’t just about plastic guns; it’s about whether Americans retain the freedom to innovate, share knowledge, and defend themselves without government gatekeepers deciding what information is too dangerous.
In an era when technology empowers individuals, California’s latest salvo threatens to drag the First and Second Amendments into the Stone Age. The Gatalog case could set a dangerous precedent, but if history is any guide, courts will ultimately hold that code is speech and that the right to arms cannot be nullified by banning bytes.
Robert Cekada Poised to become Next ATF Director After Confirmation Hearing
Defense Distributed Wins A Preliminary Injunction Against ATF’s “Ghost Gun” Rule
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.
