In one of the most-significant yet most under-the-radar legal battles going on in the U.S. right now, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for a rehearing of the Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey case. A three-judge Third Circuit panel has recently dismissed this case, but the SAF says there are reasons to reopen it, and they’re doing their best to force this issue back into court.
2A battlegrounds @ TFB:
While this might sound like a Second Amendment case, the legal battles over 3D-printed firearms in the U.S. have generally hinged on First Amendment rights. Historically, the publication of computer code has been seen as an extension of freedom of speech, and that’s how 3D-printed firearms and firearm accessories and components have become widespread despite many state governments not being happy about the situation.
But a pushback has begun, with the recent California lawsuit against Gatalog and CTRLPEW as just one example. New York’s state government is also trying to prevent the production of 3D-printed firearms inside its borders, and as far back as 2018, New Jersey’s Attorney General sent a cease-and-desist letter to Texas-based Defense Distributed to stop them from releasing 3D-printer files that would allow construction of a firearm (see the New Jersey state government’s release about the original legal scrap here).
Defense Distributed pushed back and tried to get the Third Circuit to issue a ruling that ended New Jersey’s interference with their publication of 3D-printing files. But in recent weeks, the Third Circuit finally dismissed that case. Now, SAF says it’s battling to bring the case back into court.
The SAF says the Third Circuit dismissed the lawsuit from Defense Distributed on technicalities “on legal technicalities and perceived factual deficiencies in the record presented to the court” instead of actual constitutional claims, and that the case should be reopened as a result.
‘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 their 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.’
The SAF says the case affects both First Amendment and Second Amendment rights—it’s not just gun rights at stake, but free speech.
“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.”
Will they get anywhere with this battle? Federal court is an uphill battle, but the SAF is keen to scrap, if they can just get a chance to do so. A win in this case would be huge news for 3D-printing fans, just as a loss might indicate the prevailing legal winds for the next few years.