SELECT LANGUAGE BELOW

California Takes Legal Action Against Websites for Sharing 3D Printing Gun Plans

California Takes Legal Action Against Websites for Sharing 3D Printing Gun Plans

Late last week, California initiated a lawsuit against two companies running websites that purportedly provided firearm parts, accessories, and 3D printing instructions for firearms.

The California Attorney General released a statement to announce that the lawsuit is directed at Gatalog Foundation Inc. and CTRLPew LLC, asserting:

The actions of these defendants enable unlicensed individuals—who may be too young or considered too dangerous—to print lethal weapons illegally without undergoing background checks or leaving a trace. This lawsuit underscores the risks associated with the ghost gun industry and its model that bypasses necessary checks, adversely affecting California communities. Fortunately, there’s hope. We’ve made significant strides in tackling this issue in our state and will continue this vital work. California is setting an example for policymakers in other states and Congress to address the ghost gun crisis in a comprehensive manner. I will keep prioritizing measures to safeguard Californians from an industry that evades the law while making deadly weapons accessible to those who fail background checks.

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu added:

Ghost guns sidestep background checks and leave no evidence for law enforcement in violent crimes. Gatalog unlawfully disseminates computer code that simplifies and minimizes the cost for anyone—including teenagers—to 3D print a ghost gun or modify a firearm into a machine gun. This facilitates the access of guns to dangerous individuals, including those legally barred from possessing firearms. We are urging the courts to put a stop to Gatalog’s illegal sharing of ghost gun designs, putting our safety at risk.

Karmatters reported that three individuals are also named in the suit: Alexander Holladay, identified as Gatalog Foundation’s principal; John Erick, noted as a board member; and gun rights attorney Matthew LaRociere.

This case raises significant questions regarding if computer code and instructions can be classified as speech, and whether such speech enjoys protection under the First Amendment.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Telegram
WhatsApp

Related News