Second Amendment Foundation Appeals to Supreme Court Over New Jersey’s 3D-Printed Gun Code Ban

On Monday, the Second Amendment Foundation formally asked the Supreme Court to consider a case challenging New Jersey’s prohibition on sharing 3D-printed firearm codes.

Back in November 2018, New Jersey enacted a law that made it illegal to distribute “digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code stored in electronic formats that can be used to program three-dimensional printers for creating firearms, firearm receivers, magazines, or components.” This initiative gained attention after then-New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal suggested potential legal action against Defense Distributed, a company that developed software enabling individuals to produce firearms at home with 3D printers. The foundation had supported the lawsuit in light of concerns over whether this software was protected by the First Amendment.

SAF took to Twitter to announce their petition in the case of Defense Distributed v. Davenport, stating, “SAF is knocking on the Supreme Court’s front door again, this time for 3D printer files related to guns.”

In their petition, SAF emphasized that New Jersey’s legislation actively discourages what they refer to as “distributed defense.” They pointed to remarks made by Governor Phil Murphy during the signing ceremony, where he linked the law to prior actions against Defense Distributed. The attorney general had mentioned Cody Wilson and his associates as ongoing threats, promising to employ more stringent measures to thwart their attempts.

William Sack, SAF’s Senior Director of Litigation, highlighted a key point: “You could publish a book about how to make guns, right? That wouldn’t even be a problem.” He contrasted this with the prohibition on computer files, arguing that the medium of publication shouldn’t alter the rights protected under the First Amendment.

SAF also raised concerns about conflicting rulings between the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the Fifth Circuit. After a three-judge panel from the Third Circuit upheld New Jersey’s injunction, SAF noted that the Fifth Circuit had overturned a related lower court decision, which led to confusion about jurisdiction.

Sack explained, “The Fifth Circuit and the Third Circuit kind of got into a spat.” He described how the case became mired in disputes over who was in the right and mentioned that their petition addressed both First Amendment concerns and this jurisdictional issue.

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport did not respond to a request for comment.