The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, a case challenging the state’s prohibition on publishing computer files which can be used for 3D printing firearms.
Originally filed in 2018, the case challenges New Jersey statute which prohibits the publication of computer files containing digital firearms information on the grounds it violates the First Amendment. Other courts have ruled that such computer code is indeed covered under the First Amendment, but the Third Circuit disagreed, creating a circuit split. In March, SAF filed a motion for rehearing with the Third Circuit, which was denied, creating the need to request the Supreme Court hear the case.
“The files at issue in this case are speech, and their publication is as protected as a book about gunsmithing,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As is typical in states like New Jersey, all basic principles of law and civil rights get thrown out the window when it’s related to guns. New Jersey hates the Second Amendment so much that it’s willing to infringe on other rights as collateral damage. Speech about making guns is no different from any other protected speech, and computer files that provide that instruction are no less protected than a textbook full of diagrams and measurements.”
As noted in the petition, “…the Third Circuit denied computer code’s First Amendment coverage by expressly rejecting a Sixth Circuit rule that would have supplied it. Both splits warrant review via the clean vehicle of this case.”
“This case has carried on way longer than it should have,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’ve been seeking a resolution in this lawsuit for almost a decade now, and it’s high time for a final decision, hence the request to the Supreme Court. The merits of the case are simple – computer files are most certainly covered under the First Amendment, and we think this is a great vehicle for the Court to affirm those protections.”
