California Sues 2A Activists For 'Unlawfully Distributing Computer Code'

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has filed suit against Gatalog Foundation, CTRLPew, and several individual 2A activists for “unlawfully distributing computer code for 3D printing firearms and prohibited firearm accessories and for promoting and facilitating the unlawful manufacture of 3D printed firearms and firearm accessories” under California laws that prohibit the distribution of computer code for printing gun parts to those without a license and “knowingly, willfully, or recklessly aid, abet, promote, or facilitate the ‘unlawful manufacture of firearms,’ which includes the manufacture of a firearm using a 3D printer by an unlicensed person.”

From the complaint:

Defendants ignore these prohibitions by making computer code and instructions for producing over 150 different designs of lethal firearms and prohibited firearm accessories available to anyone with access to the Internet, including in California. Defendants conduct their illegal activities through two websites that they own, control, or manage: thegatalog.com andctrlpew.com. Each website links to profiles that Defendants maintain on Odysee.com, an online video and filesharing platform through which Defendants make the code available. To subsidize their operations, Defendants also sell merchandise related to 3D printed firearms and solicit donations.

Bonta says his office was able to build a “fully functioning Glock-style handgun” after downloading the files “with a few simple keystrokes.”

The complaint names Alexander Holladay; the treasurer of the Gatalog Foundation and manager of CTRLPew LLC; Matthew Larosiere, an attorney who specializes in 2A cases and is also the president and registered agent of Gatalog Foudnation; John Elik,who serves as the the director of Gatalog Foundation Inc., and 100 John Does who Bonta says use fictitious names online and are “responsible in some manner for the violations of law alleged.”

Bonta’s complaint is replete with references to scary “ghost guns,” and claims Gatalog and CTRLPew offer digital code that can be used print restricted or prohibited items like DIY suppressors and even auto sears. We can argue about whether that’s wise or not, but the real question is whether it’s legal, and Bonta could have a hard time making his case.

In 1999 the Ninth Circuit ruled that encryption software, “in its source code form and as employed by those in the field of cryptography, must be viewed as expressive for First Amendment.” The decision in Bernstein v. U.S. DOJ dealt specifically with cryptographic code, but the Ninth Circuit has used similar arguments to strike down other laws regulating computer code, including the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. In 2024, the appellate court said the CAADCA’s requirement that “covered businesses opine on and mitigate the risk that children may be exposed to harmful or potentially harmful materials online facially violates the First Amendment.”

The same principle holds here, in my opinion. Yes, the code that’s available for download on Gatalog and CTRLPew’s websites could be used to produce 3D printed firearms and gun parts in violation of California law, but that doesn’t mean that those files will be used for that purpose or that the defendants are encouraging any California residents to do so.

The Anarchist’s Cookbook remains available for sale in California, and you can even download a digital copy without violating the law. That book contains instructions on how to do a wide variety of illegal things, including making explosives. It has been linked to several bombings dating back to the 1970s, and has been found in the possession of several mass shooters. Even so, the publisher of the book has every right to so under the First Amendment.

The phrase “First Amendment” appears nowhere in Bonta’s complaint. Neither does “Bernstein.” In fact, “speech” isn’t even mentioned in Bonta’s filing, which seems telling. If Bonta isn’t prepared to head off the most obvious defense in his complaint, that suggests to me that he doesn’t have a good response to the argument that the code distributed by the defendants is expressive speech protected by the First Amendment.

So you can not even operate in California, and because you posted something online California doesn’t like and bans, they sue you across the country to censor you.

Other states should forcefully respond to this nonsense and protect the Defendants – who are exercising multiple…

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) February 6, 2026

I agree that other states should respond to California’s complaint on the side of the defendants, but I’m also hoping that Bonta’s lawsuit will be quickly dismissed by the district court and that decision upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Who knows if that will happen, though. The Ninth Circuit hasn’t minded tying itself into legal and logical knots trying to uphold some of California’s anti-gun laws, so it could very well do the same with a free speech case that implicates the Second Amendment too.

Editor’s Note: Second Amendment advocates across the country are doing everything they can to protect our right to keep and bear arms.

Help us continue to report on their efforts, successes, and setbacks. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.

Read the full article here