SAF Wants Rehearing of Case Challenging New Jersey’s 3D Printer File Ban

For years, the courts have held that computer code was, for all legal purposes, a form of speech. As such, it couldn’t be restricted in any manner beyond those which we already accept for other forms of speech. Files of predatory actions with young children, for example, could be banned just as film version of such sick material was, but code that allowed people to secure their documents on their own computer couldn’t.

Well, files for 3D printers are speech, and since books on how to make your own guns cannot be restricted by law, then files for 3D printers can’t be either, right?

Unfortunately, the Third Circuit disagreed, because of course they did.

However, the Second Amendment Foundation didn’t take that and just go home with its tail between its legs. No, they’re continuing the fight by filing a request for a rehearing of the case.

From a press release:

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for rehearing in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey after a three-judge Third Circuit panel recently dismissed the case. 

Originally filed in 2018, the case challenges New Jersey statute which prohibits the publication of computer files containing digital firearms information on First and Second Amendment grounds. The dismissal was largely based not on the substantive constitutional claims, but on legal technicalities and perceived factual deficiencies in the record presented to the court.  

“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. “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.”

As noted in the petition, “This appeal challenges the New Jersey Attorney General’s long-running censorship of Second Amendment speech. It implicates fundamental speech rights protected in parallel by both the First and Second Amendments and exposes ‘the abusive manipulation of federal court procedures’ designed to evade merits review, bringing ‘issues that implicate not only the parties’ interests but those of the judicial system itself.’”

“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. “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.” 

Honestly, the Third Circuit absolutely blew it with the panel’s ruling, especially in light of Bruen and the lengthy case history regarding the First Amendment.

The files, in and of themselves, are harmless. It’s just data. I’ve got a pile of these files on various data storage devices simply because there are those who don’t want me to have them. Should I need them, I’ve got them, and far too many people are interested in creating a world where I’ll need them.

But they’re not doing anything right now because they’re just a series of ones and zeros. 

It would take those files, a 3D printer, and the intention of making a gun to do anything beyond that. In the case of states with bans on printed firearms, that means a criminal intention to make a gun. That’s where the problem lies, because I promise you, if someone has a criminal intention to make a gun, they’re not going to be stopped by someone saying they can’t have the file.

They’ll get that file, make guns, and do whatever they want with them.

But in the meantime, New Jersey has set the stage to restrict speech it doesn’t like, which will be used to justify even more of it down the road. Mark my words on that.

Of course, if that time comes, we’re probably going to need guns, too.

Funny, that.