Doubling Down on Unconstitutionality: Judge Extends Defense Distributed 3D File Gag Order


U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik in Seattle issued the extension of a nationwide injunction, blocking a Texas-based group from disseminating files for printing plastic weapons on the internet.

Lasnik’s prior order, issued on July 31, blocked the release of the blueprints hours before they were set to hit the internet. That ban was due to expire on Tuesday and the new one will remain in place until the case is resolved.

Monday’s decision blocks a settlement between the Trump administration and Defense Distributed, a group that argues access to the online blueprints is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution’s First and Second Amendments, which protect free speech and the right to bear arms, respectively.

Here’s today’s ruling:

Abridged, but not abrogated. What does that even mean, constitutionally speaking?

The good news is, Judge Lasnik’s order is nothing more than self-gratifying judicial onanism in terms of preventing distribution of files for printing 3D firearms. You can get them right here.

But the fact remains that the judge is violating Cody Wilson’s and Defense Distributed’s First Amendment rights. That represents actual damage that must be fought and overturned. DD vows they aren’t giving up that fight and they’ve appealed for help in covering those considerable costs.



  1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    So sorry,too late to prevent people from enjoying their freedom and liberty,the files are out.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      Yeah, but what about Defense Distributed’s freedom and liberty? And time? And money?

      1. avatar SA says:

        Create a new legal entity and keep going. Rinse and repeat after every ruling.

    2. avatar arc says:

      Release them by proxy.

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The judicial branch of government has arrogated to itself supreme legislative power. Laws are proposals, or mere suggestions, to be modified as judges see fit. The judiciary is no longer about the law, but social imperatives. Properly legislated laws are not law until the judiciary reviews each, declaring those which match the social consciousness of the judges. The U.S. Senate cannot approve strict conservative judges fast enough to reverse the misshaping of the constitution. We can rail and wail at the moon forever about natural, human and civil rights, but we will be punished by the laws dictated by the judiciary. That is real life; academic and theoretical arguments are of no importance.

    We have only those rights we can personally enforce. The power of the state (as heralded by the judiciary) overcomes the power of the individual, every time. In these days, we see that the power of the state also overcomes the power of groups of individuals. “It is what it is”, and no amount of talking to our navels will change it.

    We the people have allowed government to make serfs of us all. May Donald Trump is trying to reverse our condition, but his influence and powers are being constrained at every turn. Except for executive orders (which POTG abhor, right?), and a legislated tax cut, the restoration of the people as sovereign continues to be hostage to the swamp we have allowed to prosper – career politicians, career bureaucrats. Our message is not selling outside our living rooms. Can’t think of a nation rescued from decline via the ballot box. It will take everything we have just to maintain status quo.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      If this stands at trial, this judge may well have just fired the first shot of the 2nd American Revolution.

      1. avatar somethingclever says:


    2. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

      Pretty much right on the money right there.

  3. avatar Dog of War says:

    Well in the short term this really sucks, but by not immediately kicking this decision out it leaves this open for moving it up to SCOTUS. Which may or may not open up an opportunity for not only challenging this ruling, but challenge all state level gun regulations, given that the AGs behind this farce have tried to make this a 10th amendment argument to keep distributing these files restricted.

    Now that said, I’m a bit confused. This lawsuit had to do with 3D printed gun files. Are CNC files for machined gun components also regulated? Like, to this day, people are able to download full CNC and traditional blue prints for all metal gun parts. Are those regulated here as well? I can never seem to get a full answer to that question. And given that no one ever was able to ban all Paladin Press books. As far as I know the ‘freedom of the (printing) press’ argument has been successfully argued about those books.

    1. avatar Jordan Bowles says:

      Anything constituting technical data falls under ITAR, CAD models, Drawings, Notes, G-Code for machines.

      1. avatar Dog of War says:

        Well that also brings me to another question. Did the feds ever lay out the guidelines of what data was going to be allowed to be shared? When Cody won his case originally it was announced that the feds were going to get around to release new guidelines but never got around to doing so. All I ever saw was a vague references to saying that any designs published had to be compliant with existing gun laws. Like nothing full auto and nothing with a more more than .50.

        1. avatar arc says:

          If ITAR is preventing Americans from creating and publishing printed works of technical data, then ITAR is unconstitutional and should be abolished.

        2. avatar GunnyGene says:

          See this: . There is no published due date for this revision which transfers export authority for ITAR Cat 1 weapons from State to Commerce.

          Also the current version of ITAR here: , has not yet been revised.

  4. avatar Warlocc says:

    How is this still going on when all the files are out and hosted already? Any lawyers in the crowd?

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      I have my copies – do you have yours yet?

  5. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    It says they can’t be “uploaded to the internet” but can be emailed, mailed, or securely transmitted, seems he can’t have a download link but could have an “enter your email in the blank and click submit to receive files” form, or an enter address to receive DVD with files, or maybe a secure login to securely transmit, whatever that means.

    This is all a lot of fuss about nothing, because as many point out, the files are out. Not only that, the files are kinda pointless for a lot of us because, even though we might possess our little zip file of freedom, we lack a 3D printer to actually print out our deadly eWeapons.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      As far as 3d printing goes, you’re right. But this isn’t about a stack of CAD files. It’s about Freedom. What’s next on the anti-Freedom agenda? When do you say enough? When do you get off the couch and break open the bullet box?

      In the dimness of the shadows
      Where we hairy heathens warred,
      I can taste in thought the lifeblood;
      We used teeth before the sword.

  6. avatar rosignol says:

    The judicial types around here (WA) have not exactly been covering themselves in glory of late.

  7. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    Everytime the gov pulls an anti-2A move, sales of something increases dramatically. Now a 1A threat against 2A gunners. Hmmmm…maybe I’ll start reselling 3D printers & accessories.

    1. avatar KenW says:

      You’re about 5 years to late, the Chinese stores like Gearbest have moved in and are selling 3D printers at prices we could not even begin to compete with. Problem is I would consider them rough starts, you need to spend some time fixing the crap caused by cutting corners and cheaping out. But Joe consumer will look at one on Amazon or Gearbest and the one you are selling with the warts removed which will cost more and buy the cheaper one.

  8. avatar John Bergmann says:

    We should email the judge the files every day.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      What a fantastic idea!

    2. avatar Ing says:

      I like that. Let’s do it.

      On a related note, it really burns my biscuit that my state of WA seems to be the go-to location when the progressive totalitarians go judge-shopping.

  9. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    As a teenager in the 1970s I remember when pornography was what all the three L’s Libertarians Liberals and the Left, said that was what Free Speech is about.

    Cross burning was another form of speech that really caused excited support from the three L’s.

    But religious speech has never been a priority for the three L’s. (Christian bakers)There is no difference between the speech of Christians and the 3D files of Defense Distributed.

    I’m sure this judge supports cross burning and porno.

  10. avatar SurfGW says:

    Defense Distributed is today what the Anarchist Cookbook was in the 70’s: people are very uncomfortable with the information being out there and some unsavory characters using it.

  11. avatar Courtwatcher says:

    Cody Wilson is playing the long game. This will go to Supreme Court, and because this is primarily a 1st Amendment case he will win, and win big. With an obvious huge win for the 2nd Amendment too. This is a fight the Left should not have picked.

  12. avatar DaveL says:

    This is a crazy ruling. First of all, the factual basis for the AGs’ argument is blatantly false. The plans have been out there for years, and so far no crime using 3D printed guns. None. Nor does the court’s injunction actually stopthe dissemination of the plans, as they’ve been out of DD’s control for years.

    Based on that counterfactual, the judge proceeds to entertain a wholly novel theory of state power to dictate how the Federal government enforces import/export laws, an area that falls squarely and explicitly within Federal jurisdiction. I guarantee you the Left would not like what that precedent could be used for in the hands of more conservative judges.

    Then, to take it even further, he simultaneously imposes a prior restraint on speech, based on an exception to the First Amendment that simply doesn’t exist. Prior courts have weighed the idea of restrictions based on generalized risk or “bad tendency” and rejected them.

  13. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Cody wilson and the Bump Stock debacle have really exposed who supports Liberty and who does not.

    Those who didn’t support bump stocks are frauds when they say they support 2A. Now they claim to support 3D gun making. Reason magazine has done a story that featured the 3D printing of the Bump Stock. So I will assume these same people now don’t support 3D printing. Since now you can get a “dangerous” and “ammunition wasting” Bump Stock.

    When the technology advances far enough and you can 3D print a “grease gun”, or an MG42, what will they say then????

  14. avatar Alan says:

    Which rock did this judicial idiot find his way out from under, and who provided the “road map”?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email