Judge Set to Rule on the Fate of 3D Printed Gun Files on Monday

Judge Set to Rule on the Fate of 3D Printed Gun Files on Monday
Judge Set to Rule on the Fate of 3D Printed Gun Files on Monday

Seattle, Washington-(Ammoland.com)-On Monday, a Seattle based federal judge will decide whether to permanently block Defense Distributed from being able to distribute their 3D printed firearms files.

On July 31st, The Washington State’s attorney general requested a temporary injunction against Defense Distributed from releasing the files. Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the injunction citing risk to public safety.

“If an injunction is not issued and the status quo alters at midnight tonight, the proliferation of these firearms will have many of the negative impacts on a state level that the federal government once feared on the international stage,” Lasnik said.

Eighteen state’s attorney generals have asked the court to make the decision a permanent injunction. The temporary order against Defense Distributed is set to expire on Monday night at midnight.

Since the State Department reached an agreement with Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed on the recommendation of the Department of Justice several government officials have worried that these files could let criminals print undetectable firearms at home.

In reality, the firearms are not undetectable since firing pins, and the ammunition is still metal. Also, the printer needed to turn out Wilson’s Liberator 3D printed gun is not the same type of home 3D printers that cost several hundred of dollars. The required printer runs tens of thousands of dollars. The Liberator is also only a single shot pistol.

In 2013 Wilson released the plans for the Liberator on the Internet for download. The Department of State stepped in and demanded that Wilson pull down the files claiming that releasing the data online was akin to driving guns to Mexico thus violating ITAR. This accusation was after the government facilitated the driving on actual firearms to Mexico in the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal. Wilson launched a lawsuit against the Department of State in response to the government’s order.

The Department of Justice filed a brief stating that the State’s attorney generals have misread the State Department’s decision. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has pointed out that undetectable firearms are already illegal and the State Department’s decision to allow the release of the files does not change that law.

AG Sessions was referencing the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. Congress passed that law due to misconceptions about the polymer-based Glock 17. In “Die Hard 2” Bruce Willis’s character John McClane references the undetectable “Glock 7” that the terrorist was using to take over Dulles Airport. Anti-gun advocates used the throwaway line to get further gun laws passed by Congress.

The brief also highlights the fact that the State Department doesn’t have the legal power to ban US citizens from accessing information even if the person who is obtaining the data plans to misuse it. The State Department is the diplomatic wing of the federal government and cannot pass domestic laws or make domestic regulations.

Even though Defense Distributed cannot distribute the files on the Internet, people can still easily find them in multiple locations. Links to Drop Boxes containing the data litter social media platforms, and they can be downloaded through peer to peer file sharing platforms such as Bit Torrent.

Wilson and Defense Distributed launched a fundraising campaign in hopes of raising $400,000 to help fight the multiple lawsuits trying to shut down the distribution of the plans.

This issue doesn’t just deal with Second Amendment rights but also has far-reaching effects on First Amendment rights on the people.

About John CrumpJohn Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%’ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

download everything to a USB drive and mail it to wikileaks.

then claim you were hacked by the russians and not let the FBI see your server.. the MSM will believe it, because RUSSIANS.


cant stop the signal


Would it be any different if some books that some uptight SJW librarian declared “banned” were the subject of his case… let’s say, perhaps, Mark Twain’s Hucleberry Finn (racism, the “n” word, sexism, a few other “incorrect” worldvies/value set issues), maybe Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories (Mammy Bammmy Big Money? Can’t let de chillun hear about HER< now, can we?), let's add Joel Chandler Harris' amazing works Tales of Uncle Remus, full of racism, sexism, class hierarchy, various other examples of discrimination), and lets take one from a more modern era, how about Portnoy's Complaint? Loaded with distorted sexual activity,… Read more »


Wouldn’t it be great fun if this judge, or sorry excuse there for, makes a ruling to make the injunction permanent in a desparete attempt to make a name for hus sorry self, then Sessions and the Senate examine his unconstitutional conduct and serve felony perjury charges on him for failing to uphold that Constitutioin he swore to uphold…….. then disbar, debench the lout. He’d have a name for himself, alright, but not the kind he was hoping for. Further, since EIGHT states are plantiffs in the matter, he has NO AUTHORITY to handle this case. See the Constitutin Art… Read more »

The Revelator


Felony Perjury would most likely not do anything to remove him as that would be a criminal case. To prove that you not only need to prove Actus Reus, but more importantly Mens Rea. Mens Rea is much more difficult to prove.

What the constitution does provide for, and what I think your intent may have been, is that federal judges may be impeached. The authority for this is found in both Article one Section three, and Article three Section one

If we are going to cite the Constitution, stick to the constitution.


The plans have already been downloaded MANY times and continue to spread across the Internet. Wouldn’t an injunction against Defense Distributed necessarily single them out as the ONLY entity in the world not allowed to disseminate commonly available information?

Wild Bill

@HankB, This liberal judge wants to diminish Constitutional Civil Rights, just a little more. Every time that happens, government is unchained a little more. Even though the case is moot, this judge will use it as a vehicle to empower government. He knows that a chance like this, for him, may not come along again.


Can’t stop the signal.
And there’s always another way:
comment image

Missouri Born

Another judge legislating from the bench instead of following the laws that congress has passed, he needs to be removed from the court.

The Revelator

@ Missouri Born

Remember to temper that with whether or not those laws adhere to the constitution. Congress has sole authority to pass laws yes, but they do not have the ability or authority to pass unconstitutional laws. When they do, no one should follow the law. Acquiescence grants authority where there is none. The only way congress would then have to circumvent this is through the constitution and the amendment process, as it should be.

Wild Bill

Wow, or maybe more properly woe, the First Amendment abridged by judicial fiat. What is happening in America? The judiciary view the burning of the American flag as a wonderful exercise of free speech, even though it is not speech. But actual publication of useful information is forbidden.
Have the elites become so used to chipping away at our Civil Rights that they look at us as mere thralls? Have we become so used to having all levels of government order us what to do that we are thralls?


It’s not illegal to make your own gun.


Correct! And it never has been illegal… but that fact has never stopped government bureaucracies from taking any action they desire (until occasionally reigned-in by courts, or – more rarely – by Congress). Has it?

The Revelator

Heard about this two days ago, but have not been able to get on until this morning. In that Time Ammoland was able to get an article put up on the website. For those who were in heated debate over this issue before, now that the judge has acted, tried to hear the case, and will attempt to rule on the subject you may now quote Article Three Section Two of the Constitution to your hearts content. The difference between a temporary injunction and a permanent one is probably still going to come up for debate, though the Judge has… Read more »