Judge Denies Fishing Expedition in State AG Anti 1st & 2nd Amendment case

Judge Denies Fishing Expedition in State AG Anti 1st & 2nd Amendment case
Judge Denies Fishing Expedition in State AG Anti 1st & 2nd Amendment case

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- Judge Robert S. Lasnik, who ruled for a lawsuit by State Prosecutors against both the First and Second Amendments, refused to allow the prosecutors to bully people and organizations not parties to the lawsuit.  The ruling, given Judge Lasnik’s history, was welcome. His decision came on Friday, 22 March, 2019.  From saf.org:

BELLEVUE, WA – A U.S. District Court judge in Seattle has denied a motion by the Washington State Attorney General’s office that sought to compel the Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed to provide discovery responses in a lawsuit the state filed against the U.S. State Department relating to the publication of information about 3D printing of gun designs.

The four-page order was signed by U.S. District Court Judge Robert S. Lasnik on Friday. In his order, he reminded state Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s office that when a preliminary injunction was issued last August, it was not against the private defendants in the case, only the federal government. Ferguson’s office is suing the government, SAF and Defense Distributed, the source of computer design data relating to the production of 3D printed guns.

In his ruling, Judge Lasnik noted, “the injunction issued in this case regulates the acts or omissions of the federal defendants: it imposes no duties or restrictions on the private defendants, but rather reinstates the pre-July 27, 2018, regulatory scheme related to access, discussion, use, and reproduction of the CAD files. Plaintiffs did not request relief from or against the private defendants, and the Court made clear at oral argument that the injunction itself did not require the private defendants to take or refrain from any activities…”

He further reminded Ferguson’s office that, “…the private defendants are no more subject to the preliminary injunction than is any other person contemplating the export of computer data files that would allow the creation of guns and their components with a 3D printer.”

Judge Lasnik was appointed by President Clinton on 11 May, 1998. He assumed senior status (semi-retired) on 27 January, 2016.  Lasnik applied a permanent injunction against Defense Distributed on August 27, 2018. The injunction prevents the settlement made between Defense Distributed and the Department of Justice to go forward. The Department of Justice reached the settlement because they believed the prosecution to be a direct case of violation of First Amendment rights, which they would lose in court.  From seattletimes.com, 31 July, 2018:

During the Tuesday hearing in Seattle, Eric Soskin, a lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department, said they reached the settlement to allow Defense Distributed to post the material online because the regulations were designed to restrict weapons that could be used in war, and the online guns were no different from the weapons that could be bought in a store.

Since the weapons “did not create a military advantage,” he told Lasnik, “how could the government justify regulating the data?”

But the judge countered, “There is a possibility of irreparable harm because of the way these guns can be made.”

How the do the people bringing the lawsuit have standing? Where have they been harmed?  The information that would be allowed is already on the Internet. The ability and knowledge on how to make simple firearms is widely available on paper. People have been making guns at home for hundreds of years. The entire lawsuit is a farce.

It has not been ruled a farce. Perhaps now, when the Department of Justice is no longer consumed by the infamous Mueller witch hunt, they can work to have this injunction against civil rights thrown out of court.

That is not likely, because Washington State is in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit is famous for having the highest reversal rate of any of the circuits.  Moreover, the Ninth Circuit is notoriously slow in reaching decisions, especially decisions involving Second Amendment cases.

The Ninth is overturned in about 80% of the cases that are accepted by the Supreme Court; but the Supreme Court only accepts a small sample of the overall cases. Thus, most bad Ninth Circuit decisions are allowed to continue to have effect throughout the Ninth Circuit.

This case should never have been allowed to be brought.  It is an excellent example of what you get when judge shopping is allowed.

Where does a single judge in Seattle obtain the power to neutralize the First Amendment for the nation based on a dubious theory of hypothetical harm?

The Supreme Court has allowed that power for far too long.

About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The receiver is the only part of the gun that is considered a gun by the federal government.


What does Washington and Oregon expect. All the mini Hitlers that couldn’t find a way to become king in commiefornia decided to migrate north and you got them and they are doing their thing while the rest of you didn’t go vote. The dude in the picture looks like he is in Hi. or just came back, maybe he doesn’t know where he is or where he’s been.


this “judge” Lasnik must be great pals witih Seattle’s Judge Robart…. but this case has a far deeper problem that these two bit lower court judges don’t want to examine: this one is apparently the State of Washington against a federal government department or agency. READ the Constitution, Art 3 Sed 2 Par 2… ALL cases where a STATE (in this case, Washington) is a named party the Supreme COurt, and ONLY the Supreme Court, has original jurisdiction, This judge Lasnik is taking up a case where he has no jurisdiction.. It is good to see Washington’s dirtbag AtG get… Read more »


What is the difference between making a firearm the ild fashioned way and by 3 D printer ?
Are they not both firearms at the end of the day ?

Jerry waters

Yes they are both are of the same. But at the end of the day once price bowl and one is not traceable. It’s called One has rifling, and the other has no rifling!


I can take a manufactured gun with serial number and by any of various means, remove the serial number rendering it not traceable. This is illegal, but it can be done. And sometimes is. Anyone can go to Harbour Fright and buy a thirty dollar bench grinder and make all the untraceable guns he can afford to buy. I can also write the CNC programing to make a finished lower receiver for a “deadly” AR type rifle, then buy all the other compnnents (or make those too) I will then be the proud owner of an unserialised untraceable Certified Black… Read more »


What does rifling have to do with the gun? I am sure they are not using plastic springs or plastic clips or plastic ammo. The 3-D printed guns still have some metal in them plus the ammo. Try learning before you spout off at the cock holster. I have the blueprints for all of them & you still need metal in them to work.

randy soles

3 D printed would not contain any metal, If i’m not mistaken to legally manufacture a firearm without a license it has to be detectable by a metal detector.

randy soles

A 3 d printed firearm would not contain any metal. If i’m correct to legally manufacture a firearm without a license, it has to be detectable by a metal detector.

Wild Bill

@ranty troles, Where do you see that in the Second Amendment that describes your pre political Right?


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

An infringement is a limitation or undermining of something.

There is no debate, no interpretation, no gray area, no ifs ands or buts. How is it that so many people who are sworn to uphold and defend the integrity of the constitution as part of their job don’t seem to understand that.

Gerrad Cichowicz

It is death to the non-United States, by a thousand little cuts. The Chinese or Russians dont need to fear us…we’re being destroyed from within. They just have to sit back and wait. — Black guns matter.


I can answer your question.
Many of these SO-CALLED governmental “representatives” have REJECTED their first statement when they accepted their PAID SERVANT’S position in OUR government.


Well I made a comment and it disappeared. I am not going to type it all out again. I think the entire government assault on the 1st & 2nd Amendments speaks to Tyranny. Such actions to stifle freedom of speech and our right to defend our life, family, and property reveals an Agenda of Tyranny.




But the judge countered, “There is a possibility of irreparable harm because of the way these guns can be made.”

^^Judge Lasnik is still wrong – he doesn’t understand “..shall not be infringed”. Look at me, I’m smarter than a feral judge!!


Definitely much smarter than this Federal Judge. I am not really interested in using a 3D printer to produce a handgun. I live in a state that made my slingshots and crossbow illegal. Comrade Cuomo UnConstitutionally demagogued the New York State (UN) SAFE Act through the legislature.


Cuomo, and many others, deserve a 3 am military tribunal. Being that he is in office, and took the pledge, and being educated, he should know better. During the tribunal, it would be interesting to find out who he works for, and how much they pay him. May have to use a water board to get that info. Don’t forget to bring one along.


thnx Your Honor


show us the examples of that irreparable harm, convince me.