California Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu have launched a new legal assault on free speech and the right to keep and bear arms, filing a complaint on February 6, 2026, in San Francisco Superior Court against the Gatalog Foundation Inc., CTRLPew LLC, and individuals Alexander Holladay (known online as “CTRL Pew”), Matthew Larosiere (known online as “Fuddbusters”), and John Elik (known online as “Ivan The Troll”). The suit targets the distribution of digital files, computer code, and instructions for 3D-printing firearms and certain firearm accessories, claiming violations of California Civil Code sections 3273.61 and 3273.625, as well as the state’s broad Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.).
To gun rights and free speech advocates, this lawsuit represents yet another overreach by California officials desperate to suppress technological innovation and individual liberty in the face of advancing 3D printing capabilities.
The core allegation is that Gatalog and related entities make available over 150 designs for “lethal firearms and prohibited firearm accessories” via websites such as thegatalog.com and ctrlpew.com, which link to file-sharing platforms such as Odysee. Prosecutors even boasted that investigators downloaded files from a San Francisco IP address and allegedly built a functioning Glock-style handgun.
But what the complaint really attacks is information; pure speech in the form of code, blueprints, and instructions.
Distributing digital files that describe how to manufacture items using widely available tools is constitutionally protected expression. Code is speech, as federal courts have long recognized in cases involving encryption software and other digital designs. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the principle that the First Amendment shields expressive conduct, including the publication of technical data. Attempts to criminalize or enjoin the dissemination of such information echo failed efforts to block online gun blueprints in the 2010s, when states sued to prevent Defense Distributed from posting files, efforts that ultimately crumbled under free speech scrutiny.
California’s laws at issue prohibit distributing “digital firearm manufacturing code” to unlicensed individuals and, as of January 1, 2026, knowingly aiding or facilitating the “unlawful manufacture of firearms” by unlicensed persons using 3D printers. These statutes are viewpoint-based restrictions that single out disfavored speech about firearms while ignoring similar code for other tools or devices. They also run afoul of the Second Amendment’s core protection of the right to possess arms for self-defense. The Supreme Court’s Bruen (2022) decision demands that gun regulations be consistent with historical tradition. Yet, there’s no 1791 or 1868 analog for banning the sharing of manufacturing instructions in an era before modern manufacturing existed.
The complaint paints a dire picture of “ghost guns” as an escalating crisis, citing recoveries rising from 26 in 2015 to over 11,000 annually (including auto-sears) from 2021 to 2025. It claims 3D-printed firearms are “easy to produce” and “fully assembled in less than a day.” Yet these statistics often lump together traceable and untraceable incidents, and many “ghost guns” are simply homemade firearms built legally by individuals exercising their rights. Federal data from the ATF shows ghost gun recoveries increasing nationally, but correlation isn’t causation; rising numbers may reflect better reporting or law enforcement focus rather than a direct link to online files.
More importantly, the real threat to public safety isn’t informed citizens accessing open-source designs; it’s criminals who disregard laws anyway.
Background checks and serialization requirements target law-abiding people, while bad actors build or acquire weapons illegally regardless of digital availability. 3D printing empowers individuals to exercise self-reliance in manufacturing, much like home gunsmithing has for centuries. Banning code doesn’t stop determined criminals; it only disarms responsible citizens who might use such knowledge for lawful purposes, such as prototyping or personal defense tools, in restrictive jurisdictions.
The defendants, successors to groups like Deterrence Dispensed, operate as a community-driven effort to democratize access to firearm knowledge. They sell related merchandise and solicit donations, activities protected as commercial speech tied to expressive content. The suit’s alter ego and conspiracy claims appear designed to pierce the veil of limited liability and chill association among like-minded individuals.
Matthew Larosiere, an attorney and legal commentator known online as “Fuddbusters,” told AmmoLand that California’s lawsuit hinges on a fundamentally flawed premise:
“California’s hook appears to be ‘The Gatalog Foundation LLC,’ and they tie all the named Defendants to it, and allege the Foundation is responsible, in some way, for all their woes. There is one problem with this. The Gatalog Foundation is an entity I founded with the intent to make a newsletter about gunsmithing. That never happened. The idea stalled, and the newsletter never left the planning stage. The Foundation previously had a bank account with $4 in it, which was closed due to inactivity. Another entity sued the Foundation in the past, but dropped all claims against the Foundation when they learned that the Foundation was nothing more than a stalled prospect of a hobby journal. Again, this would have been obvious to California if they had bothered to do any kind of reasonable pre-suit investigation.”
This case fits a pattern of California officials targeting 3D gun innovators. Past suits against Defense Distributed and others sought to block the distribution of files, often failing on jurisdictional or constitutional grounds. By framing code as “facilitation” of crime, the state attempts an end run around First Amendment protections, similar to how some jurisdictions have sought to hold platforms liable for user-generated content.
Pro-2A advocates see this as an existential fight: If governments can ban the sharing of manufacturing data, what’s next, prohibiting books on gunsmithing, CNC milling tutorials, or even chemistry texts for reloading? The right to keep and bear arms includes the practical ability to acquire and maintain them, which, in the digital age, encompasses information on how to lawfully produce them.
The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, civil penalties, and other relief to shut down these operations. Supporters of liberty hope the court recognizes this as censorship dressed as public safety. The fight over 3D-printed firearms isn’t just about plastic guns; it’s about whether Americans retain the freedom to innovate, share knowledge, and defend themselves without government gatekeepers deciding what information is too dangerous.
In an era when technology empowers individuals, California’s latest salvo threatens to drag the First and Second Amendments into the Stone Age. The Gatalog case could set a dangerous precedent, but if history is any guide, courts will ultimately hold that code is speech and that the right to arms cannot be nullified by banning bytes.
Robert Cekada Poised to become Next ATF Director After Confirmation Hearing
Defense Distributed Wins A Preliminary Injunction Against ATF’s “Ghost Gun” Rule
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, and I’ll continue saying it.
Anyone and everyone in the firearms and ammunition industry; manufacturing, production, repair, selling; needs to band together and tell these tyrants “NO! No sales, no repairs, no guns, no ammunition, NOTHING FOR YOU. Nothing for the politicians, their bodyguards, the po-po, the sheriffs, not even the citizens. Sorry about that, but until the states of Kalifornication, Sick Noise (Illinois), New Yawk, New Joisey, and every other gun control tyrannical state returns to the Constitution, why should the tyrants have the means to control the serfs?”
Imagine what would happen if a red state passed a law outlawing the distribution of digital adult imagery and content (porn), then sued the California-based creators and distributors. The Newsome and his minions would be screaming 1A violations and “You can’t do that!” Well, turnabout is fair play.
The more you tighten your grip, Newsom, the more 3D systems will slip through your fingers.
Simply reading what creative minds can do warms the cockles of my heart. Even though I was a Medical Officer (Orthopedic PA), I was/am lousy with computers… and even after requesting training, I was denied. That simply justified me taking longer, being more thorough with my patients. I always got yelled at for being too slow. I just said “You brought it on yourself… and kept on doing it. When a Sergeant Major or First Sergeant arrived unannounced, I always worked them in; fully aware that they don’t show up unless there’s something of substance. Besides, the clerks at the… Read more »
I fear California did do their research. They sued Gatalog on purpose knowing that it has nothing and expecting no resistance to the suit. By seizing all the assets of this defunct legal entity – they will be setting precedent.
Think Miller and short barrel shotguns.
WA is trying to pass a law making possession and/or transfer of files illegal. They have also introduced a bill to required 3d printing devices to have blocking technology. The states do not care if they pass unconstitutional laws, because they are not held responsible for violating their oath. They purposely pass these laws knowing and hoping that they will be challenged in court. This is not an essential check on the power of federal law, or constitutional test in this specific matter. Rather, these “laws” are pure defiance and violation of established law, precedence, and the constitution. We have… Read more »
The real criminals are California Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu and Gov Gavin Newskum!
Go ahead, make my day!!! You will never stop homemade firearms. You can try and block it on the printers and there is a programmer out there that can re-write or re-program the whole thing. Once one of them has been done and the file has spread, your infringement of stopping 3d guns is out the window. You don’t realize that all these infringements you are trying to impose is only making things worse for you, you think it is worse for the common person because you turn what was once a legit freedom into a felony but WE the… Read more »
One more step closer to the demarxist ultimate goal of disarming all free citizens. One expensive lawsuit at a time. They already got P80. Who is next?
Presumably, unless the courts dismiss the case outright, there will be a trial with witnesses. Those for CA should be asked: How many homicides have been committed in California and the sole clue to identifying and convicting the perpetrator was through tracing the serial number of the murder weapon? Do you think it plausible that every PMF in the hands of a criminal represents one fewer stolen gun or straw purchase? If fewer guns are stolen, doesn’t that represent a reduction in crime? (Questions 2 and 3 need to be worded in a way to be asking for an inference… Read more »