In the latest development in a long-running battle over firearms freedom and digital expression, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for rehearing in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, urging the full Third Circuit to reconsider a controversial panel decision that effectively dismissed gun owners’ constitutional challenge to New Jersey’s crackdown on 3D-printed firearm files.
The case, originally filed in 2018, challenges the constitutionality of a New Jersey statute that bars the publication of computer code and digital firearms information used to program 3D printers to make guns or gun parts without a federal firearms license. In its petition, SAF argued that the panel opinion contained “analytical errors that run contrary to well-established legal precedent” and severely truncated the opportunity for merits review on the First and Second Amendment claims.
“This appeal challenges the New Jersey Attorney General’s long-running censorship of Second Amendment speech,” SAF said in its filing, characterizing the Third Circuit’s handling of the case as procedural gamesmanship that denied a proper constitutional examination.
A Setback for Digital Firearm Rights
The petition comes in the wake of an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — a ruling that represented a serious setback for advocates of unrestricted firearms innovation and free speech online. In that February decision, the court affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to allege facts sufficient to allow courts to decide whether 3D-printed gun files qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment, or whether the restriction directly burdens the right to keep and bear arms.
AmmoLand previously reported how the court rejected the notion that computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) files are inherently expressive speech, declining to apply heightened constitutional scrutiny based on the plaintiffs’ pleadings. The panel also concluded there was no concrete Second Amendment injury because the complaint did not allege that any plaintiff was prevented from personally manufacturing a firearm.
That decision marked a troubling new test for digital firearm rights: judges now may treat code used to make guns as purely functional conduct that falls outside core First Amendment protections unless litigants specifically and articulately plead expressive elements.
Why the Rehearing Matters
SAF’s petition for rehearing is more than procedural formality — it’s a direct challenge to a framework many gun owners and digital rights supporters view as hostile to both free speech and the independent manufacture of arms. The petition argues that the panel’s decision dodged the substantive constitutional issues at its core and instead relied on technicalities and factual deficiencies that could have been cured with a more thorough judicial review.
Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, underscored that the case “has languished in the system since 2018” and criticized the Third Circuit for sidestepping the heart of the constitutional questions presented. If the court is unwilling to correct its analytical errors, SAF’s filing suggests, further appeals may be inevitable.
Looking Ahead
For Second Amendment advocates, the stakes in Defense Distributed’s fight are clear: the ability to share and access digital firearm information has become a flashpoint in broader debates over modern gun rights and online free speech. New Jersey’s statute and similar laws in other states effectively criminalize the distribution of digital files based on where someone lives, raising sharp questions about the limits of state power in an era when 3D printers and digital blueprints are widely available.
If the Third Circuit agrees to rehear the case en banc, it could reset the legal landscape for how courts treat digital firearm information. If not, SAF’s next move may be a petition for Supreme Court review — a path that could redefine how the Constitution applies to code, printers, and the quintessential right to keep and bear arms.
Stay tuned; this case is far from over.
