Federal Appeals Court Sides With New Jersey in Legal Fight Over 3D-Printed Gun Code
In a highly watched case involving “ghost guns” and whether computer code used to produce them is protected by the First Amendment, a federal appeals court sided with New Jersey. The ruling is significant in the national gun regulation and internet speech debate.
The Third Circuit reviewed a lower court’s dismissal of Defense Distributed’s claim. The company challenged New Jersey’s 2018 ban on 3D printer-based firearm manufacturing software.
These guns are called ghost guns because they lack serial numbers and are hard to track. For years, public safety officials nationwide have worried about untraceable firearms.
Defense Distributed was sued by New Jersey in 2018 for publishing gun-printing code online. The New Jersey Legislature criminalized 3D-printed guns that year. Governor Phil Murphy signed the bill in November 2018.
Defense Distributed sued New Jersey in federal court, citing Second and First Amendment violations. Computer code should be Constitutionally protected speech, the corporation said. The Second Amendment Foundation joined the company’s lawsuit.
A New Jersey federal district court rejected the claim because the firm failed to prove First Amendment violations. Defense Distributed challenged the ruling in the Third Circuit.
The three-judge Third Circuit panel carefully analyzed whether computer code constituted First Amendment speech on February 12. The court acknowledged that computer code may be constitutional. However, the court stressed that not all code is protected speech.
Court rules that code that expresses ideas must be distinguished from functional code. The party opposing a legislation must establish that the code’s use involves constitutionally protected communication or expression to get First Amendment protection.
The courts explained that action or code that communicates is not automatically protected. They recognized that bodily actions can communicate messages, but not all are protected speech. The court stated digital surroundings follow the same rule.
The appeals court found that Defense Distributed failed to prove in the lower court that its code was being utilized expressively under the First Amendment. Thus, the appeal court upheld lawsuit dismissal.
Defense Distributed director Cody Wilson slammed the ruling and said the company will appeal. Second Amendment Foundation representatives were disappointed, noting that the court’s approach created a new distinction between “expressive” and “instructive” speech.
New Jersey officials view the verdict as a triumph in their attempts to regulate ghost guns and prevent access to untraceable weaponry. The case illustrates how constitutional safeguards and contemporary technology create difficult legal issues.
Legal experts say the verdict could affect how courts nationwide handle digital file, encryption software, and other computer code challenges. As technology advances, courts may be pressured to define online speech and function.
The Third Circuit’s opinion upholds New Jersey’s 2018 statute and establishes its right to regulate 3D gun-printing code dissemination. However, subsequent appeals could take the matter to a higher court.
The ruling highlights a national debate over public safety, constitutional rights, and digital freedom in an era when technology can easily turn internet information into weapons.
Sources:
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
New Jersey Attorney General’s Office
Office of the Governor of New Jersey
Second Amendment Foundation
