Judge blocks publication of blueprints for 3D-printed guns

Published August 27, 2018 6:10pm ET



A federal judge on Monday extended a ban on the release of downloadable blueprints for 3D-printed guns, handing a victory to a coalition of states that challenged the online distribution of the instructions.

U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik granted a preliminary injunction Monday that blocks the publication of the designs for the 3D-printed firearms until the case is resolved.

The injunction is the latest phase of the yearslong legal dispute that dates back to 2015. Then, the Texas-based Defense Distributed sued the government after the State Department forced it to cease publication of blueprints.

The company argued its First and Second Amendment rights had been violated, but the government said publication of the designs violated firearm export laws.

In June, however, the Trump administration settled with Defense Distributed and, as part of the agreement, said it would allow for the plans to be posted online.

[Opinion: The fight over 3D-printed gun plans has nothing to do with the Second Amendment]

Defense Distributed intended to upload the downloadable blueprints and release them to the public Aug. 1, but Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order in late July halting the release of the plans.

In the run-up to the initially scheduled release, a group of more than a dozen states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for allowing online access to the designs. The attorneys general warned 3D-printed guns are hard to trace and detect and would be available to those with mental health issues or criminal histories.

In his ruling, Lasnik noted the First Amendment concerns raised by Defense Distributed but said the “irreparable burdens on the private defendants’ First Amendment rights are dwarfed by the irreparable harms the states are likely to suffer if the existing restrictions are withdrawn and that, overall, the public interest strongly supports maintaining the status quo through the pendency of this litigation.”