DD v. Washington (9th Cir.) Dismissed

A one paragraph order from our panel in the Ninth Circuit.

Upon a review of the record, the briefing on the motion to dismiss, and the responses to the court’s June 19, 2020 order, we conclude that these appeals are moot because no present controversy exists as to which any effective relief may be granted to appellants.

This two-year railroading began with liberal attorneys general finding a liberal judge to illegally give them the standing to strip away our legal victory in Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t. of State. When we appealed this obvious misuse of the forum, we learned that we were the ones that didn’t have the standing to bring a case. Funny how that works.

Of course we will now appeal to the entire Ninth Circuit, but further comment is now warranted.

The Liberator files were published seven years ago. They are still online at DEFCAD and anywhere else you care to look. We created Ghost Gunner to finance the supposed access every American has to the federal courts. Yet in these seven years the merits of our cases have never been heard. District judges invariably kick the can through procedural conceits and appellate panels delay and defer, refusing to review plain legal error made in open view. The SCOTUS is no friend. It allows Heller to rot.

This panel’s decision is past contemptible. It is an aggressive dereliction. I’m saying there is more rule of law in China. So on to the next phase of our operations.

Blue State Tax

I’m tired of paying the expenses Blue Staters have made us incur. In truth, no one in New Jersey deserves a Second Amendment. Neither does anyone in Washington. You’re not using it, and yet you make those of us working in Texas pay the highest of prices to advance it.

So if you want the benefits of our efforts, you’ll now pay the tax.

DD v. Washington (9th Cir.) Standing


The Ninth Circuit has asked DD and SAF to explain just why, after getting fucked by judge Lasnik and half the states in the Union, we would have standing to appeal said fucking. On July 10 we filed the first brief on this question.

I personally enjoy the part where you’re seven years into complex, multi-state litigation and the error accumulates so completely that a new panel of judges asks how it’s even possible that you’re a party to your own federal fist-fucking.

In other news, you’ve likely seen the recent legislative formulations to completely outlaw homemade firearms and the possession of equipment like the Ghost Gunner in the Biden era.

We’ve got this one in the Senate by Menendez and company. Would redefine a firearm to anything that has the platonic potential to become a firearm. Would ban creation of firearms by anyone without FFL.

There are two House bills. One would ban all polymer major components in firearms in the service of fighting “undetectability” (a tactic from 2013), and define a new standard of “traceability” in order to outlaw the private, home production of all firearms. The other bans the Ghost Gunner, the common drill press, and whatever would take their place in the new regime.

The Anglo-American traditions of the republican riflemen, cabined by woke capital. Progress is a 10-day waiting period for your once-a-year permitted purchase of a .22 smart pistol* from the one non-essential gun store in your county.

*smart pistol here means an IoT ERPO-delivery and surveillance device which can be disabled based on social credit score and household voice recordings.

If you would like to support this litigation, please join LEGIO.

DD v. Washington (9th Cir.)


Yesterday DD filed our appellant’s brief in the Ninth Circuit. This is the appeal from the decision in State of Washington v. Dep’t of State et al., No. C18-1115-RSL (W.D. Wash).

You may access the brief below.

The argument will look familiar. The States simply didn’t have standing to bring the challenge. They could not describe a legally cognizable harm. This harm could not be traced to the outcome of DD v. U.S. Dept. of State, and, finally, there is no relief the court could give to possibly redress the harm.

If you would like to support this litigation, please join LEGIO.

State of Washington v. DD and US Dept. of State


On May 8, DD filed a response to the blue state attempt to dismiss their 2018 action against us and the State Department in Seattle.

A funny thing about this phase of the appeal: Should the states succeed in dismissing the case as moot, our original publication license from the State Department reactivates. As does the modification to the ITAR that allows anyone to share 3D gun data online, unrestricted.

Why would the blue states risk this outcome?

1. They’re hoping no one notices them backing out of the fight

2. They’re more afraid of appellate review in this case than in stopping the dissemination of 3D guns files.

Why would DD fight this motion to dismiss?

1. There is a high likelihood the states will simply sue again when it’s politically convenient. We should definitively remove the jurisdiction question and prevent the states’ game from escaping judicial review.

If you would like to support this litigation, please join LEGIO.

Fifth Circuit Update


Yesterday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Defense Distributed v. Grewal, No. 19-50723. You may listen to the recording here.

This morning the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit in the most recent ITAR case AG Ferguson and company brought in Washington (State of Washington, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t. of State (W.D. WA), No. 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ). You can review this document below.

Not looking great now for the blue state paradisiacs. Unable to meet their basic obligations as states amid the viral panic, their dream of policing the Internet nationwide is increasingly shown for what it is.

I talk about this a bit in a recent interview with Thaddeus Russell.

If you would like to support this litigation, please join LEGIO.

DD Appellate Actions


Our many legal actions proceed apace:

In Defense Distributed v. Grewal, No. 1:18-cv-00637-RP (W.D. Tex.) and No. 19-50723 (5th Cir.), the Fifth Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for May 4th. AG Grewal attempted to delay the date with a vague appeal to legal emergencies related to Covid (I have written about this tactic elsewhere), but his request was denied.

The AG of Pennsylvania has presented a bold public stand against DEFCAD’s recent file publication. But in his case against us, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Defense Distributed, No. 2:18-cv-03208-PD (E.D. PA), he has asked for an indefinite delay of proceedings.

What could this mean?



Thank you for making DEFCAD’s March relaunch such a success. We’ve signed up thousands of new members and transferred even more files.

It’s a good time to launch a digital product in this country.

You may have seen rumblings online from the nation’s many attorneys general that the operation of our site is somehow illegal. Rest assured that this is rank propaganda meant to produce animal obedience and dissuade the ignorant from pursuing the files.

Publishing the files this way was always an option. We fought it for five years simply on principle. Our patient resistance to this form of distribution was mistaken by Ferguson and his blue state coalition. They developed an entire set of policies upon the belief they had discovered a new form of gun control.

But every US person has the unquestioned right to receive and transmit the files at DEFCAD, including over the Internet. These same attorneys, our nation’s best I am told, have confessed as much in court.

Contract Y and DEFCAD


I bring you good tidings. As you head into your weekend lockdowns, I’d like to mark a special occasion.

DD resumed shipments of the Ghost Gunner 3 this week. Global supply lines would appear to be stabilizing since February, and DD doesn’t expect further manufacturing interruptions or delays.

And a special note on Contract Y from the Defense (Contributed) days of 2018. I can reveal that contract was for the technology necessary to run an ITAR-compliant file-sharing service. I can reveal this because the contract is now fulfilled, and DEFCAD, the world’s largest firearms repository, has announced its reopening.

March 27 is Goliad day in Texas.

Because we borrow so much from the spirit of those 400 martyred, we thought we’d mark the occasion.


Washington Round 2 Update


Though it hasn’t been covered much in the media, Judge Jones in Seattle issued an injunction on Friday evening, March 6th, forbidding the State Department from releasing its controls on technical data related to small arms. This order preserves the status quo we have come to know since 2013, which permits no legal way of publishing or promoting the open source development of small arms on the Internet.

The order is another in a string of obvious violations of the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms. Like judge Lasnik, this judge performed no First Amendment analysis.

Until further notice, or a successful appeal at the Ninth Circuit, Washington AG Bob Ferguson writes the nation’s export control laws.

On our other legal fronts, we concluded our briefing in our Third Circuit appeal v. Grewal at the very end of February. You can find that brief here.

And in our Fifth Circuit appeal v. Grewal, the Court has scheduled oral arguments. These are scheduled for the week of April 27th in New Orleans.

If you would like to support this litigation, please join LEGIO.

DDII and Third Circuit Update


Last week we concluded Defense Distributed II‘s briefing in the Fifth Circuit. As a reminder, this 1983 action is the original response to out of state actors like AG Grewal attempting to stop our activities in Texas from the comfort of their own jurisdictions. Texas law would not seem to consider the threats of out of state AG’s as sufficient “minimum contacts” to sue them from our home state.

So we intend to change that. The final appellate brief in DDII is below:

In DD v. Grewal, back up in the Third Circuit, AG Grewal has filed his merits reply. It repeats what he’s been briefing for the last year ad nauseam, but he at last goes out of his way to stress CAD data is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

This is something we’d like the Third Circuit to address, so Grewal is finally playing into our hands.

If you’d like to support this litigation, please join DD LEGIO.