80 Percent Lawsuits Part III


Since we last spoke, ATF California raided Polymer80 in Nevada with a new theory of constructive possession of a firearm. The warrant ATF eventually shared outlines a determination that two Polymer80 “Buy-Build-Shoot” kits are now firearms, but it does not outline its reasoning. ATF is relying on a string of legal authorities concerning the definition of “readily convertible,” though those facts and cases have never been applied to assemblies including receiver blanks.

The ATF raid is both a show of force and loyalty to the incoming Biden government by Acting Director Lombardo, who hopes to be confirmed Director in 2021, as well as a strategic choice to complicate the agency’s own legal position on unfinished receivers in federal court. As we’ve explained earlier in the year, ATF wants to be able to regulate 80% receivers, but lacks the power to do so. It has asked friendly gun control groups, AG’s and municipalities to sue it in federal court so that a judge will call their positions arbitrary and get them out of their regulatory knot.

As a reminder, these two cases are:

City of Syracuse, NY, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosiveset al., 1:20-cv-06885 (SDNY)
State of California, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, et al., 3:20-cv-06761 (N.D. Cal.)

Recent press coverage has shown how many progressive city attorneys and prosecutors are now writing in support of these cases, bleating about how the very bad no good 80% market has made it doubleplus ungood for policing their failed cities.

Luckily, since ATF went so hard in the paint, Polymer80 now has no choice but to forcefully intervene, and you can read their CEO’s declaration below:

So Happy New Year, Legion. In 2021 you’ll either 3D print or home CNC your ghost guns. Good thing you know the company who invented all that.

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

80 Percent Lawsuits Part II


When we last visited the two federal lawsuits (Everytown and Giffords) brought against the ATF and the 80% receiver classification, we mentioned expecting a third such case.

The third such case is a set of wrongful death actions brought by Brady. While the first two suits target ATF to mischaracterize how it regulates non-firearms in order to confuse a federal judge, the Brady suit targets sellers of the non-firearms themselves, bringing along the same federal mischaracterizations in order to confuse a state judge in California.

For what it’s worth, the lawsuits name a number of defendants who have never sold 80% receivers and adventurously misstate California law, but gun control litigation is rarely troubled by fact or law.

Brady’s (Brady United’s?) timing is also awkward since we’ll all just point to the restatement of the Constitutional limits and statutory completeness of firearm receiver regulations the DOJ filed in a recent motion to dismiss in State of California v. BATFE, No. 3:20-cv-06761-EMC.

I recommend reading the below motion to dismiss. It’s competent, and it includes arguments and data the ATF rarely discloses.

Better luck in 2021, guys. Maybe Biden’s AG will bail you out of your mess?

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

Amended Texas Complaint

In Defense Distributed v. Grewal, No. 1:18-cv-00637-RP (W.D. Tex.) and No. 19-50723 (5th Cir.), we have amended our complaint to bring back our old friends at the U.S. Department of State.

This move comes after waiting for the State Department to perform their legal obligations to Defense Distributed for the last two years. The record we’ve built shows State conspired with lawmakers and gun control groups, against the advice of DOJ, to ignore our legal settlement and to not defend it in any venue.

This is an important action to essentially re-present the key issues of our first State Department suit as early as possible in the Biden era. Remember that Biden campaigned on a policy of keeping all technical data related to firearms under State Department control and off of the Internet, against the interests and constitutional liberties of the American people.

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

The 80 Percent ATF Lawsuits


There are now two federal APA lawsuits challenging the way the ATF classifies unfinished receivers. The first was brought last month by Everytown in New York, and the second was brought yesterday by Giffords in San Francisco.

We should probably expect a third.

These suits attempt to do the same things, which are: 1) get a federal judge to declare all ATF 80% classification letters and manufacturing guidance illegal, and 2) start a new APA rulemaking process based on Everytown and Giffords’ preferred definition of a firearm (read: anything that can become a firearm is now a firearm).

The plaintiffs have no standing to sue the ATF, but as we have seen in the New York case, the agency itself is actually a willing and complicit party. Motivated agents within ATF supplied the record Everytown and Giffords needed to make their complaint, and the agency’s attorneys have declined to dismiss or challenge the plaintiffs’ standing.

You mean the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the judges are all on the same side?

Yes. These are mock actions dressing up a Bloomberg rewrite of your 2A literally coordinated by a buttmad ATF and DOJ.

DD v. Grewal (5th Cir. & 3rd Cir.)


You may have heard the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the district court in our Texas case against Gurbir Grewal and will allow our First Amendment suit against his wretched state laws to proceed. That opinion is below.

The Third Circuit held out for that decision in the Fifth and then issued a divided panel decision trying to get us to go away. I don’t think we’ll be making it that easy for them.

In the above opinion, note the ten page dissent. It is a good guide for the circus New Jersey is putting us through.

I’d also recommend you check out professor Blackman’s latest article on our legal efforts. This can be found here.

Regarding the Blue State Tax we announced last month, this is now official DD policy. Until New Jersey residents can keep their government to themselves, they will pay the tax.

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

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.

Since Jan. 1 2021, no warrants have been served to principals or employees. No searches or seizures have been performed on assets.