Michigan: AG Nessel Joins Fight in Support of States' Right to Enforce Laws Against 3D-printed 'Ghost Gun' Files
Michimich.com/10106009

Contact: Ryan Jarvi 517-599-2746Agency: Attorney General

February 26, 2021

LANSING – Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined a coalition of attorneys general from around the nation in fighting a lawsuit that seeks to stop states from enforcing their laws against a company disseminating dangerous 3D-printed gun files on the internet.

In an amicus brief in Grewal v. Defense Distributed before the U.S. Supreme Court, the coalition seeks to protect states' efforts to stop Defense Distributed from unlawfully publishing easily-downloadable internet files that provide instructions to build dangerous 3D-printed firearms, including assault weapons.

"Despite law enforcement efforts, Defense Distributed continues to recklessly, and illegally, make 3D-printed firearms easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection," Nessel said. "These so-called 'ghost guns' are unregistered and untraceable, making them especially dangerous. States must have the ability to enforce our own laws and use the tools at our disposal to fight back against these illegal efforts in order to protect our communities."

For years, Defense Distributed has attempted to widely disseminate internet files that give individuals the ability to manufacture unregistered and untraceable 3D-printed firearms that can be extremely difficult to detect, even with a metal detector. A number of state and local officials sent the company cease and desist letters ordering the company to stop breaking state laws. Defense Distributed then sued the officials in federal court in Texas, but ultimately only pursued its case against New Jersey's attorney general. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Texas courts had personal jurisdiction over New Jersey's attorney general, he petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case.

More on Michimich.com

• GitKraken Launches Insights to Help Engineering Leaders Quantify AI Impact and Improve Developer Experience
• ZapperBox NextGen TV Gateway Receiver Now Testing Support For Secure Whole-Home Content Distribution
• Life as a Dog: P-Wave Press Brings Readers a Heartwarming Memoir of Love, Laughter and Companionship
• NOYA Launches Premium, Design-Forward Training Gear That Belongs at the Center of Your Space
• Research Defense Examines Violence, Illiteracy, Non-Active Fathers, and Low Self-Esteem Among Males

In the amicus brief, the coalition argues that cease and desist letters are critical and cost-effective tools for enforcing state law, and, in the internet age, state and local officials increasingly must direct such letters out of their jurisdictions. Because out-of-state entities, like Defense Distributed, operate online and across state lines, state officials cannot protect their residents from violations of their own state's laws by such entities without being able to send cease and desist letters out of state.

Additionally, the coalition argues that the Fifth Circuit failed to account for critical state-sovereignty and federalism considerations when it found that the Texas courts had personal jurisdiction over New Jersey — in violation of longstanding Supreme Court precedent set out in cases, such as World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson. Specifically, the federalism principles underpinning that precedent do not permit the recipient of a cease and desist letter from an out-of-state official to sue the official in the recipient's home state when the letter was sent from the official's home state, and the official is simply enforcing his or her own state's laws as applied to the recipient's activities in the official's home state.

The coalition makes clear that permitting suits in such circumstances — as the Fifth Circuit did here — forces a state official to risk burdensome and expensive lawsuits in a foreign forum as the cost of protecting state residents from an entity that is reaching into the official's state and violating that state's laws. Putting a state official to that choice undermines state sovereignty and harms the public interests of the official's state by chilling legitimate law enforcement efforts or else dramatically increasing the costs of those efforts, including by encouraging premature lawsuits against states in courts that lack expertise and a stake in the relevant state's law.

More on Michimich.com

• Investing in Greece: Your Definitive Real-Estate FAQ Guide
• KeysCaribbean Offers 20 Percent Off Seven-Night Stays For Private Home Collection Properties
• Advancing Circular Economy in Automotive ESD Packaging
• Institute for Pet Health Sciences Names Boops Pets 2025 Product of the Year
• Matthew Cossolotto, Author of The Joy of Public Speaking, Appears on "Get Authentic with Marques Ogden" and "Achieving Success with Olivia Atkin"

The coalition asks the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit's decision, and ultimately order the dismissal of Defense Distributed's case in Texas for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Joining Attorney General Nessel in filing this amicus brief are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia.

Click here to view a copy of the brief.

---

Show All News | Report Violation