Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, and SECOND § Case No. 1:18-CV-637 § § COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, § § v. § § GURBIR S. GREWAL, individually, and in his official § capacity as Attorney General of New Jersey; MICHAEL § FEUER, individually, and in his official capacity as Los § Angeles City Attorney, § § Defendants. § § COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, complain of Defendants as follows: INTRODUCTION Pursuant to a license and other authorization from the State Department, Defense Distributed has published and will continue to publish Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and Computer-Numeric Control (CNC) files on its Internet servers in furtherance of its mission to promote firearms knowledge and possession. The Second Amendment Foundation’s members and supporters are among Defense Distributed’s audience. New Jersey’s Attorney General (Gurbir S. Grewal) and Los Angeles’s City Attorney (Michael Feuer), have waged an ideologically-fueled program of intimidation and harassment against Defense Distributed. Grewal and Feuer have 1! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 2 of 16 threatened and intend to drag Defense Distributed before all manner of far-flung criminal and civil tribunals in an effort to silence the organization. Alas these state and municipal officers from across the country cannot veto Defense Distributed’s constitutionally-protected and federally-licensed speech. The Defendants’ threatened legal actions violate the First Amendment speech rights of Defense Distributed and its audience, including SAF’s members; run afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause; infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of those who would make use of the knowledge disseminated by Defense Distributed; constitute a tortious interference with Defense Distributed’s business; and are in any event, federally pre-empted by Congress’s export control laws as well as Defense Distributed’s export license, by which the State Department has explicitly authorized the speech that the Defendants are seeking to silence. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees. The Parties 1.! Plaintiff Defense Distributed is a Texas corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas, whose headquarters are located in Austin, Texas, and whose principal place of business is located in Austin, Texas. Defense Distributed was organized and is operated for the purpose of defending the civil liberty of popular access to arms guaranteed by the United States Constitution through facilitating access to, and the collaborative production of, information and knowledge related to the production of arms; and to publish and distribute, at no cost to the public, such information and knowledge on the Internet in promotion of the public interest. 2.! Consistent with the President’s role as Commander and Chief, and the delegation of Congress’s powers under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses, Congress has 2! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 3 of 16 conferred the President with the exclusive authority to issue licenses and other forms of authorizations for the export of technical data on firearms controlled under the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”), 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq. The President has delegated this authority to the State Department. Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013. 3.! Pursuant to its exclusive authority under the AECA, the State Department issued a license expressly authorizing the Plaintiffs to publish certain firearms files for “unlimited distribution” pursuant to ITAR § 125.4(b)(13). See Exhibit A. 4.! Further pursuant to its exclusive authority under the AECA, the State Department issued an authorization under ITAR § 126.2 to allow every U.S. person to access, discuss, use, reproduce or otherwise benefit from technical data for the development, production, and/or use of firearms. See Exhibit B. 5.! Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., is a non-profit membership organization incorporated under the laws of Washington with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. SAF has over 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, including members in Texas, New Jersey, and Los Angeles. The purposes of SAF include promoting the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms; and education, research, publishing and legal action focusing on the constitutional right to privately own and possess firearms, and the consequences of gun control. SAF brings this action on behalf of its members. Cody Wilson, Defense Distributed’s principal, is a SAF member. SAF members seek to download the files shared by Defense Distributed, as well as use Defense Distributed’s facilities to share their own files with others 6.! Defendant Gurbir S. Grewal is the Attorney General of New Jersey. He is sued in his official and individual capacities. 3! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 4 of 16 7.! Defendant Michael Feuer is the City Attorney for Los Angeles, California. He is sued in his official and individual capacities. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8.! This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367, 2201, and 2202. 9.! Plaintiff Defense Distributed resides within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District 10.! Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as a substantial part of Court. the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, and a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action, are situated within the Western District of Texas. 11.! This action involves actions taken by Defendants in New Jersey and Los Angeles with respect to the Plaintiffs’ business, activities, and property in Austin. Therefore, venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), because there is no district in which this action may otherwise be brought, and both Defendants are subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction. Defendants’ Threats of Legal Actions Against Defense Distributed 12.! On July 26, 2018, Defendant Grewal sent a letter to Defense Distributed’s headquarters in Austin, Texas. 13.! The letter “directed [Plaintiff] to cease and desist from publishing printable-gun computer files for use by New Jersey residents.” See Exhibit C. 14.! Grewal asserted that publishing these files would violate New Jersey’s “public nuisance laws.” Id. 15.! Grewal’s letter closed with a clear and present threat: “Should you fail to comply 4! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 5 of 16 with this letter, my Office will initiate legal action barring you from publishing these files before August 1, 2018.” Id. 16.! In a press release, Grewal explicitly reiterated that threat: “Attorney General Grewal threatened Defense Distributed with ‘legal action’ if it fails to comply with his demand.” Grewal also expressed his belief that “[p]osting this material online is no different than driving to New Jersey and handing out hard-copy files on any street corner.” See Exhibit D. 17.! On July 27, 2018, Defendant Feuer caused to be filed in this Court, in the case of Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 1:15-CV-372-RP, a letter addressed to the Hon. Robert Pitman, who was then presiding over that case. See Exhibit E. 18.! The letter, at Dkt. 109-1, expressed Feuer’s belief that Defense Distributed’s publication of files “would pose a direct and immediate threat to public safety in the City of Los Angeles, and cause numerous violations of California and City laws designed to protect the public from gun violence.” Id. 19.! Feuer noted that “[as] the City’s chief lawyer and prosecutor, it is [his] job to enforce the gun laws of the City and California.” Id. 20.! Feuer added that “Defense Distributed’s blueprints” may violate California civil and criminal laws. Id. 21.! Feuer threatened Defense Distributed with legal action: “his office is authorized to file lawsuits to ‘enjoin’ the manufacture, importation, or possession of an undetectable firearm.” Id. 22.! Feuer expressed his intent to seek to intervene in that case, for the express purpose of silencing Defense Distributed. Id. 23.! To convey this message, at least two of Feuer’s attorneys appeared telephonically 5! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 6 of 16 during an emergency hearing before Judge Pitman. (At that juncture, the City of Los Angeles was not yet a party to the case, nor had it even filed a motion to intervene.) 24.! On July 28, 2019, Feuer released the following tweet from the @CityAttorneyLA Account: “City Atty Mike Feuer & @ManhattanDA Cyrus Vance, Jr. to @StateDept: NO #DIY #guns! #gunviolence #GunControl #gunsense ▶▶https://goo.gl/L377y3 @ProsecutorsAGV.” See Exhibit F. 25.! That tweet linked to a press release from the Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, which is chaired by the Los Angeles City Attorney and the Manhattan District Attorney. It stated that Defense Distributed’s “blueprints should not be published under any circumstances.” See Exhibit G. 26.! On information and belief, Plaintiffs anticipate further legal actions from the Manhattan District Attorney. Plaintiff Responds to Defendant Grewal 27.! On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff responded to Grewal. See Exhibit H. Plaintiff explained that the “Letter takes only vague and general positions regarding nuisance and negligence law.” Plaintiff also explained that “all actions contemplated by Defense Distributed are fully protected by the First Amendment, and [Grewal’s] attempts to prevent such actions constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint and otherwise violate the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution.” Plaintiff added that “the Letter constitutes an unlawful threat, in violation of Defense Distributed’s Constitutional rights,” and “demand[ed] that [the Defendant] withdraw the Letter.” 28.! Plaintiff conveyed to the Grewal that “at this time Defense Distribute will attempt to restrict files made available on the internet to prevent download within New Jersey.” Plaintiff 6! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 7 of 16 stated that “this [modification] should not be construed as an acknowledgment of the validity of your position, and Defense Distributed reserves all of its rights in this regard.” Great, Irreparable, and Continuing Harm 29.! But for Defendant Grewal’s letter, Defense Distributed would freely distribute the files in New Jersey. However, Defense Distributed has taken steps to prevent the distribution of files in New Jersey because Defense Distributed reasonably fears that Defendant Grewal would pursue civil enforcement proceedings against Plaintiff. See Exhibit H. Users with New Jerseybased IP Addresses are currently blocked from accessing the files. See Exhibit I. 1 30.! But for Defendant Feuer’s letter, Defense Distributed would freely distribute the files in Los Angeles. However, Defense Distributed has already taken steps to prevent the distribution of files in Los Angeles because Defense Distributed reasonably fears that Defendant Feuer would pursue civil and t enforcement proceedings against Plaintiff. Users with Los Angelesbased IP Addresses are currently blocked from accessing the files. See Exhibit I. 31.! Notwithstanding its efforts to placate the Defendants, a legitimate controversy exists between Defense Distributed, and Defendants Grewal and Feuer, as to the legality of Defense Distributed’s conduct. Defense Distributed can reasonably expect a continuing campaign of harassment and intimidation aimed at silencing it and tortiously interfering with its business. 32.! Defense Distributed is entitled to appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief against all further acts of harassment and intimidation by Grewal, Feuer, and all others who may act in concert with them. COUNT ONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Defense Distributed also blocked access to the files from IP addresses based in the following foreign countries: Islamic Republic of Iran, Belarus, Myanmar (Burma), Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. 7! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 8 of 16 42 U.S.C. § 1983 RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH—U.S. CONST. AMEND. I 33.! Defendants’ threats of legal actions are invalid on their face, and as applied to Plaintiffs’ public speech, are an unconstitutional prior restraint on protected expression. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). 34.! Defendants’ interruption and prevention of Plaintiffs from publishing the subject files, under color of law, violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, causing Plaintiffs, their customers, visitors and members significant damages, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 35.! Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of damages and attorney fees, against Defendants. COUNT TWO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “DORMANT” COMMERCE CLAUSE, U.S. CONST. ART. I, § 8 36.! The threatened legal actions would not only require Plaintiffs to cease sharing files on its Texas-based servers within New Jersey and Los Angeles, respectively, but would also prohibit Plaintiffs from sharing the files within Texas, and other states. 37.! The Supreme Court has recognized that the “Commerce Clause . . . precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State’s borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State.” Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989). 38.! Through the threatened legal actions, New Jersey and Los Angeles “project[s] its 8! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 9 of 16 legislation” into other states, in violation of the “Dormant” Commerce Clause. See Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 583 (1986). See also Am. Booksellers Found. v. Dean, 342 F.3d 96, 103–04 (2nd Cir. 2003); Publius v. Boyer-Vine, 237 F. Supp. 3d 997, 1025 (E.D. Cal. 2017);!Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, 958–59 (N.D. Cal. 2006). 39.! Defendants’ interruption and prevention of Plaintiffs from publishing the subject files on its Texas-based servers, under color of law, violates the Plaintiffs rights to freely participate in intrastate and interstate commerce under the “Dormant” Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. 40.! Defendants’ actions have caused Plaintiffs, their customers, visitors and members significant damages, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439 (1991). 41.! Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of damages and attorney fees, against Defendants. COUNT THREE 42 U.S.C. § 1983 RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS—U.S. CONST. AMEND. II 42.! The fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms inherently embodies two complimentary guarantees: the right to acquire arms, and the right to make arms. 43.! If one cannot acquire or create arms, one cannot exercise Second Amendment rights. Infringing upon the creation and acquisition of arms of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes violates the Second Amendment, as applied to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008); McDonald 9! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 10 of 16 v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). 44.! By forbidding Defense Distributed from distributing files that concern the lawful manufacture of firearms, Defendants are violating the Second Amendment rights of Plaintiffs, their customers, members, and visitors. 45.! Defendants’ interruption and prevention of Plaintiffs from publishing the subject files, under color of law, violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, causing Plaintiffs, their customers, visitors and members significant damages, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 46.! Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of damages and attorney fees, against Defendants COUNT FOUR THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, U.S. CONST. ART. VI, CL. 2 PRE-EMPTION BASED ON EXPORT LICENSE ISSUED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT 47.! Consistent with the President’s role as Commander and Chief, and the delegation of Congress’s powers under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses, Congress has conferred the President with the exclusive authority to issue licenses and other forms of authorizations for the export of technical data on firearms controlled under the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”), 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq. The President has delegated this authority to the State Department. Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013. 48.! Pursuant to its exclusive authority under the AECA, the State Department issued a license expressly authorizing the Plaintiffs to publish certain firearms files for “unlimited distribution” pursuant to ITAR § 125.4(b)(13). See Exhibit A. 10! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 11 of 16 49.! Further pursuant to its exclusive authority under the AECA, the State Department issued an authorization under ITAR § 126.2 to allow every U.S. person to access, discuss, use, reproduce or otherwise benefit from technical data for the development, production, and/or use of firearms. See Exhibit B. 50.! The Defendants’ threatened legal actions conflict with the State Department’s exclusive authority and seek to interfere with this federal licensing framework. See Exhibits C, D, and E. 51.! In a press release, Defendant Grewal expressly stated that he seeks to override the federal government’s licensing framework: “The federal government is no longer willing to stop Defense Distributed from publishing this dangerous code, and so New Jersey must step up.” See Exhibit D. 52.! New Jersey and Los Angeles can no more prohibit the operation of a federally licensed export framework than could Maryland prohibit the operation of a federally chartered bank. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). 53.! The threatened legal actions are preempted based on Defense Distributed’s Export License that was issued by the State Department. 54.! “[I]f an individual claims federal law immunizes him from state regulation, the court may issue an injunction upon finding the state regulatory actions preempted.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378, 1384 (2015). 55.! Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to injunctive relief against Defendants’ threat of legal actions that are pre-empted. ! COUNT FIVE THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, U.S. CONST. ART. VI, CL. 2 11! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 12 of 16 EXPRESS PREEMPTION 56.! Through federal export control law, Congress has expressly preempted state law. 57.! Therefore, the threatened legal actions are expressly preempted by federal export control law. See English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78-79 (1990). 58.! “[I]f an individual claims federal law immunizes him from state regulation, the court may issue an injunction upon finding the state regulatory actions preempted.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378, 1384 (2015). 59.! Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to injunctive relief against Defendants’ threat of legal actions that are pre-empted. COUNT SIX THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, U.S. CONST. ART. VI, CL. 2 FIELD PREEMPTION 60.! Congress has occupied the entire field of export control law. 61.! Therefore, the threatened legal actions are preempted by field preemption. See English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 79 (1990). 62.! “[I]f an individual claims federal law immunizes him from state regulation, the court may issue an injunction upon finding the state regulatory actions preempted.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378, 1384 (2015). 63.! Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to injunctive relief against Defendants’ threat of legal actions that are pre-empted by federal export control law. COUNT SEVEN 12! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 13 of 16 THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, U.S. CONST. ART. VI, CL. 2 CONFLICT PREEMPTION 64.! The threatened legal actions would stand as an obstacle and would frustrate the accomplishment of objectives authorized by federal export control law. See Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 375 (2000); Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, Inc. v. Giannoulias, 523 F. Supp. 2d 731, 738-742 (N.D. Ill. 2007). 65.! Therefore, the threatened legal actions are preempted by conflict preemption. 66.! “[I]f an individual claims federal law immunizes him from state regulation, the court may issue an injunction upon finding the state regulatory actions preempted.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378, 1384 (2015). 67.! Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to injunctive relief against Defendants’ threat of legal actions that are pre-empted by federal export control law. COUNT EIGHT TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTS 68.! Defensed Distributed receives advertising revenue from its file-sharing system through contracts with third-parties. In the past, these revenues have exceeded $75,000 per annum. 69.! Defendants willfully and intentionally sought to interfere with those contracts. 70.! Defense Distributed has taken steps to prevent the distribution of files in New Jersey and Los Angeles because Defense Distributed reasonably fears that Defendants Grewal and Feuer would pursue civil and criminal enforcement proceedings against Plaintiff for doing so. 71.! The willful and intentional actions of Defendants Grewal and Feuer have proximately and directly caused damages to Defense Distributed’s contracts. 13! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 14 of 16 72.! The willful and intentional actions of Defendants Grewal and Feuer have resulted in actual damages. 73.! Defendants’ conduct, as described in this complaint, constitutes tortious interference with contracts. See ACS Inv’rs, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 943 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Tex.1997). 74.! Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to injunctive relief against Defendants’ tortious interference with contracts. COUNT NINE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTS 75.! There was a reasonable probability that Defense Distributed was to enter into contract(s) to do business with other third parties in New Jersey and Los Angeles. 76.! The threatened legal actions constitute a wrongful, deliberate, willful, intentional or otherwise tortious interference with prospective contracts in New Jersey and Los Angeles. 77.! Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to injunctive relief against Defendants’ tortious interference with prospective contracts. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendant as follows: 1.! A declaration, and injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants’ threatened legal actions that violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; 2.! A declaration, and injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants’ threatened legal actions 14! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 15 of 16 that violate the Dormant Commerce Clause; 3.! A declaration, and injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants’ threatened legal actions that violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; 4.! A declaration, and injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants’ threatened legal actions that are preempted based on Defense Distributed’s Export License that was issued by the State Department; 5.! A declaration, and injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants’ threatened legal actions that are expressly preempted by federal export control law; 6.! A declaration, and injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants’ threatened legal actions that are preempted by field preemption by federal export control law; 7.! A declaration, and injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants’ threatened legal actions that are preempted by conflict preemption by federal export control law; 8.! A declaration, and injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants’ threatened legal actions that tortiously interfere with contracts, and damages to be determined for Defendants’ tortious interference with contracts; 9.! A declaration, and injunctive relief, to prevent Defendants’ threatened legal actions that tortiously interfere with prospective contracts, and damages to be determined for Defendants’ tortious interference with prospective contracts; 10.! Actual damages in an amount according to proof at trial; 11.! Attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and 12.! Any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial. 15! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 16 of 16 Dated: July 29, 2018 Alan Gura Virginia Bar No. 68842* Gura PLLC 916 Prince Street, Suite 107 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 703.835.9085 / Fax 703.997.7665 alan@gurapllc.com *Admission pro hac vice pending Respectfully submitted, /s/ Josh Blackman Virginia Bar No. 78292 1303 San Jacinto Street Houston, Texas 77002 202.294.9003/Fax: 713.646.1766 Josh@JoshBlackman.com Counsel of Record 16! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I.! (a) PLAINTIFFS ! DEFENDANTS GURBIR S. GREWAL, individually, and in his official capacity as Attorney General of New Jersey; MICHAEL FEUER, individually, and in his official capacity as Los Angeles City Attorney. Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation Travis County, Texas (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE: ! (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Josh Blackman, Josh Blackman LLC, 1303 San Jacinto Street, Houston, TX 77002, 202-294-9003. !! II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff ’ 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) ’ 2 U.S. Government Defendant ’ 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys (If Known) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State ’ 1 DEF ’ 1 Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State ’ 5 ’ 5 Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) CONTRACT ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. TORTS 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State FORFEITURE/PENALTY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 380 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: ’ 463 Alien Detainee ’ 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence ’ 530 General ’ 535 Death Penalty Other: ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 555 Prison Condition ’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 690 Other LABOR ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act ’ 720 Labor/Management Relations ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 751 Family and Medical Leave Act ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act BANKRUPTCY ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application ’ 840 Trademark SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) ’ 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609 IMMIGRATION ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 465 Other Immigration Actions OTHER STATUTES ’ 375 False Claims Act ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 3729(a)) ’ 400 State Reapportionment ’ 410 Antitrust ’ 430 Banks and Banking ’ 450 Commerce ’ 460 Deportation ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ’ 480 Consumer Credit ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions ’ 891 Agricultural Acts ’ 893 Environmental Matters ’ 895 Freedom of Information Act ’ 896 Arbitration ’ 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision ’ 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1 Original Proceeding ’ 2 Removed from State Court ’ 3 Remanded from Appellate Court ’ 4 Reinstated or Reopened ’ 5 Transferred from Another District ’ 6 Multidistrict Litigation Transfer (specify) Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): ’ 8 Multidistrict Litigation Direct File 42 U.S.C. § 1983 VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Challenge to prior restraint imposed by threatened state legal enforcement ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE DATE CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: ’ Yes ’ No JURY DEMAND: DEMAND $ DOCKET NUMBER SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD 7/29/18 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17) Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-1 Filed 07/29/18 Page 2 of 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) (b) (c) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue. VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet. Case Document 1-2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit A Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 2 of 3 United States Department of State Bureau olPolitical-MilitGlY Aflairs Directorate ofDef€!nse Trade Controls Washington. D.C. 20522-0112 July 27,2018 Mr. Cody R. Wilson, Defense Distributed, and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. c/o Mr. Matthew A. Goldstein Snell & Wilmer One South Church Avenue Suite 1500 Tucson, AZ 85701-1630 RE: Directorate of Defense Trade Controls Approval of Certain Files for Public Release Dear Mr. Wilson, Defense Distributed, and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.: This letter is provided in accordance with section 1(c) of the Settlement Agreement in the matter of Defense Distributed, et aI., v. Us. Department of State, et ai., No. 15-cv-372-RP (W.D. Tx.) (hereinafter referred to as "Defense Distributed"). As used in this letter, - The phrase "Published Files" means the files described in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in Defense Distributed. - The phrase "Ghost Gunner Files" means the files described in paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in Defense Distributed. - The phrase "CAD Files" means the files described in paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in Defense Distributed. The Department understands that Defense Distributed submitted the Published Files, Ghost Gunner Files, and CAD Files to the Department of Defense's Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR) in 2014 to request review for approval for public release pursuant to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) § 125.4(b)(13). It is our further understanding that DOPSR did not make a determination on the eligibility of these files for release, but instead referred you to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) regarding public release of these files. Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 3 of 3 I advise you that for the purposes ofIT AR § 125 .4(b )( 13), the Department of State is a cognizant U.S. government department or agency, and DDTC has authority to issue the requisite approval for public release. To that end, I approve the Published Files, Ghost Gunner Files, and CAD Files for public release (i.e., unlimited distribution). As set forth in ITAR § 125.4(b)(13), technical data approved for public release by the cognizant U.S. government department or agency is not subj ect to the licensing requirements of the IT AR. Sincerely, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls 2 Case Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 5 Exhibit 7/29/2018 Home - DDTC Public 07/29/18 Portal Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-3 Filed Page 2 of 5 DDTC Mission: Provide Feedback Learn About Export Regulations Export Your Goods/Services https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/?id=ddtc_public_portal_homepage 1/13 7/29/2018 Home - DDTC Public 07/29/18 Portal Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-3 Filed Page 3 of 5 Get Help from DDTC Provide Feedback The Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) Upcoming https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/?id=ddtc_public_portal_homepage 2/13 7/29/2018 Home - DDTC Public 07/29/18 Portal Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-3 Filed Page 4 of 5 DDTC In-House Seminar Provide Feedback Today Temporary Extension on May 31, 2018 and June 30, 2018 Expirations Previous https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/?id=ddtc_public_portal_homepage 3/13 7/29/2018 Home - DDTC Public 07/29/18 Portal Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-3 Filed Page 5 of 5 Temporary Modi cation of Category I of the United States Munitions List Consistent with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 C.F.R. § 126.2, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls has determined that it is in the interest of the security and foreign policy of the United States to temporarily modify United States Munitions List (USML) Category I to exclude the following technical data identified in the Settlement Agreement for the matter of Defense Distributed, et al., v. U.S. Department of State, et al, Case No. 15­cv­372­RP (W.D. Tex.) (hereinafter “Defense Distributed”):   ­ “Published Files,” i.e., the files described in paragraph 25 of the Second Amended Complaint in Defense Distributed. Provide Feedback ­ “Ghost Gunner Files,” i.e., the files described in paragraph 36 of the Second Amended Complaint in Defense Distributed. ­ “CAD Files,” i.e., the files described in paragraph 40 of the Second Amended Complaint in Defense Distributed. ­ “Other Files,” i.e., the files described in paragraphs 44­45 of the Second Amended Complaint in Defense Distributed, insofar as those files regard items exclusively: (a) in Category I(a) of the USML, as well as barrels and receivers covered by Category I(g) of the USML that are components of such items; or (b) items covered by Category I(h) of the USML solely by reference to Category I(a), excluding Military Equipment.  Military Equipment means (1) Drum and other magazines for firearms to .50 caliber (12.7 mm) inclusive with a capacity greater than 50 rounds, regardless of jurisdiction of the firearm, and specially designed parts and components therefor; (2) Parts and components specially designed for conversion of a semi­automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm; (3) Accessories or attachments specially designed to automatically stabilize aim (other than gun rests) or for automatic targeting, and specially designed parts and components therefor.   This temporary modification will remain in effect while the final rule referenced in paragraph 1(a) of the Settlement Agreement is in development. Please see the Settlement Agreement and the Second Amended Compliant for additional information. Public Comments on USML Categories I-III https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/?id=ddtc_public_portal_homepage 4/13 Case Document 1-4 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-4 Filed 07/29/18 Page 2 of 3 State of New Jersey PHILIP D. MURPHY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF LAW Governor SHEILA Y. OLIVER PO Box 080 TRENTON, NJ 08625-0080 Lt. Governor GURBIR S. GREWAL Attorney General Defense Distributed 2320 Donley Dr., Suite C Austin, TX 78758 July 26, 2018 To Whom It May Concern: You are directed to cease and desist from publishing printable-gun computer files for use by New Jersey residents. The files you plan to publish offer individuals, including criminals, codes that they can use to create untraceable firearms—and even to make assault weapons that are illegal in my state. These computer codes are a threat to public safety, and posting them violates New Jersey’s public nuisance and negligence laws. If you do not halt your efforts to proceed with publication, I will bring legal action against your company before August 1, 2018. The computer files that you plan to publish will undermine the public safety of New Jersey residents. These files allow anyone with a 3-D printer to download your code and create a fully operational gun. More than that, the codes you plan to post will enable individuals to print assault weapons that are illegal in New Jersey. And because the printed guns would not have serial numbers, they would not be traceable by law enforcement. Worst of all, you are going to make the codes available to everyone—regardless of age, criminal status, or history of mental illness. That would undermine New Jersey’s comprehensive scheme for keeping guns out of dangerous criminals’ hands, and it would undermine the safety of our residents. Not only are your codes dangerous, but posting them would also be illegal. New Jersey’s law is clear: an individual who interferes with public health, safety, peace, and comfort violates our public nuisance law. See James v. Arms Tech., Inc., 359 N.J. Super. 291, 329-33 (App. Div. 2003). As New Jersey courts have held, “[n]o one can seriously debate” that regulated guns are “dangerous instrumentalities” and thus implicate our public nuisance law. Id. at 320. So when a group of manufacturers “flood[ed] the gun market” through a high volume of sales, while failing to develop “reasonable safeguards over the distribution scheme” and “refus[ing] to oversee or supervise the control of handgun distribution in order to prevent the foreseeable channeling of guns to such an illegal market,” New Jersey courts found they could be held responsible when their actions “facilitate[d] the illegal sale of weapons to criminals and other unlawful users.” Id. at 312. That is what your actions will do as well—make do-it-yourself guns available to anyone, even if the individuals are prohibited from owning guns because of prior convictions, history of mental illness, or history of domestic violence, even if the weapons they print are illegal in my Hughes Justice Complex • TELEPHONE: (609) 292-4925 • FAX: (609) 292-3508 New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-4 Filed 07/29/18 Page 3 of 3 July 26, 2018 Page 2 state, and even if they plan to use their weapons to further crimes and acts of violence. Because your actions will flood the illegal firearms market and pose a direct threat to the public safety of my state, they constitute a public nuisance. Worse still, your comments make clear that you hope your actions will undermine all the efforts of states like New Jersey to keep guns out of criminals’ hands. You have stated, “All this Parkland stuff, the students, all these dreams of ‘common sense gun reforms’? No. The internet will serve guns, the gun is downloadable.” 1 You have also stated, “I’m not worried about public safety.” 2 And on July 10, 2018, you tweeted a photo of a gravestone engraved with the words “American Gun Reform.” 3 These comments show that you have no intention of precluding your printable-gun computer files, including designs for assault weapons, from winding up in the hands of criminals, minors, and the mentally ill. Not only does that reveal a lack of regard for safety, but it also shows that your interference with the public’s health and safety is intentional and per se unreasonable. James, 359 N.J. Super. at 330. Finally, your widespread dissemination of printable-gun computer files is negligent because it encourages an illegal gun market, which will foreseeably lead to increased crime and violence in New Jersey, and which will lead to an increase in expenditures of public funds for combatting crime and protecting our resident’s health. See id. at 308-24 (finding a legally valid negligence claim against same manufacturers of guns that flooded the illegal market). Your planned method of making codes available and your public comments show that you are ignoring and violating your duty. By broadly sharing an inherently dangerous product, you should reasonably foresee the resulting governmental and public costs and must bear them. Id. at 32324. As the chief law enforcement officer for New Jersey, I demand that you halt publication of the printable-gun computer files. Should you fail to comply with this letter, my Office will initiate legal action barring you from publishing these files before August 1, 2018. Sincerely, Gurbir S. Grewal Attorney General 1 Andy Greenberg, “A Landmark Legal Shift Opens Pandora’s Box for DIY Guns,” Wired (July 10, 2018), available at https://www.wired.com/story/a-landmark-legal-shift-opens-pandoras-box-for-diy-guns/. 2 Tess Owen, “Get Ready for the New Era of 3D-Printed Guns Starting August 1,” Vice News (July 18, 2018), available at https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/ev8xjn/get-ready-for-the-new-era-of-3d-printed-guns-startingaugust-1. 3 Cody R. Wilson (@Radomysisky), TWITTER (July 10, 2018, 12:25 P.M.), https://twitter.com/Radomysisky/status/1016765282017337344. Case Document 1-5 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit 7/29/2018 Jersey Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document State 1-5of New Filed 07/29/18 Page 2 of 3   Search  OAG Services from A ­ Z      For Immediate Release: Servicios en Español   For Further Information: July 26 2018     Office of The Attorney General ­ Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General     Media Inquiries­ Lee Moore  609­292­4791    Citizen Inquiries­  609­984­5828  AG Grewal Demands That Gun Developer Halt Plans to Publish Printable­Gun Computer Files; Threatens Imminent Legal Action  Citing Threat to Public Safety, AG Warns of Lawsuit Before August 1 View Cease and Desist Letter TRENTON – Acting to protect New Jersey residents from an emerging threat to public safety, Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal today sent a “cease and desist” letter to a firearm developer that plans to publicly release computer files on August 1 that would enable individuals to create firearms using a 3­D printer. “You are directed to cease and desist from publishing printable­gun computer files for use by New Jersey residents,” Attorney General Grewal warned Texas­based Defense Distributed in today’s letter. “The files you plan to publish offer individuals, including criminals, codes that they can use to create untraceable firearms—and even to make assault weapons that are illegal in my state.” Citing New Jersey’s public nuisance law and prior court decisions that have upheld claims against gun manufacturers for similar reckless actions, Attorney General Grewal threatened Defense Distributed with “legal action” if it fails to comply with his demand to halt its planned publishing of printable­gun computer files starting next week. “Defense Distributed’s plans to allow anyone with a 3­D printer to download a code and create a fully operational gun directly threatens the public safety of New Jersey’s residents, “ Attorney General Grewal stated. “Posting this material online is no different than driving to New Jersey and handing out hard­copy files on any street corner. The federal government is no longer willing to stop Defense Distributed from publishing this dangerous code, and so New Jersey must step up.” Defense Distributed plans to “make do­it­yourself guns available to anyone, even if the individuals are prohibited from owning guns because of prior convictions, history of mental illness, or history of domestic violence, even if the weapons they print are illegal in my state, and even if they plan to use their weapons to further crimes and acts of violence,” added Attorney General Grewal. “Not only are these plans to publish printable­gun files dangerous, they also violate New Jersey law.” Defense Distributed made national headlines by developing gun computer files that enable consumers to create fully operational firearms with a 3­D printer. The company’s founder, Cody Wilson, developed a printable plastic pistol known as the “Liberator .380” in 2012 and put the plans online, but was blocked by the federal government. Wilson https://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases18/pr20180726c.html 1/2 7/29/2018 Jersey Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document State 1-5of New Filed 07/29/18 Page 3 of 3 sued, and under a settlement he reached with the U.S. State Department, his company is free to begin releasing computer files for printable guns beginning on August 1. In his cease­and­desist letter, Attorney General Grewal warns Defense Distributed that its actions will “flood the illegal firearms market and pose a direct threat to the public safety of my state.” He also takes the company to task for striving to make do­it­yourself guns readily available to people deemed unfit to have them. “By broadly sharing an inherently dangerous product,” the letter adds, Defense Distributed “should reasonably foresee the resulting governmental and public costs and must bear them.” The letter also highlights that Cody Wilson has “no intention of precluding [these] printable­gun computer files, including designs for assault weapons, from winding up in the hands of criminals, minors, and the mentally ill.” Wilson has publicly stated, ““All this Parkland stuff, the students, all these dreams of ‘common sense gun reforms’? No. The internet will serve guns, the gun is downloadable.” He has even announced, “I’m not worried about public safety.” As a result, the letter notes, his “interference with the public’s health and safety is intentional and per se unreasonable.” “As the chief law enforcement officer for New Jersey, I demand that you halt publication of the printable gun computer files,” Attorney General Grewal concludes. “Should you fail to comply with this letter, my Office will initiate legal action barring you from publishing these files before August 1, 2018.” Follow the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office online at Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flicker & YouTube. The social media links provided are for reference only. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office does not endorse any non­governmental websites, companies or applications. ####   News Index Page I top    Contact Us   Privacy Notice   Legal Statement   Accessibility Statement Departmental: OAG Home   Contact OAG   About OAG   OAG News   OAG FAQs Statewide: NJ Home   Services A to Z   Departments/Agencies   FAQs Copyright © State of New Jersey   This page is maintained by OAG Communications. Comments/Questions: email or call 609­292­4925 https://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases18/pr20180726c.html 2/2 Case Document 1-6 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 5 Exhibit Case Case 1:15-cv-00372-RP 1:18-cv-00637 Document Document1-6 109-1 Filed Filed 07/29/18 07/27/18 Page Page 2 of15of 4 Exhibit D Case Case 1:15-cv-00372-RP 1:18-cv-00637 Document Document1-6 109-1 Filed Filed 07/29/18 07/27/18 Page Page 3 of25of 4 Case Case 1:15-cv-00372-RP 1:18-cv-00637 Document Document1-6 109-1 Filed Filed 07/29/18 07/27/18 Page Page 4 of35of 4 Case Case 1:15-cv-00372-RP 1:18-cv-00637 Document Document1-6 109-1 Filed Filed 07/29/18 07/27/18 Page Page 5 of45of 4 Case Document 1-7 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit LA City Attorney on Twitter: "City Atty Mike Feuer & @ManhattanDA Vance,07/29/18 Jr. to @StateDept: NO #DIY #guns! Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-7Cyrus Filed Page 2 of 2 #gunviolence #GunControl … 7/29/2018 Home Moments Search Twitter LA City Attorney  @CityAttorneyLA Have an account? Log in Follow City Atty Mike Feuer & @ManhattanDA Cyrus Vance, Jr. to @StateDept: NO #DIY #guns! #gunviolence #GunControl #gunsense goo.gl/L377y3 @ProsecutorsAGV LA City Attorney @CityAttorneyLA MIKE FEUER: The elected #LosAngeles City #Attorney. #Consumers #Homelessness #Environment #GunViolence & Co-founder @ProsecutorsAGV. #Community. #Justice. © 2018 Twitter About Help Center Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info Los Angeles, CA lacityattorney.org Joined November 2013 9:37 AM - 28 Jul 2018 6 Retweets 14 Likes 1 6 14 © 2018 Twitter About Help Center Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info https://twitter.com/CityAttorneyLA/status/1023246155608551424 1/1 Case Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 7/29/2018 PAGV Co-Chairs to State Department: Block Release of Downloadable Do-It-Yourself, 3D Printed2Guns Office of Los Angeles City Att… Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-8Blueprints Filedfor07/29/18 Page of 2   MIKE FEUER UPDATES FROM MIKE   SE VICTIM ASSISTANCE CLAIMS Los Angeles City Attorney MEET MIKE HOME OFFICE GUN VIOLENCE GET HELP SCHOOL SAFETY PANEL CONSUMER PROTECTION UNITS A ­ Z NEIGHBORHOOD PROSECUTORS COMMUNITY JUST PAGV Co­Chairs to State Department: Block Release of Downloadable Blueprints for Do­It­Yourself, 3D Printed Guns July 25, 2018 Recent  PAGV Co Departme Downloa Do­It­You July 25, 201 L.A. City  Seeks Pr Against U Condition Safety Gr July 19, 201 City Atto Launches Enforcem Grieving    New York, NY and Los Angeles, CA: Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., and Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, co­ chairs of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, today released the following joint statement urging the U.S. State Department to block the online release of blueprints for do­it­yourself, 3D­printed guns:    "In a matter of days, the State Department is preparing to allow unlimited online access to schematic designs that enable 3D printing of untraceable guns. In a complete reversal of longstanding regulatory oversight, the State Department has decided to provide a special exemption to a private company, Defense Distributed, to post its gun blueprints online."   "No one is safer if criminals can print untraceable guns on demand. Allowing this exemption from federal rules would be an unconscionable mistake, making it all­too­easy for anyone with a dangerous history – including terrorists and domestic abusers who cannot pass a background check – to download files and print a functional gun with 3D printers available to any consumer. This decision undermines the critical public safety laws that prosecutors enforce day in and day out."   "Invisible to metal detectors, these plastic guns could easily be smuggled onto airplanes, and into concerts, festivals, and government buildings. Untraceable, they would undermine the work of law enforcement by crippling criminal investigations before they even began. The State Department must not allow this company to have a special exemption to these rules. These blueprints should not be published under any circumstances."   Tags: Prosecutors Against Gun Violence PAGV Cy Vance Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer guns July 17, 201 LA City A Statemen July 5, 2018 Los Ange York and Amicus B Sessions Children  July 3, 2018 LA City A and Distr Lacey Se Silver La Over Alle July 2, 2018 LA City A Secures  from Nur Allegatio Patient D June 28, 20 Mike Feuer Los Angeles City Attorney James K. Hahn City Hall East, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90012  213­978­8100  mike.n.feuer@lacity.org 213­978­8340  frank.mateljan@lacity.org Media  UPDATES https://www.lacityattorney.org/single-post/2018/07/25/PAGV-Co-Chairs-to-State-Department-Block-Release-of-Downloadable-Blueprints-for-Do-It-Yourself-3D-Prin… 1/1 Case Document 1-9 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit Case 1:18-cv-00637 Document 1-9 Filed 07/29/18 Page 2 of 2 LAW OFFICES HARTMAN WINNICKI, P.C. Dariusz M. Winnicki 74 PASSAIC STREET Brian T. Keane 0? RIDGEWOOD, NEW JERSEY 07450 Richard L. Ravin Daniel L. Schmutter* a: Andrew T. Wolfe 0 Samantha N. PoliZZlO WEBSITE Steve? 3 WW New York and New Jersey Bars Florida Bar :1 Washington, 11C. Bar 0 New Jersey Bar Bar Phone: (201) 967-8040 Fax: (201) 967?0590 Porter E. Hartman (1920-2009) Charles R. Buhn'nan (1938-1994) William T. Marsden (1943?1993) Cyrus D. Samuelson (1911-1998) July 27, 2018 Via FAX 609-292-3508 Gurbir S. Grewal Attorney General of New Jersey Of?ce of the Attorney General PC. Box 080 Trenton, NJ 08625 Re: Defense Distributed Dear Attorney General Grewal: We represent Defense Distributed in connection with your letter dated July 26, 2018, in which you make various demands regarding making certain computer ?les available to the public on the internet (the ?Letter?). First, please be advised that Defense Distributed rejects your contention that any action contemplated by Defense Distributed violates or will violate New Jersey law. The Letter takes only vague and general positions regarding nuisance and negligence law. Nothing in the Letter supports your position. Second, please be advised that all actions contemplated by Defense Distributed are fully protected by the First Amendment, and your attempts to prevent such action constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint and otherwise violate the United States Constitution and New Jersey Constitution. Third, the Letter constitutes an unlawful threat, in violation of Defense Distributed?s Constitutional rights, and Defense Distributed reserves its rights under 18 U.S.C. ?l983, l8 U.S.C. ?242, and N.J.S. 10:6-2, and demands that you withdraw the Letter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at this time Defense Distributed will attempt to restrict ?les made available on the internet to prevent download within New Jersey. This should not be construed as an acknowledgment of the validity of your position, and Defense Distributed reserves all of its rights in this regard. Very truly yours, DANIEL . SCHMUTTER DLS/srs cc: Evan Nappen, Esq, (via email) Defense Distributed (via email) Case Document 1-10 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit I I: ?he Of?da MST US de?cad .5919 {7 Flu i 5 "59:19 cef:ad.com Wu 0 3? i 9 l? Right now, the of?cial U.S. time is: 08:40:37 a.m. Sunday July 29 2018 Clickavrows hw- 25:32:: I (no in dark regwn THE us IS lev usno POLICY 2 SECURITY NOTICE Vi"! SXNIIXTS Also. try the or see Case Document 1-10 Filed 07/29/18 Page 2 of 2 8:40 AM A 7/29/2013