July 30, 2018 The Honorable Mike Pompeo Secretary of State U.S. Department of State 2201 C. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20520 The Honorable Jeff Sessions Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Secretary Pompeo and Attorney General Sessions: We, the undersigned Attorneys General, write to express our serious concern about the Department of State’s settlement with Defense Distributed and the proposed rules (83 Fed. Reg. 24198; 83 Fed. Reg. 24166) published by the Department of State and the Department of Commerce to amend the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations. As the Chief Law Enforcement Officers of our states, we believe the settlement terms and proposed rules are deeply dangerous and could have an unprecedented impact on public safety. In addition to helping arm terrorists and transnational criminals, the settlement and proposed rules would provide another path to gun ownership for people who are prohibited by federal and state law from possessing firearms. Federal courts have recognized the danger of allowing these guns to be publicly available on the Internet, and this Administration has abruptly disregarded those rulings. We urge you to withdraw from the settlement and withdraw the proposed rules immediately, and allow full and fair consideration of any future proposed rules on these issues. We believe the settlement and proposed rules will facilitate violations of federal and state laws, and will make Americans less safe from both domestic and international threats. For example, individuals who access the files posted by Defense Distributed (and similar files posted by others in the future) and use those files will be circumventing laws that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, and export of firearms. The Arms Export Control Act requires the federal government to reduce the international trade in, and lessen the burden of, arms abroad. Domestically, many of our states have carefully crafted regulatory regimes geared at preventing gun violence and protecting public safety. The Department of State’s abrupt change in position seriously undermines the efficacy of those laws and creates an imminent risk to public safety. As a result of the Department of State’s settlement with Defense Distributed, terrorists, criminals, and individuals seeking to do harm would have unfettered access to print and manufacture dangerous firearms. Some of these weapons may even be undetectable by magnetometers in places like airports and government buildings and untraceable by law enforcement. Illegal trafficking of these guns across state and national borders could also increase, and self-made, unregistered, and untraceable firearms could easily wind up in the hands of (or simply be produced directly by) dangerous individuals. The proposed rules would also transfer oversight of certain weapons and ammunition – which have long been considered “military grade” and are currently on the United States Munitions List – from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce. The settlement and proposed rules would facilitate the upload of files and other information sufficient to build unsafe and untraceable guns to the Internet. There would be unrestricted access, domestically and abroad, to large amounts of technical data that had previously been regulated to promote serious national security interests. We agree with the argument that the Department of Justice and Department of State asserted for years in the lawsuit brought by Defense Distributed, before this abrupt reversal: that the release of these computer files of firearms would threaten national security and put our residents in danger. 1 For example, the Department of Justice wrote in its brief to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, “[t]he computer data files at issue here, if made publicly available without restriction, would allow anyone with a 3-D printer (or related device) to create, at the touch of a button, parts and components for an operational firearm that is untraceable and undetectable by metal detectors. Because such printers are readily available, allowing the distribution of the computer files at issue here is tantamount to permitting the dissemination of firearms themselves.” 2 The settlement and the related proposed rules are inconsistent with the government’s longstanding position and recklessly disregard public safety and security. These rules, if finalized, and the settlement, if implemented, set a precedent that would endanger the lives of civilians, law enforcement, and members of the armed forces at home and 1 Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of , Case State 1:15-cv-00372-RP, Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss Second Am. Compl., at 1 (W.D. Tex. April 6, 2018). 2 Brief for Federal Appellees, 2016 WL 614088, Case No. No. 15-50759, at *7 (5th Cir. 2016). In the same brief, the Department of Justice also wrote “[t]he availability of such firearms to foreign nationals, particularly if…attributable to the United States, could raise significant foreign policy and national security concerns….” Id. at *1. The Department of Justice additionally asserted, “[i]f such a firearm were produced and ‘then used to commit an act of terrorism, piracy, assassination, or other serious crime,’ the United States could be held accountable, causing ‘serious and long-lasting harm to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States.’” Id. at *23 (quoting Aguirre Decl. ¶ 35(a) [ROA.571). 2 abroad. We urge you to withdraw from the settlement immediately. The status quo – which currently ensures public safety and national security by prohibiting publication of firearm design files on the Internet – should be maintained. Any rulemaking on these issues should not be tied to a specific settlement agreement and should be subject to full and fair rulemaking proceedings, so that all stakeholders may provide input into the rules in the interest of public safety. Sincerely, ______________________ Maura Healey Attorney General of Massachusetts ______________________ Xavier Becerra Attorney General of California ______________________ Cynthia Coffman Attorney General of Colorado ______________________ George Jepsen Attorney General of Connecticut ______________________ Matthew P. Denn Attorney General of Delaware ______________________ Karl A. Racine Attorney General of the District of Columbia ______________________ Russell A. Suzuki Attorney General of Hawaii ______________________ Lisa M. Madigan Attorney General of Illinois ______________________ Thomas J. Miller Attorney General of Iowa ______________________ Janet T. Mills Attorney General of Maine ______________________ Brian E. Frosh Attorney General of Maryland ______________________ Lori Swanson Attorney General of Minnesota 3 ______________________ Gurbir S. Grewal Attorney General of New Jersey ______________________ Hector Balderas Attorney General of New Mexico ______________________ Barbara D. Underwood Attorney General of New York ______________________ Ellen Rosenblum Attorney General of Oregon ______________________ Josh Shapiro Attorney General of Pennsylvania ______________________ Peter F. Kilmartin Attorney General of Rhode Island ______________________ Thomas J. Donovan, Jr. Attorney General of Vermont ______________________ Mark R. Herring Attorney General of Virginia ______________________ Bob Ferguson Attorney General of Washington 4