In Groundbreaking Decision, Third Circuit Finds No Constitutional Barrier to Regulating Distribution of Computer Files Used To 3D-Print Firearms

The following piece ran online in the New York Law Journal on April 7, 2026

Imagine living in a state or a country in which anyone, with no background check and no age verification, could sit in their basement and download a computer file that would allow them to 3D print their own gun—no questions asked.  If you listen to certain gun rights advocates, you will hear them claim that this is not only what the law should be, it’s what the Constitution requires. But the courts are not accepting the extreme reading of the First and Second Amendments these advocates are trying to sell. Most recently, in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, 167 F.4th 65 (3d Cir. 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit confirmed that the Constitution—consistent with common sense and public safety—does not prevent states from restricting the sharing of computer files designed to enable the unlicensed 3D-printing of homemade guns.

Recent headlines underscore the importance of these restrictions. In the assassination of a United Healthcare executive in New York City, the alleged perpetrator, Luigi Mangione, is accused of 3D-printing the frame of the firearm he allegedly used in the murder. 3D-printed firearms have also been used in armed robberies, and resulted in accidental killings and self-inflicted injuries—and have been manufactured by kids as young as 14. As these incidents highlight, unfettered access to 3D-printed firearms and components leads to tragic results, with criminals and other individuals who can’t legally buy guns getting their hands on restricted and dangerous items, and bypassing crucial safeguards like background checks and age restrictions codified in state and federal law.

Some states, including California, Delaware, New Jersey, and, most recently, Washington, have already acted to address this burgeoning threat. New Jersey was the first. In 2018, the New Jersey legislature made it a crime for a person to distribute “digital instructions . . . stored and displayed in electronic format as a digital model that may be used to program a [3D]-printer to manufacture or produce a firearm” to a person in New Jersey “who is not registered or licensed” as a firearms manufacturer. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-9(l)(1)-(2).

The New York State Legislature is currently considering a similar bill, which would, among other things, make it a crime for a person to intentionally sell or distribute digital instructions that enable 3D printers to manufacture firearms, their core components, and illegal firearm accessories to anyone who is not a state- and federally-licensed gun manufacturer. The bill would also prohibit possession of such digital instructions by those who intend to use them to illegally manufacture guns or to illegally distribute them to others. Different states’ bills tackle the problem of 3D-printed firearms in slightly different ways. What all of the pending and existing laws and legislation have in common is the recognition of the need for our firearms laws to evolve to keep up with technological changes that are posing a rapidly-growing threat to  public safety.

The Third Circuit’s recent rejection of a challenge to New Jersey’s law provides important guidance in analyzing restrictions on 3D-printing firearms and the dissemination of computer files used to do so. But first, some background.

New Jersey’s law was challenged by Defense Distributed, a Texas company that disseminates computer code designed for use in 3D-printing firearms. It claimed that New Jersey’s threatened enforcement of its law infringed “the individual right to make and acquire Arms” under the Second Amendment and that the law violated the First Amendment because it restricts computer code, which qualifies as speech for purposes of the First Amendment. After lengthy procedural disputes, a federal district court in New Jersey dismissed Defense Distributed’s claims, and Defense Distributed appealed to the Third Circuit. 

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal on February 12, 2026. It quickly dispensed with Defense Distributed’s Second Amendment claim, concluding that Defense Distributed (as well as the Second Amendment Foundation) lacked standing to challenge New Jersey’s law because its complaint included no allegation that it attempted or was prevented from 3D-printing a firearm. Tellingly, the court also commented—wryly—on the “novelty” of Defense Distributed’s “asserted Second Amendment right to ‘self-manufacture firearms . . . free from any major regulation whatsoever.”  

Turning to the First Amendment arguments, which it called “the heart of the case,” the court acknowledged that “whether regulations of computer code trigger constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment” raised “a complicated question of first impression” for the Third Circuit. It began with a “fresh appraisal” of First Amendment cases dealing with computer code from the Ninth, Sixth and Second Circuits. The Third Circuit agreed with its sister circuits that computer code can be covered by the First Amendment, but it emphasized that “coverage cannot be assumed.”

The court observed that “there is nothing inherently expressive in building purely functional code” and therefore rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “blanket application of the First Amendment to code.” Debunking the Sixth Circuit’s comparison of computer code to a musical score, the Third Circuit reasoned that computer code has the “mere capacity to communicate” whereas “the playing and composition of music are inherently expressive in every instance.”

The complication with computer code, it concluded, comes from the fact that code is based in language and, at times, communicates ideas and information. But, as the court held, the “mere possibility of expressive use” isn’t sufficient to garner First Amendment protection. In other words, First Amendment coverage is not automatic, and the burden is on the proponent to show that the particular use of the code burdened by the law involves the type of expression or communication that the First Amendment was meant to protect–and is not merely functional. The Third Circuit also rejected Defense Distributed’s categorical argument that the dissemination of information, in general, warrants First Amendment protection. In doing so, it analogized computer code to navigational charts, which courts have held are not protected by the First Amendment. Ultimately, the Third Circuit held that “purely functional code with no actual or intended expressive use” is not constitutionally protected and Defense Distributed’s complaint did not contain allegations sufficient to carry its burden of establishing that the First Amendment was implicated at all.

The Third Circuit got it right. Not only did it reach the correct conclusion in upholding the dismissal of Defense Distributed’s claims. But it took the important step of differentiating code from inherently expressive writings, such as musical scores, and held that many types of code do not qualify for First Amendment protection at all. That logic fully applies to functional code used to print 3D firearms and components.

It is likely that, in the future, 3D-printed-firearm companies like Defense Distributed will continue to push for an overly broad application of the First Amendment to the files that instruct 3D printers to make guns and gun components. As the Third Circuit previewed, courts faced with such cases will likely engage in a fact-based and context-specific analysis. The Third Circuit signaled that such analysis is likely to be shaped by five considerations: (i) the technical nature of the code, (ii) how the code is used in context, (iii) who is communicating through the code and the intended recipient of the communication, (iv) for what purpose(s) the computer code operates, and (v) what, if anything, the code communicates. Although companies like Defense Distributed will attempt to frame future challenges in a way that maximizes their odds of invoking First Amendment protection, there is no avoiding the reality of the situation—the dissemination of computer code that instructs 3D printers to make firearms and firearm parts is designed predominantly if not solely to serve the functional objective of enabling anyone to manufacture a firearm. In doing so, it invites evasion and violation of a host of gun safety laws. It also puts deadly firearms in the hands of people with dangerous histories and provides an appealing new method to mass produce and traffic untreaceable–and in some cases, undetectable–ghost guns, undermining public safety.  The First Amendment provides no shelter to such conduct. 

Finally, as challenges to 3D-printed firearm laws continue, courts should follow the Third Circuit’s lead and view the challengers’ Second Amendment arguments skeptically. Restrictions on 3D-printed firearms should easily withstand Second Amendment challenges at both the text and history steps of the operative framework set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). On text, the Third Circuit was right when it suggested that there is no Second Amendment right to “self-manufacture firearms . . . free from any major regulation whatsoever.” There are several additional arguments at the text stage, including that these restrictions do not “infringe” the right to keep and bear arms because individuals can still access countless other firearms. The historical arguments in favor of the restrictions are equally robust. Personal gunmaking was rare and restricted at the founding. And there are a variety of other analogous historical traditions—including prohibitions on particularly dangerous weapons and laws requiring safety testing. These analogues should be viewed through the more generous “nuanced” lens of post-Bruen historical analysisbecause 3D-printed guns are “a dramatic technological change” from the guns that existed at the founding. Recognizing the strength of these arguments, courts across the country have upheld restrictions on ghost guns (including 3D-printed ones) at both steps of the Bruen framework.

The Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey decision is a victory for public safety and an important step forward in analyzing the constitutionality of laws regulating 3D-printed firearms and the files used to manufacture them. And it comes at an important moment, as more states—including New York—are poised to adopt their own public safety laws to address this emerging threat. The Third Circuit’s well-founded and high degree of skepticism regarding Defense Distributed’s First and Second Amendment arguments are excellent starting points for future analysis.

Reprinted with permission from the April 7, 2026 issue of the New York Law Journal © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.