My Cart



3D Guns Court & Docket update

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on July 30 2018

as previously discussed in yesterday’s entry found here 


So a few moments ago the Judge entered this final order dismissing this case with prejudice. To date there’s no open source link to today’s order but the pacer link can be found here 

And it should be noted that the Brady Center & Gifford Law Center along with several other parties on July 25, 2018 filed a  JOINT EMERGENCY MOTION for Leave to Intervenors by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. Giffords. Documents 96-1 thru 96-6. This was a follow up to their July 24th Letter to the Judge, link found here.



On July 27th, U.S. District Judge ROBERT PITMAN issued an 8 page Order Denying the aforementioned Emergency TRO. Not that it matters but the Court failed to update the NEW Secretary of State, unless John Kerry is still our SOS vs Sec Pompeo, but I digress.


Before the Court are a Joint Emergency Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc., and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (“the Brady Center”) (together, “Movants”), as well as a Joint Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction filed by the same parties, (Dkt. 97). Today, the Court held a hearing to consider the two motions.

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the evidence, and the relevant law, the Court will deny both motions. 


Federal Civil Rules of Procedure 24(a)(1), requires any movant to adhere to said rule OR must meet each of the four requirements of Rule 24(a)(2):

(1) the application for intervention must be timely;

(2) the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action;

(3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest;

(4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit.

I now refer you to page 3, paragraph 2 and page 4 paragraph which reads in part:


Plaintiffs argue that Movants fail to meet all four prongs of Rule 24(a)(2). (Mem. Opp. Mot. Intervene, Dkt. 107, at 15–24). Because the Court finds that Movants do not meet the second prong—the requirement of a sufficient interest in the main action—the Court need not analyze the remaining prongs.

The Court finds that Movants’ interest in this action is too generalized to establish their entitlement to intervention by right.


Moving along to pages 5 & 6, while the Court does have broad discretion this Court declined to use said discretion. Furthermore the Court also concluded the Movants lacked “standing” which is required.


The Court finds no authority to support the notion that simply expending organizational resources in support of a set of policy goals is sufficient to establish a legally protectable interest for purposes of Rule 24(a)(2), and Movants have cited none.

Movants are not entitled to intervention...

There are no questions of law or fact common to both the main action and Movants’ claims.

Contrary to the Movants’ belief, “an intervenor of right must have Article III standing in order to pursue relief that is different from that hich is sought by a party with standing.“


Pages 7 & 8, the Court’s rationale is the aforementioned parties lack standing therefore the action they sought are impermissible. I will say in my opinion the Court’s comments about the parties, gives me considerable pause, to that end my opinion is the Court was out of line and may have inadvertently created “controversy” hence now the Movants May actually have “standing” again that’s just my opinion. So don’t take it as gospel:


Movants submitted a declaration identifying activities they have undertaken since learning about the Agreement, such as “researching 3-D gun printing technology”; communicating with members, supporters, and lawmakers; submitting Freedom of Information Act requests related to the Agreement, and “work related to bringing the
instant legal action.

It is unclear how much of this work differs from the Movants’ “routine lobbying activities.”

For example, the Brady Center avers that if not for responding to the
Agreement, it would have been able to use more resources to work on “strengthening gun laws,” “fighting in the courts to defend gun laws,” and “providing direct legal advocacy on behalf of victims and communities affected by gun violence.


And then just like that, one by one various Attorneys General started tweeting and/or issuing public statements about the 3D gun “software” release:


Pennsylvania Attorney General:

Link to PA AG’s lawsuit found here


Washington Attorney General:

Earlier today, Attorney General Ferguson announces a coalition of the following State’s Attorney General:

Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.

Link to the 52 page Complaint can be found here. As the Complaint clearly states as recent as April of 2018:


Government’s position was that if such CAD files were distributed via the internet, they could be “easily used overseas to make firearms that are subject to U.S. export controls”, where, “beyond the reach of U.S. law, they could be used to threaten U.S. national security, U.S. foreign policy interests, or international peace and stability.”

On the website run by Defense Distributed people can download plans for building the Liberator, as well as files for an AR-15 lower receiver, a complete Baretta M9 handgun and other firearms. Users also will be able to share their own designs for guns, magazines and other accessories.
🚨The site on Monday showed more than 12,000 downloads of seven different models of guns.

While you're here, throw us a bone.

Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.

Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.



Leave a comment

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing