Trump Administration Is Barred From Enforcing 3D Gun Rules

(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump’s administration was blocked from enforcing new rules on 3D-printed guns that U.S. states including New York and California say would lead to the “widespread proliferation” of homemade firearms.

A federal judge in Seattle on Friday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the rules, which the states contend are a “toothless prohibition” on gun-printing software that would let anyone with a 3D printer, including criminals and terrorists, make firearms at home. The rules were scheduled to take effect Monday.

President Barack Obama’s administration had blocked a company from publishing computer-aided design files for guns on the internet for years. The State Department under Trump reversed course in 2018 and settled litigation with the firm. In November, a federal judge ruled in a related lawsuit that the State Department didn’t give the public a proper explanation for the reversal.

The states, which also include Washington, New Jersey and several others, claim the revised rules would let the U.S. Commerce Department grant licenses to post 3D-printed gun files to the internet or to export them without congressional oversight. They sued in January to block the regulations from going into effect.

The Commerce Department didn’t respond to a call and email seeking comment on the ruling.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said on Twitter on Saturday that the states would keep working to stop the administration “from further facilitating the spread of gun violence across this nation.”

Read More: Trump Administration Sued by States Over 3D-Printed-Gun Rule

U.S. District Judge Richard Jones said he must acknowledge the “grave reality” that is likely if the rules aren’t blocked.

“The proliferation of 3D gun files on the internet likely renders ineffective arms embargoes, export controls and other measures used to restrict the availability of uniquely dangerous weapons sought by those seeking to commit acts of terrorism or other serious crimes” and “implicates serious national security and public interests,” Jones said.

The case is Washington v. U.S. State Department, 20-cv-111, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle).

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.