Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 1 of 99
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`NO. _____________________________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF
`CALIFORNIA; STATE OF COLORADO;
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
`DELAWARE; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;
`STATE OF HAWAII; STATE OF ILLINOIS;
`STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF
`MARYLAND; COMMONWEALTH OF
`MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF
`MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA;
`STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW
`YORK; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA;
`STATE OF OREGON; COMMONWEALTH
`OF PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF RHODE
`ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; and
`COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`STATE; MICHAEL R. POMPEO, in his
`official capacity as Secretary of State;
`DIRECTORATE OF DEFENSE TRADE
`CONTROLS; MIKE MILLER, in his official
`capacity as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
`of Defense Trade Controls; SARAH
`HEIDEMA, in her official capacity as Director
`of Policy, Office of Defense Trade Controls
`Policy; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
`OF COMMERCE; WILBUR L. ROSS, in his
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 99
`
`official capacity as Secretary of Commerce;
`BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY;
`NAZAK NIKAKHTAR, in her official
`capacity as Assistant Secretary for Industry and
`Analysis, performing the non-exclusive duties
`of the Under Secretary for Industry and
`Security; RICH ASHOOH, in his official
`capacity as Assistant Secretary of Commerce
`for Export Administration,
`
`Defendants.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 3 of 99
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................... 9
`II.
`PARTIES ........................................................................................................................... 9
`III.
`IV. ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................................. 12
`A. The Statutory and Regulatory Framework............................................................... 12
`1. State Department: AECA, ITAR, and the Munitions List ............................... 12
`2. Commerce Department: ECRA, EAR, and the Commerce Control List ......... 15
`B. Defense Distributed’s Firearm Files ........................................................................ 18
`C. Defense Distributed’s Lawsuit against the Federal Government ............................ 20
`D. The Government’s Settlement Agreement with Defense Distributed ..................... 22
`E. The Government’s Actions in Accordance with the Settlement Agreement ........... 25
`1. The Proposed Rules (which do not mention 3D-printed guns) ........................ 25
`2. The Temporary Modification and Letter .......................................................... 29
`3. The Final Rules deregulating 3D-printed guns ................................................ 32
`F. Adverse Effects on the States’ Public Safety Laws ................................................. 38
`1. Washington’s Firearms Laws ........................................................................... 38
`2. California’s Firearms Laws .............................................................................. 42
`a. California’s Unsafe Handgun Act............................................................. 42
`b. California regulates machine guns, assault rifles, and large-capacity
`magazines.................................................................................................. 43
`c. California regulates the purchase, sale, and transfer of firearms .............. 43
`d. California law prohibits certain persons from possessing firearms .......... 44
`3. Colorado’s Firearms Laws ............................................................................... 44
`4. Connecticut’s Firearms Laws ........................................................................... 46
`a. Connecticut’s regulation of all lawful firearm owners ............................. 46
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
`
`i
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 4 of 99
`
`
`
`b. Connecticut’s regulation of sale, purchase, and transfer of possession
`of all firearms, even between lawful firearm owners ............................... 46
`c. Connecticut’s prohibition on possession of a firearm by certain
`persons ...................................................................................................... 47
`d. Connecticut’s regulation of assault weapons and machine guns .............. 48
`e. Connecticut’s prohibition on the manufacture and transfer of ghost
`guns ........................................................................................................... 49
`5. Delaware’s Firearms Laws ............................................................................... 49
`6. The District of Columbia’s Firearms Laws ...................................................... 51
`7. Hawaii’s Firearms Laws ................................................................................... 52
`8.
`Illinois’s Firearms Laws ................................................................................... 54
`9. Maine’s Firearms Laws .................................................................................... 57
`10. Maryland’s Firearms Laws ............................................................................... 60
`11. Massachusetts’s Firearms Laws ....................................................................... 61
`12. Michigan’s Firearms Laws ............................................................................... 63
`13. Minnesota’s Firearms Laws ............................................................................. 64
`14. New Jersey’s Firearms Laws............................................................................ 66
`15. New York’s Firearms Laws ............................................................................. 69
`16. North Carolina’s Firearms Laws ...................................................................... 71
`17. Oregon’s Firearms Laws .................................................................................. 73
`18. Pennsylvania’s Firearms Laws ......................................................................... 75
`19. Rhode Island’s Firearms Laws ......................................................................... 77
`20. Vermont’s Firearms Laws ................................................................................ 79
`21. Virginia’s Firearms Laws ................................................................................. 81
`CAUSES OF ACTION ................................................................................................... 83
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................. 88
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`ii
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 5 of 99
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`Plaintiffs the State of Washington, State of California, State of Colorado, State of
`Connecticut, State of Delaware, District of Columbia, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of
`Maine, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Michigan, State of
`Minnesota, State of New Jersey, State of New York, State of North Carolina, State of Oregon,
`Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, and Commonwealth
`of Virginia (collectively, the States) bring this lawsuit against Defendants the United States
`Department of State, Michael R. Pompeo, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Mike
`Miller, and Sarah Heidema (collectively, the “State Department” or “State Department
`Defendants”), and the United States Department of Commerce, Wilbur L. Ross, the Bureau of
`Industry and Security, Nazak Nikakhtar, and Rich Ashooh (collectively, the “Commerce
`Department” or “Commerce Department Defendants”).
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`This case addresses the renewed threat that downloadable guns, in the form of
`1.
`software or technology for the production of a firearm or firearm parts—such as Computer Aided
`Design (CAD) or similar files for the automated production of firearms using a 3D printer1—
`will proliferate worldwide through global export and publication on the internet. 3D-printed guns
`are functional weapons that are often undetectable by standard metal detectors because they are
`made out of material other than metal (e.g., plastic) and untraceable because they contain no
`serial numbers. Anyone with access to such files and a commercially available 3D printer could
`readily manufacture, possess, or transfer such a weapon—even those persons statutorily
`ineligible to possess firearms, such as violent felons, the mentally ill, and persons subject to
`protection and no-contact orders. As the federal government currently recognizes, the global
`dissemination of software and technology for the production of such weapons presents a “grave
`concern for the United States.” Control of Firearms, Guns, Ammunition and Related Articles the
`
`1 3D printing refers to technology that allows a person to make a three dimensional product using a digital
`file or software in conjunction with a printer that is directed by the software. See, e.g., https://3dprinting.com/what-
`is-3d-printing/ (last visited December 4, 2019).
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 6 of 99
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List
`(USML), 84 Fed. Reg. 4136 (Jan. 23, 2020) (Commerce Final Rule).
`Despite this acknowledgement, the federal government has published two final
`2.
`agency rules that will remove technical data related to 3D-printed firearms, including software
`and technology for the production of a firearm or firearm parts (“Firearm Files”) from the U.S.
`Munitions List (USML). The Arms Export Control Act (AECA) makes Munitions List items
`subject to federal export control and specifies how items can be removed from the Munitions
`List. 22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1), (a)(2), (f). Currently, Firearm Files are included on the Munitions
`List and subject to export control pursuant to AECA and the International Traffic in Arms
`Regulations (ITAR), which are administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
`(Directorate) within the State Department. The two Final Rules at issue—promulgated by the
`State and Commerce Departments, respectively, absent compliance with notice-and-comment
`requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—will remove Firearm Files from
`the Munitions List and nominally transfer them to the Commerce Department’s jurisdiction,
`where they will be exempt from any meaningful regulation and no longer subject to direct
`Congressional oversight. The Final Rules are scheduled to go into effect on March 9, 2020.
`If the Final Rules go into effect, Firearm Files will instantly become easily
`3.
`accessible both within the United States—including within the Plaintiff States’ borders—and
`outside the United States. Such files can enable anyone with access to a commercially available
`3D printer (or one that is free for public use) to automatically manufacture a working firearm
`out of plastic. Such undetectable weapons are illegal under the Undetectable Firearms Act, 18
`U.S.C. § 922(g), as the federal government has repeatedly recognized. Yet the federal
`government’s own actions will make these illegal weapons widely available, undermining its
`ability to enforce its own law. This will seriously compromise security in locations that rely on
`standard metal detectors, such as schools, courthouses, stadiums, concert halls, prisons, and
`airports. It will also impede law enforcement efforts to track and trace weapons used to commit
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`2
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 7 of 99
`
`
`
`crimes, as homemade firearms (whether plastic or metal) lack manufacturers’ serial numbers.
`The Final Rules’ deregulation of Firearm Files will make it far easier for individuals ineligible
`to possess firearms under state or federal law to obtain a deadly weapon without undergoing a
`background check.
`The State Department has already attempted to deregulate 3D-printed gun
`4.
`technology once without observing procedural safeguards designed to guard against abuses of
`power by unelected federal agencies. Its actions were vacated and set aside by this Court in
`November 2019. Washington, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, et al., No. C18-1115RSL, 2019 WL
`5892505 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2019). As the Court explained:
`
`Congress granted the President and his designees the discretion to remove an item
`from the USML in light of certain considerations and factors. Congress directed
`the agency to consider how the proliferation of weaponry and related technical
`data would impact world peace, national security, and foreign policy. The State
`Department essentially concedes
`that, despite
`the specified statutory
`considerations, it evaluated the export controls on small caliber firearms only
`through the prism of whether restricting foreign access would provide the United
`States with a military or intelligence advantage. Because the delisting was not
`‘based on consideration of the relevant factors and within the scope of the
`authority delegated to the agency by the statute,’ it must be invalidated under the
`APA[.]
`
`Id. at *8.
`The Court found that the State Department’s actions were arbitrary and capricious
`5.
`because, inter alia, the State Department failed to “consider how the proliferation of weaponry
`and related technical data would impact world peace, national security, and foreign policy,” as
`required by AECA. Furthermore, the Department failed to provide a “reasoned explanation” for
`reversing sub silentio its position as of April 2018 “that 3D-printed weapons posed unique
`threats” warranting regulation under AECA. Washington, 2019 WL 5892505, at *7–10; see 22
`U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1) (AECA’s purpose is to control exports “[i]n furtherance of world peace and
`the security and foreign policy of the United States”).
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`3
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 8 of 99
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`The Court further found that the State Department violated AECA’s requirement
`6.
`that Congress receive 30 days’ notice prior to the removal of any item from the Munitions List.
`Washington, 2019 WL 5892505, at *6–7.
`Now, the federal government acknowledges, as it must, that “maintaining
`7.
`controls over” the export of Firearm Files is “in the national security and foreign policy interests
`of the United States[.]” International Traffic In Arms Regulations: U.S. Munitions List
`Categories I, II, and III, 85 Fed. Reg. 3819 (Jan. 23, 2020) (State Final Rule). Nevertheless, the
`Final Rules would effectively deregulate Firearm Files—thereby accomplishing what the federal
`government was unable to do through a “temporary modification” removing Firearm Files from
`the Munitions List with no advance notice. The Final Rules suffer from substantially the same
`problems as the earlier deregulatory effort: they were promulgated absent adequate public notice
`and an opportunity to comment on the agencies’ actions, they are contrary to AECA, and they
`represent an arbitrary and capricious reversal of the State Department’s previous policy of
`controlling the export of Firearm Files under AECA for national security and related reasons.
`The federal government now purports to re-adopt that previous policy, while taking the position
`that the Final Rules adequately address national security and foreign policy concerns by retaining
`nominal export control over Firearm Files in certain limited circumstances. But in actuality, the
`Final Rules are toothless: they contain significant loopholes that will permit Firearm Files to be
`globally disseminated with ease, implicating all of the undisputed safety and security threats the
`government has acknowledged.
`On January 23, 2020, the State Department published a Final Rule, effective
`8.
`March 9, 2020, that—as promised in the same private Settlement Agreement that prompted the
`prior “temporary modification”—will permanently remove Firearm Files from the Munitions
`List. State Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 3819. The same day, the Commerce Department published
`a companion Final Rule, also effective March 9, 2020, that purports to subject the items removed
`from the Munitions List (including Firearm Files) to Commerce’s regulatory jurisdiction under
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`4
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 9 of 99
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`its Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Commerce Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 4136. These
`Final Rules are the subject of the present lawsuit. True and correct copies of the Final Rules are
`submitted as Attachments 1 and 2 hereto.
`The Final Rules effectively deregulate 3D-printable gun files entirely. Because
`9.
`the Commerce Department lacks jurisdiction over “published” items, the Final Rules create a
`self-executing loophole whereby anyone can automatically divest Commerce of jurisdiction over
`Firearm Files simply by disseminating them to members of the U.S. public (which is not
`prohibited by federal law). This exception to Commerce’s jurisdiction is broad and significant
`because it is so easy to “publish” Firearm Files. Indeed, a private company known as Defense
`Distributed has already published some Firearm Files, rendering those files outside Commerce’s
`jurisdiction pursuant to the Final Rule. For example, Defense Distributed represented to this
`Court that it has disseminated its files domestically to members of the public by mail.
`The Commerce Final Rule acknowledges the “published” exception, and purports
`10.
`to create an exception to the exception to maintain control of Firearm Files. However, the
`exception to the exception is severely limited. Specifically, it purports to retain jurisdiction over:
`
`“software” or “technology” for the production of a firearm, or firearm frame or
`receiver, controlled under ECCN 0A501, that is made available by posting on the
`internet in an electronic format, such as AMF or G-code, and is ready for insertion
`into a computer numerically controlled machine tool, additive manufacturing
`equipment, or any other equipment that makes use of the “software” or
`“technology” to produce the firearm frame or receiver or complete firearm.
`
`
`Commerce Final Rule § 734.7(c).
`The exception to the exception fails to retain meaningful regulatory control over
`11.
`Firearm Files for a number of reasons, including the following:
`First, it generally allows anyone to export published Firearm Files, with
`a.
`no restrictions or oversight whatsoever, by any means other than “posting on the internet.”2 This
`
`2 Under existing regulations, an “export” includes not only online posting, but also “sending or taking a
`defense article out of the United States in any manner” and “transferring technical data to a foreign person in the
`United States,” among other activities. 22 CFR § 120.17.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`5
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 10 of 99
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`means Firearm Files can be transmitted directly to foreign entities and organizations, including
`known terrorist groups or other bad actors. For example, a company like Defense Distributed
`could advertise the availability of its Firearm Files on the internet, then email the files to any
`foreign individual or organization that requests them (without ever making the files themselves
`“available by posting on the internet”).
`Second, once Firearm Files are lawfully exported in this way (thus placing
`b.
`them beyond U.S. jurisdiction), they can be posted on the internet from outside the United
`States—thus making them available both outside and inside the United States, with no ability to
`claw them back. The universal and permanent availability of Firearm Files on the internet will
`cause all the same irreparable harms established in the prior Washington litigation.
`Third, the Final Rules only provide for export-control jurisdiction over a
`c.
`limited subset of Firearm Files: namely, those that are “ready for insertion” into a 3D printer or
`similar device. But Commerce will lack jurisdiction over files that can be easily converted to a
`readable format using readily available 3D-printing software. Such convertible files could be
`posted on the internet from inside the United States, without any direct transfer to a foreign
`individual or organization.
`These and other glaring loopholes in the Commerce Final Rule are discussed further below.
`In addition, the Final Rules violate fundamental APA procedural requirements.
`12.
`Though the Final Rules were ostensibly promulgated in accordance with a notice-and-comment
`rulemaking process, this process occurred after the federal government decided to deregulate
`Firearm Files pursuant to a Settlement Agreement with Defense Distributed. Defense
`Distributed’s stated objective is to ensure global, unrestricted access to firearms by posting
`Firearm Files online so that virtually everyone will have access to a “downloadable gun.” The
`Final Rules fulfill the promise in the Settlement Agreement to “fully pursue” a “final rule to
`remove the files at issue from ITAR jurisdiction.” The Settlement Agreement was reached before
`the State and Commerce Departments had even published their Notices of Proposed Rulemaking
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`6
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 11 of 99
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`(NPRMs) in the Federal Register, much less had the opportunity to consider any public
`comments. Indeed, this Court found that public comments opposing the removal of Firearm Files
`from the Munitions List “were not considered by the agency when it issued the temporary
`modification and [related] letter.” Washington, 2019 WL 5892505, at *3.
`13. Moreover, the NPRMs do not mention 3D-printed firearms at all. See 83 Fed.
`Reg. 24,198 (May 24, 2018) (State NPRM); 83 Fed. Reg. 24,166 (May 24, 2018) (Commerce
`NPRM). One must read between the lines of the 2018 NPRMs to understand that in combined
`effect, the proposed rules would permanently deregulate 3D-printable firearm files. As such, the
`NPRMs failed to provide adequate notice to the public that the proposed jurisdictional transfer
`would affect not only items that are “widely available” for commercial sale, as the NPRMs claim,
`but would also effectively deregulate Firearm Files that enable virtually anyone to automatically
`manufacture illegal firearms that are undetectable and untraceable, and authorize their global
`dissemination. In fact, the Commerce NPRM misleadingly claims that “[t]his proposed rule does
`not deregulate the transferred items.”
`The Commerce Final Rule’s exception to the exception purporting to retain
`14.
`export jurisdiction over certain published Firearm Files likewise was not included in the NPRM,
`depriving the public of an opportunity to comment on the significant problems with that
`regulatory regime (including those discussed in Paragraph 11, supra). Thus, even though some
`commenters discussed the proposed rules’ implications for 3D-printed guns in general, they had
`no opportunity to comment on the problems with the specific provisions revealed for the first
`time in the Commerce Final Rule. Tellingly, the Final Rules do not address the glaring problems
`with these specific provisions identified above, or any other issues with those provisions—
`because commenters had no opportunity to raise them.
`If the Final Rules go into effect, they will permit Defense Distributed and others
`15.
`to export Firearm Files anywhere, to anyone. As a direct result, such files will inevitably be
`published on the internet, making downloadable guns available to anyone with access to a 3D
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`7
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 12 of 99
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`printer inside or outside the United States. That is exactly the result this Court previously issued
`an injunction to prevent, and that the federal government now purportedly wishes to avoid.
`Not only do the Final Rules deregulate the files Defense Distributed currently has
`16.
`in its possession, but they also deregulate Firearm Files categorically, including files for the
`automatic manufacture of more technologically advanced weapons that may be developed in the
`future. The Commerce Department will lack the flexibility to address such new technology on
`an ad hoc basis because, under its own regulations, it lacks export-control jurisdiction once such
`technology is “published.”
`The Final Rules violate the APA, including for the following reasons:
`17.
`The Final Rules are procedurally improper because the public did not
`a.
`receive adequate notice or an opportunity to comment on them, and they are not a logical
`outgrowth of the agency’s rulemaking process.
`Defendants violated AECA by taking action contrary to the statute’s
`b.
`stated purpose of regulating exports “[i]n furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign
`policy of the United States[.]” 22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1). Removing Firearm Files from the
`Munitions List (and transferring jurisdiction to an agency that lacks any meaningful ability to
`regulate them) actively frustrates this purpose by facilitating the global proliferation of uniquely
`dangerous weapons, as the administrative record shows.
`The Final Rules are the product of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking
`c.
`and abuse of agency discretion. The State and Commerce Departments acted arbitrarily and
`capriciously by inter alia (i) failing to meaningfully consider the factors Congress identified as
`relevant to whether an item should remain on the Munitions List, including impacts on world
`peace, national security, and foreign policy; (ii) drastically changing long-established practice
`and policy regarding export control of Firearm Files, while failing to give due consideration to
`the Final Rules’ real-world implications in light of acknowledged issues related to safety and
`security; and (iii) promulgating Final Rules that have a significant impact on the public pursuant
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`8
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 13 of 99
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`to a private settlement agreement, while treating the APA’s notice-and-comment procedure as a
`pro forma exercise rather than an important information-gathering step that should precede an
`agency decision.
`Defendants’ unlawful actions—if allowed to stand—will lead to the proliferation
`18.
`of downloadable guns overseas and domestically, threatening our national security. The
`proliferation of untraceable and undetectable weapons within the United States threatens to
`cripple the various States’ extensive and comprehensive systems of firearms regulations
`designed to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
`For these reasons and others detailed below, Defendants violated the APA by
`19.
`promulgating Final Rules that are procedurally defective, contrary to law, and arbitrary and
`capricious. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706, the Plaintiff States ask the Court to enjoin, vacate, and
`set aside the Final Rules.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`II.
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties hereto pursuant to
`20.
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, and 2202.
`Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Plaintiff
`21.
`the State of Washington is located here and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
`rise to the claim occurred or will imminently occur here. In particular, the dissemination of the
`Firearm Files in question will have an adverse impact on the public safety in the City of Seattle
`and King County, Washington, which are located in this district.
`PARTIES
`III.
`The Plaintiff States, represented by and through their respective Attorneys
`22.
`General, are sovereign states of the United States of America. The security of the Plaintiff States
`is threatened by Defendants’ deregulation of Firearm Files via the Final Rules. The States bring
`this action to redress harms to their sovereign authority, quasi-sovereign authority, proprietary
`interests, and interests as parens patriae.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`9
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
`Complex Litigation Division
`800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98104-3188
`(206) 474-7744
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ Document 1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 14 of 99
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`The States have sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests in protecting the security
`23.
`and well-being of their residents. “The States . . . perform many of the vital functions of modern
`government—punishing street crime, running public schools, and zoning property for
`development, to name but a few—even though the Constitution’s text does not authorize any
`governme