livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Court dismisses Defense Distributed’s lawsuit over New Jersey “ghost gun” law
Judge avoids central question of whether NJ law barring gun file sales was constitutional
Sometimes lawsuits can be like real estate—all about location, location, location. And this week at a federal court in Texas, US District Judge Robert Pitman made a ruling (PDF) that ended Defense Distributed v. Grewal (PDF), the lawsuit brought last summer by the 3D printed firearms company (and colleagues like the Second Amendment Foundation) against New Jersey State Attorney General Gurbir Grewal.
From Defense Distributed's perspective, the core question involved whether a NJ statute aimed at regulating “ghost guns” violated the Constitution. The company believed such a law infringed on its right to free speech (among other legal claims). Judge Pitman, however, did not ultimately have to weigh in on that matter. Instead, he granted New Jersey's motion to dismiss on the grounds that he did not have jurisdiction to hear this matter in the first place.
The case for jurisdiction
Back at a hearing on January 15 (transcript available), attorneys for Defense Distributed and New Jersey outlined their arguments as to why or why not this particular case should be heard in a Texas federal courtroom. Prior legal precedent appeared split, but Defense Distributed attorney Chad Flores argued this case resembled Calder v. Jones. In that ruling, the Supreme Court did allow a court within a state to have personal jurisdiction over a national entity (the National Enquirer, based in Florida then, was sued for defamation in California after copies were distributed in-state). Flores argued that like Enquirer in Calder, the NJ statute does “change what people can say here in Texas,” therefore Pitman should have jurisdiction.
Further Reading
“This isn’t like shipping wine”—Defense Distributed v. Grewal has its day in court
Arguing for New Jersey, attorney Casey Low cited Walden v. Fiore, in which the Supreme Court found Nevada lacked personal jurisdiction over something that happened in Georgia because, as Oyez.org summarized, “a non-resident defendant [must] have a substantial connection with the state in which he is sued. This connection must arise from the contacts that the defendant himself creates.” Low argued the New Jersey statute did not create a substantial connection with Texas. “It’s at best like sending a cease-and-desist to tell them, ‘If you commit a crime, you’ll be under jurisdiction here,’" he said. "Just because the plaintiffs want to subject themselves to jurisdiction everywhere doesn’t mean New Jersey faces jurisdiction in Texas.”
Ultimately, Pitman found New Jersey's argument compelling, and this week he granted the state's motion to dismiss this case. "Defendants’ allegedly harmful conduct, however, has no relation to Texas, was not expressly aimed at Texas, and does not avail itself of any Texas laws or benefits," the judge's order (PDF) states. "The only relationship any of the Defendants’ actions have with the State of Texas is the 'mere fortuity' that Defense Distributed resides there."
More at ...
Court dismisses Defense Distributed’s lawsuit over New Jersey “ghost gun” law
Judge avoids central question of whether NJ law barring gun file sales was constitutional
Sometimes lawsuits can be like real estate—all about location, location, location. And this week at a federal court in Texas, US District Judge Robert Pitman made a ruling (PDF) that ended Defense Distributed v. Grewal (PDF), the lawsuit brought last summer by the 3D printed firearms company (and colleagues like the Second Amendment Foundation) against New Jersey State Attorney General Gurbir Grewal.
From Defense Distributed's perspective, the core question involved whether a NJ statute aimed at regulating “ghost guns” violated the Constitution. The company believed such a law infringed on its right to free speech (among other legal claims). Judge Pitman, however, did not ultimately have to weigh in on that matter. Instead, he granted New Jersey's motion to dismiss on the grounds that he did not have jurisdiction to hear this matter in the first place.
The case for jurisdiction
Back at a hearing on January 15 (transcript available), attorneys for Defense Distributed and New Jersey outlined their arguments as to why or why not this particular case should be heard in a Texas federal courtroom. Prior legal precedent appeared split, but Defense Distributed attorney Chad Flores argued this case resembled Calder v. Jones. In that ruling, the Supreme Court did allow a court within a state to have personal jurisdiction over a national entity (the National Enquirer, based in Florida then, was sued for defamation in California after copies were distributed in-state). Flores argued that like Enquirer in Calder, the NJ statute does “change what people can say here in Texas,” therefore Pitman should have jurisdiction.
Further Reading
“This isn’t like shipping wine”—Defense Distributed v. Grewal has its day in court
Arguing for New Jersey, attorney Casey Low cited Walden v. Fiore, in which the Supreme Court found Nevada lacked personal jurisdiction over something that happened in Georgia because, as Oyez.org summarized, “a non-resident defendant [must] have a substantial connection with the state in which he is sued. This connection must arise from the contacts that the defendant himself creates.” Low argued the New Jersey statute did not create a substantial connection with Texas. “It’s at best like sending a cease-and-desist to tell them, ‘If you commit a crime, you’ll be under jurisdiction here,’" he said. "Just because the plaintiffs want to subject themselves to jurisdiction everywhere doesn’t mean New Jersey faces jurisdiction in Texas.”
Ultimately, Pitman found New Jersey's argument compelling, and this week he granted the state's motion to dismiss this case. "Defendants’ allegedly harmful conduct, however, has no relation to Texas, was not expressly aimed at Texas, and does not avail itself of any Texas laws or benefits," the judge's order (PDF) states. "The only relationship any of the Defendants’ actions have with the State of Texas is the 'mere fortuity' that Defense Distributed resides there."
More at ...
Court dismisses Defense Distributed’s lawsuit over New Jersey “ghost gun” law
