Legal Decision in California Curbs Sale of 3D Gun-Making Machines
A significant legal ruling has emerged from California, impacting the controversial industry of homemade firearm manufacturing. On March 28, 2025, San Diego Superior Court Judge Loren Freestone issued an injunction that halts Texas-based Defense Distributed’s ability to sell machines designed for producing 3D-printable firearms to California residents. This decision comes amid an ongoing lawsuit initiated by the state against the company.
Background on Defense Distributed
Established in 2012, Defense Distributed specializes in manufacturing computer numerical control (CNC) milling machines that are capable of constructing firearms from 3D-printed parts. California’s legal action against Defense Distributed began in 2024, focusing on the serious implications that these machines could have in enabling the proliferation of ghost guns—unserialized firearms that are often untraceable by law enforcement.
Legal Arguments and Court Findings
State’s Position
The lawsuit contends that the machines manufactured by Defense Distributed facilitate the production of ghost guns, which create significant challenges for law enforcement. The California government also named Coast Runner Industries and its subsidiary, Ghost Gunner, in the lawsuit, asserting that these brands operate as fronts to circumvent strict gun control laws in the state.
Defense’s Assertion
During the court proceedings, attorney Chad Flores, representing Coast Runner, argued that their milling machines are multipurpose tools capable of manufacturing various items beyond firearms, such as screws. He emphasized that restricting sales of these machines would infringe on the company’s constitutional rights, referencing the 2022 Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen as supportive of their position.
Judge’s Ruling and Implications
In a preliminary ruling, Judge Freestone largely sided with the California authorities, stating, “there is no historical basis for an unrestricted right to personally manufacture firearms.” He maintained that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating both the production and distribution of firearms and associated machinery. The judge expressed that while the Second Amendment protects against severe restrictions on acquiring firearms, it does not guarantee an unregulated right to manufacture them privately.
According to Freestone, there is evidence suggesting that Defense Distributed made attempts to circumvent existing laws by rebranding its Ghost Gunner machine under the name Coast Runner. His injunction therefore extends to any similar machines that share characteristics with those historically marketed for firearm production.
Context of the Lawsuit
This ruling comes against a backdrop of intense legal battles surrounding the regulation of ghost guns. In 2022, Defense Distributed had previously attempted to challenge a California statute that imposed stringent regulations on ghost gun manufacturing. This legislation, Senate Bill 1327, empowers individuals to file lawsuits against those who distribute illegal firearms or firearm parts, mirroring a similar law in Texas designed to restrict abortion rights.
Future Implications
With California recovering approximately 12,894 ghost guns in 2022 that were linked to criminal activity, state officials argue for the pressing need to regulate the tools that can create such untraceable weapons. As the case progresses, the ramifications of this ruling could significantly influence how states can enforce regulations not only on firearms but also on the machinery used for their manufacture.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the intersection of gun rights, manufacturing regulations, and public safety remains a contentious and evolving issue in American jurisprudence.
For further insights and ongoing updates, please contact José Niño, a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. He shares additional viewpoints through his newsletter, “Jose Nino Unfiltered,” on Substack.
