When the Second depends on the First....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...Amendment.

Defense Distributed is a company based in Texas that sells 3D printer files which can be used to produce operational firearms. At present the ATF allows individuals to manufacture a functional firearm. This can be done in a home based machine shop or via a 3D printer. No federal license is required. Obviously individuals are subject to state and local laws in general and have personal responsibility to know and follow laws in their owns jurisdictions.

The NJ Attorney General has sent the company a cease-and-desist letter that threatened legal action if they continued marketing their product. The state also sued the Texas company in NJ civil court.

https://newjerseyglobe.com/judiciary/gun-company-can-sue-grewal-in-texas-federal-appellate-court-rules/
The company [Defense Distributed] mounted a legal challenge against Grewal [NJ AG] in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging that New Jersey’s top law enforcement official violated their First and Second Amendment rights by threatening them with criminal sanctions at a 2018 press conference and asking third-party internet service providers in California to terminate their contracts with Defense Distributed. New Jersey had also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company in New Jersey.

The Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that backed up Grewal's claim that he wasn’t subject to jurisdiction of Texas courts.

"Grewal's conduct beyond sending the cease-and-desist letter confirms his intent to crush Defense Distributed's operations and not simply limit the dissemination of digital files in New Jersey," the Fifth Circuit said. "Grewal's enforcement actions are selective. He has not targeted the many similarly-situated persons who publish Defense Distributed's files on the internet."

The court found that Grewal's decision to take its fight against the company outside New Jersey’s borders opened the door to facing a lawsuit in Texas.

IMO:
There can certainly be requirements for out of state companies that market in NJ to comply with NJ laws.
Constitutionally enumerated powers relating to interstate commerce would give the federal government a voice as well.

There are two issues which bother me most involved here. I see the actions of the NJ AG as overzealous enforcement. The most bothersome aspect of which is the tone set by such conduct giving a bad example to law enforcement and prosecutors. In this time where police are guilty of many forms of overstepping authority, I see any actions by police management officials or prosecutors that overstep in any way as disastrously poor leadership. There are many examples of bad practice such as civil forfeiture which clearly abuse the rights of lawful citizens but are often championed by prosecutors and police.

Second and to a basic issue of rights and freedoms, is a law restricting information that remains lawful in many states acceptable in some other states?

Is this an issue, based on the commerce clause, that should be resolved at the federal level?

{ Thanks to the post in the NJ group for highlighting this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10662658 }