New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has been hit with a federal lawsuit over his efforts to prevent distribution of plans for making handguns with 3-D printers.

Groups advocating for unfettered access to such blueprints are seeking a judicial declaration that their constitutional rights were violated by the state's efforts to prevent their distribution. The suit was filed in federal court in Trenton Tuesday, just three days after the attorney general directed an internet services provider to take down a website devoted to the distribution of 3-D gun plans, according to the plaintiffs.

With the order to take down the website, “Grewal sought to compel the complete and total suppression of the political speech at CodeIsFreeSpeech.com, the links to other advocacy websites and their educational and political resources, links to political tee shirts, and even the very text of the United States Constitution itself,” the plaintiffs said in the complaint.

The plaintiffs are seeking a temporary and permanent injunction finding that the attorney general's efforts violate their free speech rights.

The suit was filed by Defense Distributed, an Austin, Texas, group that produces and publishes plans for making guns with a 3-D printer, and five groups that were behind the CodeIsFreeSpeech.com website: Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees. Brandon Combs, creator and developer of the website, is also a plaintiff.

Grewal stepped up his efforts to block distribution of the blueprints after the federal government reached an agreement with Defense Distributed allowing it to proceed with distribution of its plans. In a federal suit in Austin, Texas, Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State, the Trump administration reached a settlement in June 2018 allowing the public to go online to access plans for making firearms with a 3-D printer. Soon after that settlement was reached, Grewal began a “censorship campaign” that gave rise to the present suit, according to the complaint. The parties soon exchanged a slew of legal actions, with Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation suing Grewal in the Western District of Texas. Grewal did not consent to jurisdiction of the Texas court, and the case was dismissed on Jan. 30.

On July 30, Grewal sued Defense Distributed in state Superior Court in Essex County. That case was later removed to federal court in Newark and administratively dismissed.

Also on July 30, New Jersey and several other states joined Washington state in a suit against the State Department, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation. The judge in that case issued a temporary restraining order on July 31 enjoining the federal government from implementing portions of the settlement in the Texas litigation. And on Aug. 27, the plaintiffs in that case obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the settlement in the Texas case.

And in November, New Jersey enacted legislation that proponents said would allow courts to block the use of technology to produce firearms. The new law establishes a third-degree crime of purchasing parts from which an untraceable firearm may be assembled. A conviction under the law is punishable by three to five years in prison, a fine of up to $15,000, or both.

The latest suit says Grewal's actions infringe the plaintiffs' rights under the First and Second amendments. It brings claims for violations of their rights to free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to keep and bear arms. The suit also includes counts for violation of their equal protection and due process rights, and their rights under the dormant Commerce Clause limiting the authority of the states to enact laws burdening interstate commerce.

The suit also claims Grewal violated the Arms Export Control Act by regulating defendants under state laws that are pre-empted by federal law. The suit also claims Grewal violated the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes ISPs from information originating with a third-party user. Defense Distributed is a provider of an interactive computer service under the definition of the act, the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs are represented by Chad Flores of Beck Redden in Houston, Texas, and Daniel Schmutter of Hartman & Winnicki in Ridgewood. They did not respond to a request for comment.

Grewal's spokesman declined to comment on the filing. When Grewal filed the state court suit in July 2018, he said in a statement that “these dangerous files would allow anyone—including terrorists, domestic abusers, felons, fugitives and juveniles—to print untraceable assault weapons using a 3D printer from the comfort of their own homes. And because the guns would be printed without serial numbers, they would be untraceable by law enforcement, making it all the more difficult to solve crimes committed with these weapons. Once defendants open that Pandora's box, it can never be closed.”