California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, has launched a controversial lawsuit that is drawing national attention. The case targets companies and individuals accused of distributing digital firearm-related files online — not selling firearms, not trafficking weapons, but sharing computer code.

At the center of the lawsuit is the claim that certain digital files used in 3D printing firearm components violate California’s so-called “ghost gun” laws. However, critics argue the lawsuit goes far beyond firearm regulation and directly challenges First Amendment protections.

For decades, U.S. courts have recognized computer code as protected speech. Legal precedent has consistently held that digital files, source code, and technical data fall under the umbrella of free expression. That’s why this case has alarmed constitutional advocates across the country.

The lawsuit, titled People of California v. Gatalog Foundation LLC, seeks to block distribution of online firearm-related files nationwide. Opponents warn that if California succeeds in restricting digital information because it could potentially be misused, it sets a dangerous precedent. Today it may be firearm CAD files — tomorrow it could be encryption software, engineering schematics, or other technical publications.

Supporters of the defendants argue this is not about crime prevention but about expanding state power over speech. They emphasize that the individuals named in the lawsuit are not accused of violent acts or unlawful firearm transfers. Instead, the dispute centers entirely on the sharing of information.

The broader concern is federalism and constitutional limits. States traditionally cannot enforce their policies beyond their borders, especially when doing so affects constitutionally protected speech. If courts allow California’s approach to stand, it could reshape how governments regulate online content related to lawful activities.

As this case moves forward, it will likely test the balance between public safety arguments and core constitutional protections. Regardless of where one stands on gun policy, many legal analysts agree: when the government attempts to regulate knowledge itself, the implications reach far beyond a single issue.