A major constitutional battle is unfolding after Florida-based defendants in a California gun lawsuit officially fired back in federal court. Control Pew LLC and Alexander Holiday have filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, challenging what they call unlawful extraterritorial enforcement of California gun and speech laws.

The dispute stems from California’s recent civil enforcement action targeting online publication of firearm-related digital files and technical guides. Although the content was created, published, and maintained entirely in Florida, California officials argued that because the material is accessible online to California residents, it falls under the state’s regulatory authority.

Now, in a newly filed case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983. They argue that California’s actions violate the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment by attempting to regulate speech that occurs wholly outside of its borders.

At the heart of the lawsuit is a fundamental question: Can one state impose its laws on out-of-state individuals simply because their online content is accessible within that state?

The complaint asserts that if accessibility alone creates jurisdiction, then any state could effectively regulate nationwide internet speech. Critics warn that such a precedent would allow states with restrictive laws to control speech across the country, creating a patchwork of conflicting regulations.

The plaintiffs also argue that California’s enforcement efforts have already caused self-censorship, including halting copyright registrations and limiting publication activities due to fear of penalties.

This case could become one of the most significant First Amendment and Second Amendment battles in recent years. The outcome may determine not only the limits of state authority over online speech but also how firearm-related digital information is treated under constitutional protections.

As this legal fight progresses, courts will now have to decide whether California’s enforcement strategy crosses constitutional boundaries — and whether states can extend their regulatory reach beyond their own borders in the digital age.