Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, GOVERNOR TOM
WOLF, ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH
SHAPIRO, and PENNSYLVANIA STATE
POLICE, CIVIL ACTION NO: __________

Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v.

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED, DEFCAD,

GHOST GUNNER and CODY WILSON,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “Commonwealth”), Governor Tom Wolf,

Attorney General Josh Shapiro and the Pennsylvania State Police (the “State Police”) (together,

the “Plaintiffs”), by and through the Attorney General, hereby file this Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”) against Defendants Defense

Distributed, DEFCAD, Ghost Gunner, and Cody Wilson (together, the “Defendants”) and

respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion and issue a temporary restraining order

consistent with the proposed form of order attached hereto, enjoining the Defendants from making

any 3D printable firearms available over the internet in Pennsylvania or assisting anyone else in

doing so.
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 2 of 18

In support of its Motion, the Plaintiffs rely on the facts and law set forth in their supporting

Memorandum of Law and Verified Complaint in this action.

Respectfully submitted,

JOSH SHAPIRO
Attorney General
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

July 30, 2018 /s Jonathan Scott Goldman

JONATHAN SCOTT GOLDMAN
J. BART DELONE
LAUREN E. SULCOVE
PA Atty. Nos. 93909, 42540, and 92969
Office of Attorney General
Strawberry Square, 16th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-3391
jgoldman@attorneygeneral.gov

128904.00798/101176771v.7
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 3 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, GOVERNOR TOM
WOLF, ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH
SHAPIRO, and PENNSYLVANIA STATE
POLICE, CIVIL ACTION NO: __________

Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT
v.

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED, DEFCAD,

GHOST GUNNER and CODY WILSON,

Defendants.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND NOW, on this ____ day of ____________, 2018, upon the Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Wolf, Attorney General Josh Shapiro and the Pennsylvania State

Police (together, the “Plaintiffs”) against Defendants Defense Distributed, DEFCAD, Ghost

Gunner, and Cody Wilson (together, the “Defendants”), Plaintiffs’ supporting Memorandum of

Law, the Verified Complaint, and supporting materials, and Defendants’ opposition, if any, and

having held a hearing on ___________________, 2018, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have

established that:

1. There is a substantial likelihood that the Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of

their claims against the Defendants;

128904.00798/101176771v.7
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 4 of 18

2. The Plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the Defendants’

unlawful conduct remains unabated;

3. The irreparable injury the Plaintiffs face outweighs the injury that the Defendants

will sustain as a result of the immediate injunctive relief; and

4. The public interest will be served by the granting of the immediate injunctive relief.

WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, and the Defendants are

hereby bound by the following terms:

1. For the duration of this Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants Defense

Distributed, DEFCAD, Ghost Gunner, and Cody Wilson are enjoined from taking any action to

make any 3D printable firearms available over the internet in Pennsylvania and from assisting

anyone else in doing so.

2. The Defendants shall maintain and hold all records, documents, or other forms of

information, including that which is stored in electronic form in any place which the Defendants

may store such information, which relate to the allegations in the Verified Complaint, to ensure

the fair conduct of this litigation.

3. Any person, including any corporation, partnership, franchise, or other business

entity, having received notice of this Order pursuant, shall afford it full faith and credit and

undertake all reasonable efforts to safeguard any information relating to the Plaintiffs’ claims and

take no any action to assist the Defendants in making any 3D printable firearms available over the

internet in Pennsylvania.

128904.00798/101176771v.7
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 5 of 18

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1. A hearing is set on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction to be held on

, 2018, at o’clock a.m./p.m. in Courtroom of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

2. The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General shall immediately provide notice of

this Order and, to the extent they have not already, make service of all papers upon the Defendants.

3. This Temporary Restraining Order is entered at a.m./p.m. and shall

remain in effect unless otherwise modified by an order of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED this ______ day of ______________, 2018.

___________________________________
U.S.D.J.

128904.00798/101176771v.7
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 6 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, GOVERNOR TOM
WOLF, ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH
SHAPIRO, and PENNSYLVANIA STATE
POLICE, CIVIL ACTION NO: __________

Plaintiffs,
v.

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED, DEFCAD,

GHOST GUNNER and CODY WILSON,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “Commonwealth”), Governor Tom

Wolf, Attorney General Josh Shapiro and the Pennsylvania State Police (the “State Police”)

(together, the “Plaintiffs”), by and through the Attorney General, hereby file this Memorandum of

Law in support of their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

against Defendants Defense Distributed, DEFCAD, Ghost Gunner, and Cody Wilson (together,

the “Defendants”) to enjoin the Defendants from making any 3D printable firearms available over

the internet in Pennsylvania or assisting anyone else in doing so.

I. INTRODUCTION

In this action, the Plaintiffs seek to uphold and maintain the rule of law in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – nothing more and nothing less. Imminently, by actions taken

and threatened, the Defendants promise to upend both Pennsylvania and federal law and aid and

abet others in doing so. The Defendants’ actions, for example, violate the rule of law with respect
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 7 of 18

to the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act. 18 Pa. C.S. § 6101, et seq.; public nuisance under

common law, Section 821B of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and criminal law, 18 Pa. C.S.

§6504; corruption of minors, 18 Pa. C.S. § 6301; Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and

Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq., and the express prohibition set forth in Chapter

10-2000 of the Philadelphia Code on using a 3D printer to create any firearm – or even any piece

of a firearm – unless that person has a license to manufacture firearms under 18 U.S.C. §923(a),

PHILA., PA CODE §10-2002 (2013). They also violate and encourage others to violate the

Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, including but not limited to § 922 (p) under which it is unlawful

for any person to manufacture, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that

cannot be detected by a walk-through metal detector or identified as a firearm by the types of x-

ray machines used at airports. See 18 U.S.C. § 922 (p). With respect to each, the Defendants are

aiding and abetting others to commit unlawful acts, 18 Pa. C.S. § 306.

For a nominal fee, anyone can become a “member” of Defense Distributed. When you

enroll, you are not asked for proof of age or valid gun license or permit; you need only pick a

username and password, and supply an email. Defense Distributed promises that, by joining,

members “do more than ‘protect’ the Second Amendment. They fund its direct, material

expansion.”1 What they mean is this: imminently members and others will be able to download

an actual, working gun, printed immediately to their 3D printers in un-metal-detectable plastic.

Or, as they have promised: On August 1, 2018, “[t]he age of the downloadable gun formally

begins.”2

1
Emphasis added.
2
Emphasis added.

2
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 8 of 18

The Defendants will presumably claim that they are merely distributing “computer code,”

as if they are an internet library or bookseller. They are not. They are selling actual working guns,

plastic and undetectable, distributing them to whomever downloads and 3D-prints them. Rather

than an in-person sale or delivery by post with a box to open, the Defendants deliver your gun to

you directly through your internet connection. It can be “printed” on your 3D printer and

immediately available for use. No I.D.; no background check; no waiting period.

Far from a book containing ideas or computer code to be read and considered, the

Defendants’ business is more like downloading music today through the internet: Though the

songs may be made of bits and bytes, what the purchaser receives is actual music – the same music

that in earlier days might have been purchased from the record store and played as a 33 or 45-inch

record, 8-track, cassette tape or compact disc. And the downloaded music can be played by simply

opening the file and pressing play.

Similarly, with the Defendants “downloadable guns,” here, all the purchaser need do is

print, load and fire. But guns are not like books or music that can be sold under the First

Amendment subject to only limited restriction. They are Second Amendment-protected,

potentially-deadly weapons for which our society – and our Commonwealth – has created complex

legal controls to help keep us safe. Among these controls are our criminal laws, including the

Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act. 18 Pa. C.S. § 6101, et seq. These long-settled legal statutes

require protections such as minimum ages for purchase, background checks, and valid firearms

licenses and permits. Violating these criminal statutes, or aiding and abetting others in doing so,

constitute felonies and misdemeanors of various degrees under the law. Defendants do both here.

The Defendants – by intention and design – bypass these established legal requirements to

instantaneously deliver real, workable firearms to any Pennsylvanian with access to an internet

3
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 9 of 18

connection and 3D printer. The damage is imminent and irreversible: with the settlement of a

federal action in Texas on Friday, July 27, the Defendants are free to – and promise to – distribute

guns in Pennsylvania, and beyond, in negligent, reckless and knowing disregard of the criminal

laws that apply to gun sales and purchases in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Once these

guns are on the streets and in the classrooms of our Commonwealth, they can never be retrieved.

And, while the damage these guns will cause might be measured in general lawlessness and

specific loss of life and limb, it cannot be compensated for by money damages.

For these reasons, and in accordance with the application for temporary restraining order

and preliminary and permanent injunction filed herewith, the Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court

to issue an immediate order enjoining the Defendants from making any 3D printable firearms

available over the internet in Pennsylvania and assisting anyone else in doing so.

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

A. THE DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT PRESENTS AN IMMINENT AND

IRREVERSIBLE THREAT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND RULE OF
LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA AND PENNSYLVANIANS.

The Defendants have acknowledged that they are imminently making available to the

public on their mainstream website “downloadable guns” that can be printed directly to a 3D

printer. (Complaint, attached as Ex. “A” and incorporated herein by reference (“Compl.”) at ¶ 8.)

Indeed, Defense Distributed promises that, by joining, members “do more than ‘protect’ the

Second Amendment. They fund its direct, material expansion.” (Compl. at ¶ 10.) With the Friday,

July 27 settlement of a federal action in Texas, nothing prevents Defendants from allowing its

members to download an actual, working gun, printed immediately to their 3D printers in un-

metal-detectable plastic. Id. As Defendants, have promised, “[t]he age of the downloadable gun

formally begins.” Id.

4
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 10 of 18

The Defendants’ actions violate the rule of law with respect to the Pennsylvania Uniform

Firearms Act. 18 Pa. C.S. § 6101, et seq. (Compl. at ¶¶ 28-37); public nuisance under common

law, Section 821B of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and criminal law public nuisances, 18 Pa.

C.S. §6504 (Id. at ¶¶ 27-37); aiding and abetting (Id. Throughout), 18 Pa. C.S. § 306; corruption

of minors (Id. at ¶ 45) 18 Pa. C.S. § 6301; Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer

Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq. (Id. at ¶¶ 41-52); and the express prohibition set forth in

Chapter 10-2000 of the Philadelphia Code on using a 3D printer to create any firearm – or even

any piece of a firearm – unless that person has a license to manufacture firearms under 18 U.S.C.

§923(a), PHILA., PA CODE §10-2002 (2013). (Id. at ¶¶ 35-37.)

Defendant Cody Wilson is a self-described “crypto-anarchist” and “insurrectionist”.

(Compl. at ¶ 16.) Mr. Wilson has explained that he “represent[s] the destruction of commonsense

gun control,” and people “should be very afraid.” Id. When asked by a reporter in 2017 whether

he agreed with Wired Magazine naming him “the 15th most dangerous person alive” in its

December 12, 2012 issue, he responded: “The words were not true then. But I would like them to

be true one day.” Id. That was 2012, when Mr. Wilson was a “24-year-old University of Texas

law student … working on a 3D printable gun, the digital files of which he then planned to

distribute to anyone who wanted them.” Id.

According to Mr. Wilson, he initially released his “downloadable gun” on the internet,

through Defendant Defense Distributed, on May 6, 2013; within two days the United States

Department demanded that Defense Distributed take the product offline, and Mr. Wilson sued the

State Department. Id. That litigation just settled. Now Mr. Wilson has asserted that he will make

his downloadable gun available to the masses by broadly releasing technical information that is

not yet available on the internet and will enable the 3D printing of firearms. Id.

5
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 11 of 18

Defense Distributed does business in Pennsylvania and with Pennsylvanians through

websites including https://defdist.org/, https://defcad.com/, and https://ghostgunner.net/. (Compl.

at ¶ 12.) For a nominal fee ($5 per month – or even less for longer membership terms), anyone

can become a member of Defense Distributed. (Compl. at ¶ 9.) When you enroll, Defense

Distributed does not ask, for example, for proof of age or valid gun license or permit – one need

only pick a username and password and supply an email address. Id. The member’s name and

mailing address are requested, but not required, and presumably such information is not verified

in any way. Id.

On information and belief, Mr. Wilson owns and/or has complete control over Defendants

Defense Distributed, DEFCAD and Ghost Gunner. (Compl. at ¶ 16.) Defendant DEFCAD is

“administered by [Defendant] Defense Distributed,” and DEFCAD allows users to upload and

share computer assisted designs, blueprints and drawings for firearms “without restriction.” (Id. at

¶¶ 11, 14.) Defendant Defense Distributed also administers the online “library” for Defendant

DEFCAD and manages Defendant Ghost Gunner. Id. On its website, DEFCAD asks “supporters”

to “support DEFCAD” by “becom[ing] members of [Defendant] Defense Distributed” (emphasis

added) by making “[a]nonymous bitcoin donations” at an identified account number; it promises

to keep users’ personal information private and allows users to submit firearms computer designs

without registering an account, so long they are “only” sent “via encrypted communications.” (Id.

at ¶ 14.)

The Defendants have confirmed through public announcements, media statements, and a

federal litigation in Texas that they plan to imminently release technical information that is not yet

available on the Internet and will enable the simple downloading and manufacturing and creation

of firearms through 3D printing. (Id. at ¶ 53.) A July 10, 2018 news article reports that the

6
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 12 of 18

relaunched Defense Distributed website will include “a repository” of downloadable guns that the

Defendants have been privately creating and collecting, including “exotic DIY [do-it-yourself]

semiautomatic weapons.” (Id. at ¶ 54.) Mr. Wilson states that Defense Distributed has been

creating a vast library of new files for downloadable guns: “We’re doing the encyclopedic work

of collecting this data and putting it into the commons[.] [ ] What’s about to happen is a Cambrian

explosion of the digital content related to firearms.” Id. One report relates that “[t]hroughout the

litigation” in Texas, which lasted years, Mr. Wilson “developed a trove of other 3-D printable

weapon blueprints, including Assembly AR-15s and AR-10s.” Id. These yet-to-be-released

downloadable, 3D-printable guns are markedly advanced from those briefly released in 2013

because, although those older files may still be available on the dark web, those files may be

piecemeal and not always reliable. Id.

What the Defendants are doing here is different: They are posting on a mainstream website

full, 3D-printable files for complete guns. Id. Indeed, in their second amended complaint in the

Texas litigation, the Defendants admit that new files have been created that have yet to become

publicly available: “Defense Distributed has and will continue to create and possess other files that

contain technical information, to include design drawings, rendered images, written manufacturing

instructions, and other technical information that Defense Distributed intends to post to public

forums on the Internet.” Id. The Defendants’ stated intention and promise is that these files can

be printed directly to a 3D printer. As Mr. Wilson has stated: “Give all the background checks

that you want. My company is built around evading that entire program.” (Id. at ¶ 21.) Or, as they

say on their website: imminently ““[t]he age of the downloadable gun formally begins.” (Id. at ¶

54.)

7
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 13 of 18

III. ARGUMENT

The Plaintiffs seek only to uphold and maintain the rule of law in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. The Defendants’ actions taken and threatened – announced with a fuse that

promises to detonate in 3 days (“August 1, 2018 … [t]he age of the downloadable gun formally

begins”) but which could blow at any time since the Texas litigation settled on Friday (2 days ago)

– imminently upend well established Pennsylvania law and aid and abet others in doing so. Their

actions, for example, violate the rule of law with respect to the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms

Act. 18 Pa. C.S. § 6101, et seq.; public nuisance under common law, Section 821B of the

Restatement (Second) of Torts and criminal law public nuisances, 18 Pa. C.S. §6504; aiding and

abetting, 18 Pa. C.S. § 306, corruption of minors, 18 Pa. C.S. § 6301; Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade

Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq.; and the express prohibition set

forth in Chapter 10-2000 of the Philadelphia Code on using a 3D printer to create any firearm – or

even any piece of a firearm – unless that person has a license to manufacture firearms under 18

U.S.C. §923(a), PHILA., PA CODE §10-2002 (2013). They also violate and encourage others to

violate the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, including but not limited to § 922 (p) under which it

is unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any

firearm that cannot be detected by a walk-through metal detector or identified as a firearm by the

types of x-ray machines used at airports. See 18 U.S.C. § 922 (p). At this time, all the Plaintiff

ask is that this Court maintain the status quo by granting a temporary restraining order until such

time as a hearing may be held on its injunction.

A. Legal Standard

The standard for obtaining a temporary restraining order is the same standard for obtaining

a preliminary injunction. See Exl Labs., LLC v. Egolf, No. 10-6282, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

8
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 14 of 18

131105, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2010). “In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction,

a court must consider whether the party seeking the injunction has satisfied four factors: (1) a

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) he or she will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is

denied; (3) granting relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) the

public interest favors such relief.” Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella, 613 F.3d 102, 119 (3d

Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Plaintiffs satisfies all of these elements

and the Defendants should be immediately enjoined from making any 3D printable firearms

available over the internet in Pennsylvania or assisting anyone else in doing so.

Should the Court deny the Plaintiffs’ request, the Defendants will unleash a flood of easily

accessible, 3D printable guns without serial numbers that will be immediately usable in

Pennsylvania (and beyond) by anyone who cares to download them – regardless of age, criminal

and background record, and whether or not they have a license or permit to carry. Once these guns

are on the streets and in the classrooms of our Commonwealth, they can never be retrieved. And,

while the damage they will cause might be measured in general lawlessness and specific loss of

life and limb, it cannot be compensated for by money damages.

B. The Plaintiffs are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claims.

The public actions and statements of the Defendants speak for themselves. And while their

technology may be murky to the uninitiated, what they are enabling is clear. So is the law.

The Defendants’ imminent, promised actions plainly meet the elements of the laws

identified in the Plaintiff’s Complaint. They violate the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, create

a public nuisance, corrupt minors, break Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer

Protection Law, and fly in the face of the City of Philadelphia’s express prohibition on using a 3D

printer to create any firearm or any piece of one without a license to manufacture firearms. They

9
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 15 of 18

also violate the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which is designed to provide support to Federal,

State, and Local Law Enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 921 et seq. Congressional Findings and Declaration. Of particular importance is section 922 (p)

of that Act, under which it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, ship, deliver, possess,

transfer, or receive any firearm that cannot be detected by a walk-through metal detector or

identified as a firearm by the types of x-ray machines used at airports. See 18 U.S.C. § 922 (p).

In each of these cases, the Defendants are not only committing the underlying offenses and

liable for them but, importantly, they are aiding and abetting Pennsylvania citizens and others, in

violation of 18 Pa. C.S. § 306. Pennsylvanians (and others) who download the Defendants’

“downloadable guns” will be enticed by the Defendants’ actions to engage in the same unlawful

conduct, some knowingly and others unknowingly. The Defendants are not only creating

lawlessness in Pennsylvania, but they are spreading it in a way that will grow exponentially with

no way of getting the genie back into the bottle.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs’ are likely to succeed on the merits of each of their claims.

C. The Plaintiffs and All Pennsylvanians Will Suffer Irreparable Harm If

Injunctive Relief Is Not Granted.

The facts of this case are a model example of irreparable harm. Generally, “‘to show

irreparable harm a plaintiff must demonstrate a potential harm which cannot be redressed by a

legal or equitable remedy following a trial.’” Strom, 621 F. Supp. 2d at 229 (quoting Acierno v.

New Castle Cnty., 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994)). In other words, the injury “‘must be of a

peculiar nature, so that compensation in money cannot atone for it.’” Campbell Soup Co. v.

ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 92 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223,

226 (3d Cir. 1987)). Here, once the Defendants’ downloadable, 3D-printable guns are posted on

their mainstream website, there is no way to get them back. Once posted online, the guns can be
10
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 16 of 18

downloaded and shared through email and the internet. An infinite number of guns can be printed

from each download and, once the guns are printed – they are real, tangible, usable firearms,

without serial numbers, that are on Pennsylvania streets and in Pennsylvania schools forever.

There is no way to get them back. While the damage these guns will cause might be measured in

general lawlessness and specific loss of life and limb, it cannot be compensated for by money

damages. No amount of money will make the Plaintiffs, and the citizens of the Commonwealth,

whole.

D. The Balance of Equities Plainly Favors the Plaintiffs.

The balance of equities plainly favors the Plaintiffs. Injunctive relief will ensure that the

status quo is maintained. When determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the court

“must ensure that the issuance of an injunction would not harm the infringer more than the

infringed-upon party.” Pappan Enter., Inc. v. Hardee's Food Sys., 143 F.3d 800, 805 (3d Cir.

1998)). The court “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on

each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Buzz Bee Toys, Inc. v. Swimways

Corp., 20 F. Supp. 3d 483, 510 (D.N.J. 2014). Here, if the Defendants are enjoined and ultimately

prevail, they can post their guns for download at that time; they have waited throughout the

pendency of the Texas litigation, and they can wait a little longer for the Court to adjudicate these

fundamentally different and vitally important claims. There is no urgency. By contrast, as set

forth above, once the Defendants post their guns for download and printing, there is no getting

them back.

E. An Injunction Will Serve the Public Interest.

Here the public interest could not be more clear. The Commonwealth, itself, is a party, as

is the Pennsylvania State Police, a statewide law-enforcement body dedicated to serving the

11
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 17 of 18

Commonwealth and her citizens, with jurisdiction in all political subdivisions of the

Commonwealth and “the responsibility to administer the provisions of” the Firearms Act. 18 Pa.

C.S. § 6111.1.(a). The individual Plaintiffs are elected officials, responsible for the public interest.

The Governor is the top elected official in Pennsylvania, and the Attorney General is the “chief

law officer in the Commonwealth.” Constitution, Art. IV, § 4.1. They bring these claims both in

their official capacities and on behalf of the residents of Pennsylvania.

As set forth above, the public interest is not to act rashly – once the Defendants proceed,

there is no way to undo the damage and no way to compensate for it. In the Third Circuit, where

likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm are clear, issuing an injunction necessarily

serves the public good. See 2660 Woodley Rd., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22825, at *23 (“This Circuit

recognizes that ‘as a practical matter, if a plaintiff demonstrates both a likelihood of success on

the merits and irreparable injury, it almost always will be the case that the public interest will favor

[the party seeking the injunction].” (Alteration in original)). Here, it is in the public interest for

this Court to maintain the status quo, at least until a proper injunction hearing may be held and the

Plaintiffs’ claims may be properly considered and adjudicated. The stakes and the public interest

are just too great to decide otherwise. For these reasons, the public interest is best served by a

temporary restraining order enjoining the Defendants.

12
 Case 2:18-cv-03208-PD Document 2 Filed 07/29/18 Page 18 of 18

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary

restraining order pending a full hearing on its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Respectfully submitted,

JOSH SHAPIRO
Attorney General
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

July 30, 2018 /s Jonathan Scott Goldman

JONATHAN SCOTT GOLDMAN
J. BART DELONE
LAUREN E. SULCOVE
PA Atty. Nos. 93909, 42540, and 92969
Office of Attorney General
Strawberry Square, 16th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-3391
jgoldman@attorneygeneral.gov

13