Smith & Wesson Sues NJ Attorney General

Smith & Wesson filed suit against New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal yesterday. The suit is brought in US District Court for the District of New Jersey. It was brought in response to a fishing subpoena issued by Grewal’s office “seeking evidence of consumer fraud related to advertising.”

Smith & Wesson accuses Grewal of trying to suppress free speech.

Following in the abusive footsteps of these repressive regimes, the New Jersey Attorney General has taken a series of actions to suppress Smith & Wesson’s speech, and with the intention of damaging Smith & Wesson both financially and reputationally. The most recent such action is the issuance of an administrative subpoena (the “Subpoena”) on October 13, 2020 that allegedly seeks evidence of consumer fraud relating to advertising – but in reality, it seeks to suppress and punish lawful speech regarding gun ownership in order to advance an anti-Second Amendment agenda that the Attorney General publicly committed to pursue.

The lawsuit goes on to accuse Grewal of conspiring with “anti-Second Amendment Activists” such as Brady, Everytown, and Giffords to use the power of the courts and prosecutors to “name and shame” firearms companies such as Smith & Wesson. It mentions the proxy proposals brought by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility that would have hamstrung Smith & Wesson.

The complaint then goes on to accuse Grewal of working directly with FACT (Firearms Accountability Counsel Task Force) which is a tool of the “anti-Second Amendment Activists” to circumvent the legislative process:

It is against this backdrop of coordinating with anti-Second Amendment Activists to search for new theories to litigate the firearms industry out of existence, that the Attorney General issued his Subpoena against Smith & Wesson here. To this end, in addition to publicly partnering with anti-Second Amendment Activists, the Attorney General has also hired FACT
counsel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP as his own counsel specifically to pursue firearms manufacturers, further solidifying the anti-gun agenda as his own.

The Attorney General’s actions surrounding the issuance of the Subpoena and initiating the related investigation are forcing Smith & Wesson to expend substantial financial resources, and are threatening to cause irreparable damage with key stakeholders and necessary business partners, and create reputational harm.

The Attorney General’s campaign to silence, intimidate, and deter Smith & Wesson and other Second Amendment advocates, gun manufacturers, and gun owners from exercising their constitutional rights, his consignment of the State’s prosecutorial authority to nongovernmental partisans, and the targeting of protected, disfavored speech, violate numerous provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

By circumventing the legislature and the courts and, where possible, invading the board room, the anti-Second Amendment Activists disguise their true motives and avoid exposing their agenda to the robust political debate surrounding firearms in the United States. Their allies then use the issues that they create, to falsely foster with shareholders, business partners and other stakeholders a perception of unmitigated risk. Through these coordinated activities, in which the Attorney General and State of New Jersey now are complicit, the activists have denied and continue to deny Smith & Wesson any meaningful access to the only fora that can stop these illegal actions and protect Smith & Wesson’s rights.

Smith & Wesson lists 11 counts of violations. Among these are violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment through unlawful viewpoint discrimination, restriction of political speech, and restriction of protected commercial speech. It also alleges violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of both the company and its consumers. Finally, it says the company is protected the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as well as the Dormant Commerce Clause meaning this is a matter for Federal courts and that state officials like Grewal are encroaching in Federal matters.

The lawsuit seeks both injunctive and declaratory relief as well as attorney fees along with anything else the court might deem “just and proper”.

The attorneys representing Smith & Wesson are all partners in the international law firm of DLA Piper. In one of those delicious bits of irony, this is the same firm where Douglas Emhoff, spouse of presumed VP-elect Kamala Harris, is a partner. Indeed, when you open up the list of the firm’s attorneys by “relevance”, he is the first one listed.

Where The 1A Meets The 2A

As I mentioned the other day, the website sponsored by a coalition of civil rights groups was threatened by prosecution if they didn’t take down certain code files. CodeIsFreeSpeech.com was put up after the anti-gun Attorney General of Washington State and a host of fellow traveler AGs went to court to suppress computer code assembled by Defense Distributed. These groups were not a party to that lawsuit and were not enjoined from distributing them on the Internet.

It turns out that the threat of prosecution came from New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal. Grewal had demanded server company Cloudfare delete CodeIsFreeSpeech.com’s files or charges would be filed for them being in violation of a NJ state law.

Grewal had been recently successful in getting a lawsuit against him by Defense Distributed filed in the State of Texas dismissed on the grounds that it should have been brought in New Jersey. Mind you, that the dismissal was not on the merits of the case but rather merely whether a US District Court in Texas had jurisdiction.

He should have remembered the old saying, “Be careful what you wish for”, as suit has now been filed in US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Now he will not be facing just Defense Distributed but also the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, and CAL-FFL. The individual plaintiff in the case is Brandon Combs who is executive director of the Calguns Foundation and president of both the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation. So now Grewal is not facing merely one plaintiff but six institutional plaintiffs and one individual plaintiff.

In a press release sent out yesterday, the groups had this to say about the lawsuit:

TRENTON, N.J. (February 5, 2019) — Today, attorneys for six advocacy organizations and one individual, Firearms Policy Coalition founder Brandon Combs, filed a new lawsuit and a motion seeking a restraining order and preliminary injunction against New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal. The case was filed just days after Grewal’s Office of the Attorney General sent a threat of prosecution to Cloudflare, a major Internet services company headquartered in San Francisco, about www.CodeIsFreeSpeech.com. A copy of key court filings can be viewed or downloaded at www.codeisfreespeechlawsuit.com.


According to the complaint, on Saturday, February 3 the CodeIsFreeSpeech.com website’s act of republishing some of Defense Distributed’s digital firearms information “was met with yet another of Grewal’s Orwellian take-down orders,” demanding that Cloudflare “delete all files described within 24 hours or [Grewal’s Office] will be forced to press charges.”


“By issuing a takedown demand against” the entire 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 filing. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Grewal. The Attorney General’s threats of prosecution and other civil enforcement actions under New Jersey laws, the plaintiffs say, violate their constitutional rights.


Last November, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a new speech crime into law, in Senate Bill 2465. Among other things, it created a new “third degree crime” for “a person to distribute by any means, including the Internet, to a person in New Jersey” certain kinds of speech, including “digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions stored and displayed in electronic format as a digital model that may be used to program a three-dimensional printer…”


CodeIsFreeSpeech.com “is a publicly available website for the publication and republication of truthful, non-misleading, non-commercial political speech and information that is protected under the United States Constitution,” the complaint says. “Its purpose is to allow people to share knowledge and empower them to exercise their fundamental, individual rights. It was created and developed during the week of July 22, 2018—long before the State enacted Senate Bill 2465.”


The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Chad Flores, Daniel Hammond, and Hannah Roblyer of Texas-based Beck Redden LLP and Daniel L. Schmutter of New Jersey law firm Hartman & Winnicki.


The CodeIsFreeSpeech.com website can be additionally accessed through URLs GurbirGrewalisaTyrant.com and PhilMurphyisaTyrant.com.

The plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Moreover, at the same time they also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. They are asking the court to declare the New Jersey law in violation of the First and Second Amendments, the Commerce Clause, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Moreover, they want the court to declare Federal law preempts the New Jersey law and immunizes the plaintiffs from prosecution.