Washington house bill 2321 regarding 3d printers - Revision history

MSnaker: Added link to Bambulab authorization control page

2026-05-14T09:59:26Z

Added link to Bambulab authorization control page

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 14 May 2026
Line 84:		Line 84:

	===Bambu Lab authorization control===		===Bambu Lab authorization control===
	In January 2025, Bambu Lab announced "Authorization Control" for its X1 series printers, introducing authentication for operations including firmware upgrades, print job initiation, and remote video access. The company cited security concerns including cyberattacks and DDoS attacks as motivation for the change.<ref name="bambu3dpi">{{cite web \|url=https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-responds-to-backlash-over-new-firmware-update-235771/ \|title=Bambu Lab Responds to Backlash Over New Firmware Update \|website=3D Printing Industry \|date=2025-01-20 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004954/https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-responds-to-backlash-over-new-firmware-update-235771/ \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref>		In January 2025, Bambu Lab announced [[Bambu Lab Authorization Control System\|Authorization Control]] for its X1 series printers, introducing authentication for operations including firmware upgrades, print job initiation, and remote video access. The company cited security concerns including cyberattacks and DDoS attacks as motivation for the change.<ref name="bambu3dpi">{{cite web \|url=https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-responds-to-backlash-over-new-firmware-update-235771/ \|title=Bambu Lab Responds to Backlash Over New Firmware Update \|website=3D Printing Industry \|date=2025-01-20 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004954/https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-responds-to-backlash-over-new-firmware-update-235771/ \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref>

	Third-party software including OrcaSlicer faced disruption. OrcaSlicer developer SoftFever publicly declined to adopt "Bambu Connect", calling it ''"unnecessary and of no meaningful benefit to users."''<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-controversy-deepens-firmware-update-sparks-backlash-240588/ \|title=Bambu Lab Controversy Deepens: Firmware Update Sparks Backlash \|website=3D Printing Industry \|date=2025-06-11 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260217171536/https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-controversy-deepens-firmware-update-sparks-backlash-240588/ \|archive-date=17 Feb 2026}}</ref> Josef Prusa, CEO of Prusa Research, commented on LinkedIn: "Quite scary where the 3DP industry is moving – control of your data."<ref name="bambu3dpi" />		Third-party software including OrcaSlicer faced disruption. OrcaSlicer developer SoftFever publicly declined to adopt "Bambu Connect", calling it ''"unnecessary and of no meaningful benefit to users."''<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-controversy-deepens-firmware-update-sparks-backlash-240588/ \|title=Bambu Lab Controversy Deepens: Firmware Update Sparks Backlash \|website=3D Printing Industry \|date=2025-06-11 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260217171536/https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-controversy-deepens-firmware-update-sparks-backlash-240588/ \|archive-date=17 Feb 2026}}</ref> Josef Prusa, CEO of Prusa Research, commented on LinkedIn: "Quite scary where the 3DP industry is moving – control of your data."<ref name="bambu3dpi" />

Bananabot: Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-24T12:38:16Z

Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 24 February 2026
Line 67:		Line 67:
	The question of whether computer code constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment remains partially unresolved. In 2016, during the ''Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State'' litigation, the Fifth Circuit declined to rule on the merits of the First Amendment claims, instead deciding the preliminary injunction on non-merits requirements. In her dissent, Judge Edith Jones wrote that the State Department ''"barely disputes that computer-related files and other technical data are speech protected by the First Amendment."''<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf \|title=Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State \|website=United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit \|date=2016-09-20 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250222140857/https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf \|archive-date=22 Feb 2025}}</ref>		The question of whether computer code constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment remains partially unresolved. In 2016, during the ''Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State'' litigation, the Fifth Circuit declined to rule on the merits of the First Amendment claims, instead deciding the preliminary injunction on non-merits requirements. In her dissent, Judge Edith Jones wrote that the State Department ''"barely disputes that computer-related files and other technical data are speech protected by the First Amendment."''<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf \|title=Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State \|website=United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit \|date=2016-09-20 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250222140857/https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf \|archive-date=22 Feb 2025}}</ref>

	The case settled in July 2018 with the State Department waiving prior restraint against Defense Distributed and paying approximately $40,000 in legal fees. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert stated the government ''"would have lost this case in court, or would have likely lost this case in court, based on First Amendment grounds."''<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available \|title=Judge temporarily blocks posting of blueprints for 3D printed guns \|website=National Post \|date=2018-08-01 \|access-date=2026-01-22}}</ref>		The case settled in July 2018 with the State Department waiving prior restraint against Defense Distributed and paying approximately $40,000 in legal fees. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert stated the government ''"would have lost this case in court, or would have likely lost this case in court, based on First Amendment grounds."''<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available \|title=Judge temporarily blocks posting of blueprints for 3D printed guns \|website=National Post \|date=2018-08-01 \|access-date=2026-01-22 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260224120151/https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available \|archive-date=24 Feb 2026}}</ref>

	The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Defense Distributed litigation arguing that "publishing computer files that communicate information, even in an esoteric format, is speech protected by the First Amendment."<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state \|title=Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State \|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004840/https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref>		The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Defense Distributed litigation arguing that "publishing computer files that communicate information, even in an esoteric format, is speech protected by the First Amendment."<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state \|title=Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State \|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004840/https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref>

Bananabot: Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-24T10:13:46Z

Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:13, 24 February 2026
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Governor Kathy Hochul announced comparable proposals on January 7, 2026, as part of her 2026 State of the State agenda. Her proposals would require manufacturers to include blocking software on 3D printers sold in New York, criminalize unlicensed possession or distribution of firearm CAD files, and mandate reporting of recovered 3D-printed guns to state police databases.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces-nation-leading-proposals-crack-down-3d \|title=Keeping New Yorkers Safe: Governor Hochul Announces Nation-Leading Proposals to Crack Down on 3D-Printed Guns and Other Illegal Firearms \|website=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul \|date=2026-01-07 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260222105105/https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces-nation-leading-proposals-crack-down-3d \|archive-date=22 Feb 2026}}</ref>		Governor Kathy Hochul announced comparable proposals on January 7, 2026, as part of her 2026 State of the State agenda. Her proposals would require manufacturers to include blocking software on 3D printers sold in New York, criminalize unlicensed possession or distribution of firearm CAD files, and mandate reporting of recovered 3D-printed guns to state police databases.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces-nation-leading-proposals-crack-down-3d \|title=Keeping New Yorkers Safe: Governor Hochul Announces Nation-Leading Proposals to Crack Down on 3D-Printed Guns and Other Illegal Firearms \|website=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul \|date=2026-01-07 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260222105105/https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces-nation-leading-proposals-crack-down-3d \|archive-date=22 Feb 2026}}</ref>

	Hochul stated: <blockquote>"We will require all 3D printers sold in the State of New York to include software that blocks the production of guns and their components. You cannot sell one of those in the State of New York when we pass these laws."<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/b-roll-video-audio-photos-rush-transcript-keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces \|title=B-Roll, Video, Audio, Photos & Rush Transcript \|website=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul \|date=2026-01-07 \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref></blockquote>		Hochul stated: <blockquote>"We will require all 3D printers sold in the State of New York to include software that blocks the production of guns and their components. You cannot sell one of those in the State of New York when we pass these laws."<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/b-roll-video-audio-photos-rush-transcript-keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces \|title=B-Roll, Video, Audio, Photos & Rush Transcript \|website=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul \|date=2026-01-07 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260224101225/https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/b-roll-video-audio-photos-rush-transcript-keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces \|archive-date=24 Feb 2026}}</ref></blockquote>

	Governor Hochul has termed the proliferation of homemade weapons the "Plastic Pipeline."		Governor Hochul has termed the proliferation of homemade weapons the "Plastic Pipeline."

Bananabot: Added archive URLs for 2 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-23T13:13:02Z

Added archive URLs for 2 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 23 February 2026
Line 94:		Line 94:
	No country has mandated device-level firearm blocking technology in 3D printers.		No country has mandated device-level firearm blocking technology in 3D printers.

	In the United Kingdom, MP Preet Kaur Gill introduced the Firearms (3D Printing) Bill in October 2024. Clauses 43-44 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, introduced in January 2025, would criminalize making, importing, and possessing "templates" (blueprints) for 3D-printed firearms with up to 5 years imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877 \|title=Firearms (3D Printing) Bill \|website=UK Parliament \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.preetkaurgill.co.uk/post/preet-kaur-gill-s-ghost-gun-blueprint-ban-to-become-law \|title=Preet Kaur Gill's ghost gun blueprint ban to become law \|website=Preet Kaur Gill MP \|access-date=2026-01-22 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123005130/https://www.preetkaurgill.co.uk/post/preet-kaur-gill-s-ghost-gun-blueprint-ban-to-become-law \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref>		In the United Kingdom, MP Preet Kaur Gill introduced the Firearms (3D Printing) Bill in October 2024. Clauses 43-44 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, introduced in January 2025, would criminalize making, importing, and possessing "templates" (blueprints) for 3D-printed firearms with up to 5 years imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877 \|title=Firearms (3D Printing) Bill \|website=UK Parliament \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250905214729/https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877 \|archive-date=5 Sep 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.preetkaurgill.co.uk/post/preet-kaur-gill-s-ghost-gun-blueprint-ban-to-become-law \|title=Preet Kaur Gill's ghost gun blueprint ban to become law \|website=Preet Kaur Gill MP \|access-date=2026-01-22 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123005130/https://www.preetkaurgill.co.uk/post/preet-kaur-gill-s-ghost-gun-blueprint-ban-to-become-law \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref>

	Australian states have enacted penalties for possessing digital firearm blueprints. Tasmania criminalized the possession of digital blueprints for the manufacture of firearms, with penalties of up to 21 years imprisonment. New South Wales imposes up to 14 years imprisonment under Section 51F of the Firearms Act 1996. South Australia has proposed penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s51f.html \|title=Firearms Act 1996 - Section 51F \|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref>		Australian states have enacted penalties for possessing digital firearm blueprints. Tasmania criminalized the possession of digital blueprints for the manufacture of firearms, with penalties of up to 21 years imprisonment. New South Wales imposes up to 14 years imprisonment under Section 51F of the Firearms Act 1996. South Australia has proposed penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s51f.html \|title=Firearms Act 1996 - Section 51F \|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123005054/https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s51f.html \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref>

	The European Union regulates possession of 3D-printed firearms under EU Directive 2021/555, but possession of digital blueprints is not explicitly prohibited.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2021/555/oj \|title=Directive 2021/555 \|website=EUR-Lex \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123005154/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2021/555/oj \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:647:FIN \|title=Report on the application of the Firearms Directive \|website=EUR-Lex \|date=2021-10-27 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250615122124/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:647:FIN \|archive-date=15 Jun 2025}}</ref>		The European Union regulates possession of 3D-printed firearms under EU Directive 2021/555, but possession of digital blueprints is not explicitly prohibited.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2021/555/oj \|title=Directive 2021/555 \|website=EUR-Lex \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123005154/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2021/555/oj \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:647:FIN \|title=Report on the application of the Firearms Directive \|website=EUR-Lex \|date=2021-10-27 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250615122124/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:647:FIN \|archive-date=15 Jun 2025}}</ref>

Bananabot: Added archive URLs for 25 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-23T08:14:16Z

Added archive URLs for 25 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

Show changes

12.138.159.243: Luigi Mangione has not yet been convicted in a court of law for his alleged crimes.

2026-01-25T02:47:50Z

Luigi Mangione has not yet been convicted in a court of law for his alleged crimes.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 25 January 2026
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has sent letters to multiple 3D printer manufacturers requesting voluntary adoption of blocking software.		Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has sent letters to multiple 3D printer manufacturers requesting voluntary adoption of blocking software.

	On March 26, 2025, Bragg sent a letter to Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co., Ltd. demanding installation of detection software, removal of CAD files from Creality Cloud, and a user agreement ban on weapon creation. The letter explicitly cited the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione, who utilized a 3D-printed ghost gun, as well as local cases involving defendants using Creality printers (specifically the Ender 3 series) to manufacture arsenals.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-calls-on-3d-printing-companies-to-address-proliferation-of-illegal-firearms/ \|title=D.A. Bragg Calls On 3D-Printing Companies To Address Proliferation Of Illegal Firearms \|website=Manhattan District Attorney's Office \|date=2025-03-27 \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|url=https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Letter-Creality-3.26.25.pdf \|title=Letter to Creality \|website=Manhattan District Attorney's Office \|date=2025-03-26 \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref> Bragg's letter specifically recommended a program called "3D GUN'T" developed by Print&GO as an example of existing detection technology.		On March 26, 2025, Bragg sent a letter to Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co., Ltd. demanding installation of detection software, removal of CAD files from Creality Cloud, and a user agreement ban on weapon creation. The letter explicitly cited the alleged assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione, who allegedly utilized a 3D-printed ghost gun, as well as local cases involving defendants using Creality printers (specifically the Ender 3 series) to manufacture arsenals.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-calls-on-3d-printing-companies-to-address-proliferation-of-illegal-firearms/ \|title=D.A. Bragg Calls On 3D-Printing Companies To Address Proliferation Of Illegal Firearms \|website=Manhattan District Attorney's Office \|date=2025-03-27 \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|url=https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Letter-Creality-3.26.25.pdf \|title=Letter to Creality \|website=Manhattan District Attorney's Office \|date=2025-03-26 \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref> Bragg's letter specifically recommended a program called "3D GUN'T" developed by Print&GO as an example of existing detection technology.

	Bragg sent a similar letter to Bambu Lab in 2025. Reports indicate that some digital design firms have agreed to block content in response to these letters.		Bragg sent a similar letter to Bambu Lab in 2025. Reports indicate that some digital design firms have agreed to block content in response to these letters.

Bythmusters: Swapped "3D printing" for "3D printers" category

2026-01-24T13:58:51Z

Swapped "3D printing" for "3D printers" category

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:58, 24 January 2026
Line 56:		Line 56:
	==Technical feasibility questions==		==Technical feasibility questions==

	=== False Positives ===		===False Positives===
	No commercially validated firearm detection technology exists for 3D printers as of January 2026. 3DPrinterOS announced a partnership with Montclair State University's MIX Lab in November 2024 to develop an algorithm capable of identifying 3D printed firearm components based on unique design signatures.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.3printr.com/3dprinteros-and-montclair-state-university-develop-algorithm-to-recognize-3d-printed-weapon-components-1774976/ \|title=3DPrinterOS and Montclair State University develop algorithm to recognize 3D-printed gun components \|website=3Printr.com \|date=2024-11-05 \|access-date=2026-01-22}}</ref> Critics argue that algorithms designed to detect "gun shapes" will inevitably generate false positives, flagging harmless objects such as plumbing pipes, L-brackets, or legitimate mechanical parts that share geometric similarities with firearm components.		No commercially validated firearm detection technology exists for 3D printers as of January 2026. 3DPrinterOS announced a partnership with Montclair State University's MIX Lab in November 2024 to develop an algorithm capable of identifying 3D printed firearm components based on unique design signatures.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.3printr.com/3dprinteros-and-montclair-state-university-develop-algorithm-to-recognize-3d-printed-weapon-components-1774976/ \|title=3DPrinterOS and Montclair State University develop algorithm to recognize 3D-printed gun components \|website=3Printr.com \|date=2024-11-05 \|access-date=2026-01-22}}</ref> Critics argue that algorithms designed to detect "gun shapes" will inevitably generate false positives, flagging harmless objects such as plumbing pipes, L-brackets, or legitimate mechanical parts that share geometric similarities with firearm components.

	=== Circumvention ===		===Circumvention===
	The bill's requirement that blocking technology ''"cannot be overridden or otherwise defeated by a user with significant technical skill"'' presents a challenge given the open-source firmware landscape. Users can download Marlin or Klipper source code, remove any blocking code, and flash the modified firmware to their printers. The GPL license requires manufacturers using Marlin-based firmware to provide source code upon request.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin \|title=MarlinFirmware/Marlin \|website=GitHub \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref>		The bill's requirement that blocking technology ''"cannot be overridden or otherwise defeated by a user with significant technical skill"'' presents a challenge given the open-source firmware landscape. Users can download Marlin or Klipper source code, remove any blocking code, and flash the modified firmware to their printers. The GPL license requires manufacturers using Marlin-based firmware to provide source code upon request.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin \|title=MarlinFirmware/Marlin \|website=GitHub \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref>

Line 107:		Line 107:

	[[Category:US legislation]]		[[Category:US legislation]]
	~~[[Category:3D printing]]~~
	[[Category:Proposed legislation]]		[[Category:Proposed legislation]]
	[[Category:Right to repair]]		[[Category:Right to repair]]
			[[Category:3D printers]]

Mr Pollo at 18:09, 23 January 2026

2026-01-23T18:09:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:09, 23 January 2026
Line 106:		Line 106:
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}

	[[Category:~~Legislation~~]]		[[Category:US legislation]]
	[[Category:3D printing]]		[[Category:3D printing]]
	~~[[Category:United States]]~~
	[[Category:Proposed legislation]]		[[Category:Proposed legislation]]
	[[Category:Right to repair]]		[[Category:Right to repair]]

Louis at 10:31, 22 January 2026

2026-01-22T10:31:03Z

Show changes

JamesTDG: /* Technical feasibility questions */ False positives & circumvention expansion

2026-01-22T04:03:34Z

Technical feasibility questions: False positives & circumvention expansion

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:03, 22 January 2026
Line 61:		Line 61:

	==Technical feasibility questions==		==Technical feasibility questions==
	No commercially validated firearm detection technology exists for 3D printers as of January 2026. 3DPrinterOS announced a partnership with Montclair State University's MIX Lab in November 2024 to develop an algorithm capable of identifying 3D printed firearm components based on unique design signatures, but the feature has not been deployed commercially.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.tctmagazine.com/additive-manufacturing-3d-printing-news/software-and-simulation-news/3dprinteros-montclair-state-university-algorithm-3d-printed-guns/ \|title=3DPrinterOS & Montclair State University to develop algorithm capable of identifying 3D printed gun components \|website=TCT Magazine \|date=2024-11-05 \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref>

	The bill's requirement that blocking technology ''"cannot be overridden or otherwise defeated by a user with significant technical skill"'' presents a challenge given the open-source firmware landscape. Users can download Marlin or Klipper source code, remove any blocking code, and flash the modified firmware to their printers. The GPL license requires manufacturers using Marlin-based firmware to provide source code upon request.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin \|title=MarlinFirmware/Marlin \|website=GitHub \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref>		=== False Positives ===
			No commercially validated firearm detection technology exists for 3D printers as of January 2026. 3DPrinterOS announced a partnership with Montclair State University's MIX Lab in November 2024 to develop an algorithm capable of identifying 3D printed firearm components based on unique design signatures, but the feature has not been deployed commercially.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.tctmagazine.com/additive-manufacturing-3d-printing-news/software-and-simulation-news/3dprinteros-montclair-state-university-algorithm-3d-printed-guns/ \|title=3DPrinterOS & Montclair State University to develop algorithm capable of identifying 3D printed gun components \|website=TCT Magazine \|date=2024-11-05 \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref> As such, it is entirely plausible for an increased frequency in false-positives when it comes to determining if a component being manufactured is similar enough to a firearm component.

			False positives will additionally have an increased impact on hobbyists within the airsoft toy industry, which is well-known for using 3D-printed parts for custom dart guns and accessories for officially-branded airsoft toys such as [[Nerf]] guns. Due to the potential similarities between components inside airsoft/foam dart guns and "3d-printed firearms", these toys are at an increased risk of being unreasonably blocked by the 3D printer.

			=== Circumvention ===
			The bill's requirement that blocking technology ''"cannot be overridden or otherwise defeated by a user with significant technical skill"'' presents a challenge given the open-source firmware landscape. Users can download Marlin or Klipper source code, remove any blocking code, and flash the modified firmware to their printers. The GPL license requires manufacturers using Marlin-based firmware to provide source code upon request.<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin \|title=MarlinFirmware/Marlin \|website=GitHub \|access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref>

			As this is a bill that only influences Washington state, individuals could in-theory spoof their location for their printer to be in a state, such as Texas or Oregon, without these regulations. Alternatively, it could be considered legislative overreach into other states if this affects all 3D printers manufactured inside the United States.<!-- Yeah, look, this is gonna need some phrasing revisions, just running into a brick wall when it comes to having it flow between the previous paragraph - JamesTDG -->

	==Constitutional questions==		==Constitutional questions==

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 24 February 2026
Line 67:		Line 67:
	The question of whether computer code constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment remains partially unresolved. In 2016, during the ''Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State'' litigation, the Fifth Circuit declined to rule on the merits of the First Amendment claims, instead deciding the preliminary injunction on non-merits requirements. In her dissent, Judge Edith Jones wrote that the State Department ''"barely disputes that computer-related files and other technical data are speech protected by the First Amendment."''<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf \|title=Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State \|website=United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit \|date=2016-09-20 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250222140857/https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf \|archive-date=22 Feb 2025}}</ref>		The question of whether computer code constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment remains partially unresolved. In 2016, during the ''Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State'' litigation, the Fifth Circuit declined to rule on the merits of the First Amendment claims, instead deciding the preliminary injunction on non-merits requirements. In her dissent, Judge Edith Jones wrote that the State Department ''"barely disputes that computer-related files and other technical data are speech protected by the First Amendment."''<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf \|title=Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State \|website=United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit \|date=2016-09-20 \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250222140857/https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf \|archive-date=22 Feb 2025}}</ref>

	The case settled in July 2018 with the State Department waiving prior restraint against Defense Distributed and paying approximately $40,000 in legal fees. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert stated the government ''"would have lost this case in court, or would have likely lost this case in court, based on First Amendment grounds."''<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available \|title=Judge temporarily blocks posting of blueprints for 3D printed guns \|website=National Post \|date=2018-08-01 \|access-date=2026-01-22}}</ref>		The case settled in July 2018 with the State Department waiving prior restraint against Defense Distributed and paying approximately $40,000 in legal fees. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert stated the government ''"would have lost this case in court, or would have likely lost this case in court, based on First Amendment grounds."''<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available \|title=Judge temporarily blocks posting of blueprints for 3D printed guns \|website=National Post \|date=2018-08-01 \|access-date=2026-01-22 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260224120151/https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available \|archive-date=24 Feb 2026}}</ref>

	The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Defense Distributed litigation arguing that "publishing computer files that communicate information, even in an esoteric format, is speech protected by the First Amendment."<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state \|title=Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State \|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004840/https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref>		The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Defense Distributed litigation arguing that "publishing computer files that communicate information, even in an esoteric format, is speech protected by the First Amendment."<ref>{{cite web \|url=https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state \|title=Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State \|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation \|access-date=2026-01-21 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004840/https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state \|archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref>