Washington house bill 2321 regarding 3d printers: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

VisualWikitext

@@ 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>
-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."
@@ 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 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>
@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 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>