Jump to content

3D Printing restrictions and bans: Difference between revisions

From Consumer Rights Wiki
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Cleanup run - "Why it is a problem"
→Examples: Table formatting
Line 18: Line 18:
With legal restrictions and bans applied to 3D printers, there are numerous faults that arise:
With legal restrictions and bans applied to 3D printers, there are numerous faults that arise:


=== '''Loss of ownership''' ===
==='''Loss of ownership'''===
Locks, applied either via software or hardware, most likely will block the end-user from having the capability to repair, modify, or maintain printers they legally own. On the legal front, the end-user cannot bypass these locks thanks to [[DMCA Section 1201|section 1201]] of the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]. On the corporate front, [[e-fuses]], [[Digital rights management|DRM]], and more will likely be applied in an attempt to block the end-user from repairing, modifying, or maintaining their 3D printers for the sake of legal compliance, despite regular maintenance being mandatory for the functionality of these printers.<ref>{{Cite web |last=3DISM |date=May 1, 2025 |title=3D Printer Maintenance Checklist (Monthly, Weekly Tasks) |url=https://3dism.org/3d-printer-maintenance-checklist-monthly-weekly-tasks/ |access-date=Mar 28, 2025 |website=3dism.org}}</ref> This would effectively treat the end-user as a licensee than the owner of both the hardware and software they purchased.
Locks, applied either via software or hardware, most likely will block the end-user from having the capability to repair, modify, or maintain printers they legally own. On the legal front, the end-user cannot bypass these locks thanks to [[DMCA Section 1201|section 1201]] of the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]. On the corporate front, [[e-fuses]], [[Digital rights management|DRM]], and more will likely be applied in an attempt to block the end-user from repairing, modifying, or maintaining their 3D printers for the sake of legal compliance, despite regular maintenance being mandatory for the functionality of these printers.<ref>{{Cite web |last=3DISM |date=May 1, 2025 |title=3D Printer Maintenance Checklist (Monthly, Weekly Tasks) |url=https://3dism.org/3d-printer-maintenance-checklist-monthly-weekly-tasks/ |access-date=Mar 28, 2025 |website=3dism.org}}</ref> This would effectively treat the end-user as a licensee than the owner of both the hardware and software they purchased.


=== '''Loss of functionality''' ===
==='''Loss of functionality'''===
3D printers will have an increased likelihood of becoming partially or fully inoperable due to various variables. With how [[Digital rights management|DRM]] may be applied to these devices, they may be required to communicate with privately hosted servers from the manufacturer to verify if the printer or what it is printing is compliant with regulations. If these servers lose functionality, such as from the manufacturer going defunct, temporary outages<!-- Such as the AWS East-1 incident or Crowdstrike -->, or [[Planned obsolescence|forced obsolescence]], these printers may lose vital functionality as well.
3D printers will have an increased likelihood of becoming partially or fully inoperable due to various variables. With how [[Digital rights management|DRM]] may be applied to these devices, they may be required to communicate with privately hosted servers from the manufacturer to verify if the printer or what it is printing is compliant with regulations. If these servers lose functionality, such as from the manufacturer going defunct, temporary outages<!-- Such as the AWS East-1 incident or Crowdstrike -->, or [[Planned obsolescence|forced obsolescence]], these printers may lose vital functionality as well.


=== '''Overbroad regulation''' ===
==='''Overbroad regulation'''===
The legal front of regulation is excessively overbroad:
The legal front of regulation is excessively overbroad:


==== Overbroad applications ====
====Overbroad applications====
While consumers treat 3D printers as the definition of a device that extrudes materials to create a 3-dimensional object, the legal definition of a 3D printer is far more broad to cover any machine that handles either additive or subtractive creation of a desired part.{{Citation needed|reason=Check comment}} <!-- We will need to be flipping through legal sources on this, but regions such as WA have treated CNC machines and Prusas under the same category.
While consumers treat 3D printers as the definition of a device that extrudes materials to create a 3-dimensional object, the legal definition of a 3D printer is far more broad to cover any machine that handles either additive or subtractive creation of a desired part.{{Citation needed|reason=Check comment}} <!-- We will need to be flipping through legal sources on this, but regions such as WA have treated CNC machines and Prusas under the same category.


Line 33: Line 33:
https://www.geekwire.com/2026/proposals-take-aim-at-3d-printing-tech-to-strengthen-washington-state-laws-against-ghost-guns/ -->Simply put, while this regulation may be intended to target just the consumer definition of 3D printers, CNC machines, laser cutters, and more, may also fall under this legal scrutiny.
https://www.geekwire.com/2026/proposals-take-aim-at-3d-printing-tech-to-strengthen-washington-state-laws-against-ghost-guns/ -->Simply put, while this regulation may be intended to target just the consumer definition of 3D printers, CNC machines, laser cutters, and more, may also fall under this legal scrutiny.


==== Overbroad enforcement<!-- This section absolutely needs to call for examples --> ====
====Overbroad enforcement<!-- This section absolutely needs to call for examples -->====
The most common applications for 3D printers are within education, research, prototyping, art, or hobbyist projects, all of which are traditionally legal applications. Depending on how this may be enforced, the end-user could be punished for making a part that could be used in the manufacture of a firearm, as the simplicity of firearm construction may lead to mundane parts being unable to be printed, regardless of intent.<!-- Definitely cite California legislation here -->
The most common applications for 3D printers are within education, research, prototyping, art, or hobbyist projects, all of which are traditionally legal applications. Depending on how this may be enforced, the end-user could be punished for making a part that could be used in the manufacture of a firearm, as the simplicity of firearm construction may lead to mundane parts being unable to be printed, regardless of intent.<!-- Definitely cite California legislation here -->


=== Harmful precedents ===
===Harmful precedents===


==== Legal precedents ====
====Legal precedents====
When legislation is passed, it sets the foundation for related legislation to be more capable of passing. Restrictive legislation against 3D printers may extend to the creation of additional laws that harms the ability for consumers to modify, maintain, or repair other devices they may own. <!-- We'll need to discuss potential related legislation in the future, such as how this may extend to repairing or building personal computers - JamesTDG -->
When legislation is passed, it sets the foundation for related legislation to be more capable of passing. Restrictive legislation against 3D printers may extend to the creation of additional laws that harms the ability for consumers to modify, maintain, or repair other devices they may own. <!-- We'll need to discuss potential related legislation in the future, such as how this may extend to repairing or building personal computers - JamesTDG -->


==== '''Precedent for other industries''' ====
===='''Precedent for other industries'''====
Companies may be enabled to include locks that block the end-user from manufacturing parts for repair in other devices, forcing consumers to only be capable of procuring parts from approved sellers in industries such as automotive, home appliances, or even industrial components. This blocking may extend to also halting consumers from repairing devices that are no-longer supported by the manufacturer, forcing hardware that once was easily repairable to become mere waste that they will have to replace with a newer model<!-- Unsure if I should include any mention of further anticonsumer risks associated with being forced to buy newer hardware or if it'll make this line too tangential. --> instead of fix.
Companies may be enabled to include locks that block the end-user from manufacturing parts for repair in other devices, forcing consumers to only be capable of procuring parts from approved sellers in industries such as automotive, home appliances, or even industrial components. This blocking may extend to also halting consumers from repairing devices that are no-longer supported by the manufacturer, forcing hardware that once was easily repairable to become mere waste that they will have to replace with a newer model<!-- Unsure if I should include any mention of further anticonsumer risks associated with being forced to buy newer hardware or if it'll make this line too tangential. --> instead of fix.


==Examples==
==Examples==


===Legislative and regulatory examples===
=== Legislative and regulatory examples ===
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Legislature name
!Year
!Region
!Summary
!Legislation Link
|-
|HB 2321
|2025
|Washington State
|Proposed legislation addressing 3D printing technology that may unintentionally restrict lawful consumer ownership, modification, or use of consumer 3D printers.
|<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-09 |title=HB 2321 - 2025-26 |url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2321&Year=2025 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=Washington State Legislature}}</ref>
|-
|HB 2320
|2025
|Washington State
|Related proposed legislation addressing risks associated with 3D printing technology, which has raised concerns about potential impacts on lawful consumer use and operation of consumer 3D printers.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edwards |first=Cam |date=2026-02-08 |title=Washington Dems Advance Bill That Could Ban 3D Printers Over Gun Fears |url=https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/02/08/washington-dems-advance-bill-that-could-ban-3d-printers-over-gun-fears-n1231483 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/xvTvu |archive-date=2026-03-09 |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=Bearing Arms}}</ref>
|<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-09 |title=HB 2320 - 2025-26 |url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?Year=2025&BillNumber=2320 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=Washington State Legislature}}</ref>
|-
|Assembly Bill A2228
|2025
|New York State
|Proposed legislation addressing the regulation of 3D printed items, raising concerns that enforcement mechanisms could indirectly affect consumer access to, or use of, 3D printing equipment.
|<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-09 |title=Assembly Bill A2228 |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A2228 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=[[The New York State Senate]]}}</ref>
|-
|Letter regarding 3D printer policies
|2025
|New York County
|Public correspondence outlining concerns related to consumer 3D printers that has been cited in discussions about potential technical or policy restrictions affecting lawful consumer activity.<!-- Might just need to be moved to a new section -->
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bragg |first=Alvin |date=2026-03-09 |title=Letter-Creality-3.26.25.pdf |url=https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Letter-Creality-3.26.25.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=}}</ref>
|-
|AB-2047
|2026
|California
|Proposed legislation that would require a certified firearm blueprint detection algorithm in all 3D printers and make it a crime to knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent any firearm blocking technology installed in a 3D printer.
|<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-09 |title=AB-2047 Firearms: 3-dimensional printing blocking technology. |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2047 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=California Legislative Information}}</ref>
|-
|HB26-1144
|2026
|Colorado
|Proposed legislation would ban manufacturing or producing a firearm, receiver, frame, large capacity magazine, or rapid fire device using 3d printing. Possessing or distributing computer code to manufacture a firearm or firearm component on a 3d printer or CNC mill would be prohibited. Violating any of the prohibitions would be a class 1 misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent violation would be a class 5 felony.
|<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-09 |title=Prohibit Three-Dimensional Printing Firearms & Components |url=https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB26-1144 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/bj124 |archive-date=2026-03-09 |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=Colorado General Assembly}}</ref>
|}
*


*Washington State Legislature: HB 2321 (2025) – Proposed legislation addressing 3D printing technology that may unintentionally restrict lawful consumer ownership, modification, or use of consumer 3D printers.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-09 |title=HB 2321 - 2025-26 |url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2321&Year=2025 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=Washington State Legislature}}</ref>
*
 
*Washington State Legislature: HB 2320 (2025) – Related proposed legislation addressing risks associated with 3D printing technology, which has raised concerns about potential impacts on lawful consumer use and operation of consumer 3D printers.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edwards |first=Cam |date=2026-02-08 |title=Washington Dems Advance Bill That Could Ban 3D Printers Over Gun Fears |url=https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/02/08/washington-dems-advance-bill-that-could-ban-3d-printers-over-gun-fears-n1231483 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/xvTvu |archive-date=2026-03-09 |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=Bearing Arms}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-09 |title=HB 2320 - 2025-26 |url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?Year=2025&BillNumber=2320 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=Washington State Legislature}}</ref>
 
*New York State Senate: Assembly Bill A2228 (2025) – Proposed legislation addressing the regulation of 3D printed items, raising concerns that enforcement mechanisms could indirectly affect consumer access to, or use of, 3D printing equipment.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-09 |title=Assembly Bill A2228 |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A2228 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=[[The New York State Senate]]}}</ref>
 
*Manhattan District Attorney Office: Letter regarding 3D printer policies (2025) – Public correspondence outlining concerns related to consumer 3D printers that has been cited in discussions about potential technical or policy restrictions affecting lawful consumer activity.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bragg |first=Alvin |date=2026-03-09 |title=Letter-Creality-3.26.25.pdf |url=https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Letter-Creality-3.26.25.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=}}</ref>
*California State Legislature: AB-2047 (2026) –  Proposed legislation that would require a certified firearm blueprint detection algorithm in all 3D printers and make it a crime to knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent any firearm blocking technology installed in a 3D printer.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-09 |title=AB-2047 Firearms: 3-dimensional printing blocking technology. |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2047 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=California Legislative Information}}</ref>
*Colorado General Assembly. HB26-1144 (2026) – Proposed legislation would ban manufacturing or producing a firearm, receiver, frame, large capacity magazine, or rapid fire device using 3d printing. Possessing or distributing computer code to manufacture a firearm or firearm component on a 3d printer or CNC mill would be prohibited. Violating any of the prohibitions would be a class 1 misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent violation would be a class 5 felony.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-09 |title=Prohibit Three-Dimensional Printing Firearms & Components |url=https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB26-1144 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/bj124 |archive-date=2026-03-09 |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=Colorado General Assembly}}</ref>


*


===Manufacturer and platform policies===
===Manufacturer and platform policies===
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Company name
!Year
!Summary
!CRW article
|-
|Print&Go Tech
|2024
|Company promoting technical solutions intended to prevent the printing of certain prohibited items, referenced in discussions about content filtering, software enforcement mechanisms, and their potential impact on consumer control and repairability.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-02-08 |title=3D Printer Ban Company Exposed |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGEVra9U91I |url-status=live |archive-url=https://preservetube.com/watch?v=tGEVra9U91I |archive-date=2026-03-09 |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-11-04 |title=3D GUN'T: Print&Go’s solution to prevent 3D printed ‘Ghost Guns’ |url=https://printandgo.tech/blog/3d-gunt-solution-to-prevent-3d-printed-ghost-guns |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/TBCWF |archive-date=2026-03-09 |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=[[Print&Go]]}}</ref>
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|}
*


*Print&Go Tech – Company promoting technical solutions intended to prevent the printing of certain prohibited items, referenced in discussions about content filtering, software enforcement mechanisms, and their potential impact on consumer control and repairability.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-02-08 |title=3D Printer Ban Company Exposed |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGEVra9U91I |url-status=live |archive-url=https://preservetube.com/watch?v=tGEVra9U91I |archive-date=2026-03-09 |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-11-04 |title=3D GUN'T: Print&Go’s solution to prevent 3D printed ‘Ghost Guns’ |url=https://printandgo.tech/blog/3d-gunt-solution-to-prevent-3d-printed-ghost-guns |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/TBCWF |archive-date=2026-03-09 |access-date=2026-03-09 |website=[[Print&Go]]}}</ref>
===Companies enforcing restrictive policies<!-- Convert to table format when list is no-longer blank -->===
 
===Companies enforcing restrictive policies===
''This list is intentionally left blank pending verified, neutral sourcing.''
''This list is intentionally left blank pending verified, neutral sourcing.''


*<!-- Company name -->
*<!-- Company name -->


===Companies not enforcing restrictive policies===
=== Companies not enforcing restrictive policies<!-- Convert to table format when list is no-longer blank --> ===
''This list is intentionally left blank pending verified, neutral sourcing.''
''This list is intentionally left blank pending verified, neutral sourcing.''


Revision as of 10:09, 28 March 2026

🧽🫧Article Status Notice: This Article needs to be cleaned up

This article contains sources and content, but is lacking proper format and needs more development to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and provide a high quality and consistent experience for readers. Learn more ▼

3D Printing Restrictions and Bans is a practice in which businesses, platforms, or governments impose legal, technical, or policy-based limitations on how consumer 3D printers may be used. These restrictions can affect the ability to modify, repair, or continue using hardware that consumers legally own. They are commonly implemented through legislation, firmware or software controls, licensing terms, or manufacturer support policies.

How it works

Restrictions on consumer 3D printing can be implemented in several ways:

  • Legislative restrictions – Laws or proposed bills may restrict ownership, modification, or use of 3D printers based on perceived risks, such as the production of prohibited items.
  • Firmware and software locks – Manufacturers may restrict printer functionality through signed firmware, mandatory cloud connections, or software validation checks.
  • Platform or service dependency – Printers may rely on proprietary slicers, cloud services, or online authorization systems to remain functional.
  • Content filtering and model blocking – Software may scan, flag, or block certain model files or printing instructions.
  • Support withdrawal – Manufacturers may declare devices “unsupported,” potentially disabling functionality through software updates or server shutdowns.

These mechanisms can operate independently or in combination.

Why it is a problem

With legal restrictions and bans applied to 3D printers, there are numerous faults that arise:

Loss of ownership

Locks, applied either via software or hardware, most likely will block the end-user from having the capability to repair, modify, or maintain printers they legally own. On the legal front, the end-user cannot bypass these locks thanks to section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. On the corporate front, e-fuses, DRM, and more will likely be applied in an attempt to block the end-user from repairing, modifying, or maintaining their 3D printers for the sake of legal compliance, despite regular maintenance being mandatory for the functionality of these printers.[1] This would effectively treat the end-user as a licensee than the owner of both the hardware and software they purchased.

Loss of functionality

3D printers will have an increased likelihood of becoming partially or fully inoperable due to various variables. With how DRM may be applied to these devices, they may be required to communicate with privately hosted servers from the manufacturer to verify if the printer or what it is printing is compliant with regulations. If these servers lose functionality, such as from the manufacturer going defunct, temporary outages, or forced obsolescence, these printers may lose vital functionality as well.

Overbroad regulation

The legal front of regulation is excessively overbroad:

Overbroad applications

While consumers treat 3D printers as the definition of a device that extrudes materials to create a 3-dimensional object, the legal definition of a 3D printer is far more broad to cover any machine that handles either additive or subtractive creation of a desired part.[citation needed - Check comment] Simply put, while this regulation may be intended to target just the consumer definition of 3D printers, CNC machines, laser cutters, and more, may also fall under this legal scrutiny.

Overbroad enforcement

The most common applications for 3D printers are within education, research, prototyping, art, or hobbyist projects, all of which are traditionally legal applications. Depending on how this may be enforced, the end-user could be punished for making a part that could be used in the manufacture of a firearm, as the simplicity of firearm construction may lead to mundane parts being unable to be printed, regardless of intent.

Harmful precedents

When legislation is passed, it sets the foundation for related legislation to be more capable of passing. Restrictive legislation against 3D printers may extend to the creation of additional laws that harms the ability for consumers to modify, maintain, or repair other devices they may own.

Precedent for other industries

Companies may be enabled to include locks that block the end-user from manufacturing parts for repair in other devices, forcing consumers to only be capable of procuring parts from approved sellers in industries such as automotive, home appliances, or even industrial components. This blocking may extend to also halting consumers from repairing devices that are no-longer supported by the manufacturer, forcing hardware that once was easily repairable to become mere waste that they will have to replace with a newer model instead of fix.

Examples

Legislative and regulatory examples

Legislature name Year Region Summary Legislation Link
HB 2321 2025 Washington State Proposed legislation addressing 3D printing technology that may unintentionally restrict lawful consumer ownership, modification, or use of consumer 3D printers. [2]
HB 2320 2025 Washington State Related proposed legislation addressing risks associated with 3D printing technology, which has raised concerns about potential impacts on lawful consumer use and operation of consumer 3D printers.[3] [4]
Assembly Bill A2228 2025 New York State Proposed legislation addressing the regulation of 3D printed items, raising concerns that enforcement mechanisms could indirectly affect consumer access to, or use of, 3D printing equipment. [5]
Letter regarding 3D printer policies 2025 New York County Public correspondence outlining concerns related to consumer 3D printers that has been cited in discussions about potential technical or policy restrictions affecting lawful consumer activity. [6]
AB-2047 2026 California Proposed legislation that would require a certified firearm blueprint detection algorithm in all 3D printers and make it a crime to knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent any firearm blocking technology installed in a 3D printer. [7]
HB26-1144 2026 Colorado Proposed legislation would ban manufacturing or producing a firearm, receiver, frame, large capacity magazine, or rapid fire device using 3d printing. Possessing or distributing computer code to manufacture a firearm or firearm component on a 3d printer or CNC mill would be prohibited. Violating any of the prohibitions would be a class 1 misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent violation would be a class 5 felony. [8]

Manufacturer and platform policies

Company name Year Summary CRW article
Print&Go Tech 2024 Company promoting technical solutions intended to prevent the printing of certain prohibited items, referenced in discussions about content filtering, software enforcement mechanisms, and their potential impact on consumer control and repairability.[9][10]

Companies enforcing restrictive policies

This list is intentionally left blank pending verified, neutral sourcing.

Companies not enforcing restrictive policies

This list is intentionally left blank pending verified, neutral sourcing.

References

  1. ↑ 3DISM (May 1, 2025). "3D Printer Maintenance Checklist (Monthly, Weekly Tasks)". 3dism.org. Retrieved Mar 28, 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ↑ "HB 2321 - 2025-26". Washington State Legislature. 2026-03-09. Retrieved 2026-03-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ↑ Edwards, Cam (2026-02-08). "Washington Dems Advance Bill That Could Ban 3D Printers Over Gun Fears". Bearing Arms. Archived from the original on 2026-03-09. Retrieved 2026-03-09.
  4. ↑ "HB 2320 - 2025-26". Washington State Legislature. 2026-03-09. Retrieved 2026-03-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ↑ "Assembly Bill A2228". The New York State Senate. 2026-03-09. Retrieved 2026-03-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ↑ Bragg, Alvin (2026-03-09). "Letter-Creality-3.26.25.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2026-03-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ↑ "AB-2047 Firearms: 3-dimensional printing blocking technology". California Legislative Information. 2026-03-09. Retrieved 2026-03-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ↑ "Prohibit Three-Dimensional Printing Firearms & Components". Colorado General Assembly. 2026-03-09. Archived from the original on 2026-03-09. Retrieved 2026-03-09.
  9. ↑ "3D Printer Ban Company Exposed". YouTube. 2026-02-08. Archived from the original on 2026-03-09. Retrieved 2026-03-09.
  10. ↑ "3D GUN'T: Print&Go's solution to prevent 3D printed 'Ghost Guns'". Print&Go. 2024-11-04. Archived from the original on 2026-03-09. Retrieved 2026-03-09.
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=3D_Printing_restrictions_and_bans&oldid=48105"