3D Printing restrictions and bans: Difference between revisions
m again with the safety |
m Removed left-over ref; moved refs to inside quotes. |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==How restrictions are imposed== | ==How restrictions are imposed== | ||
Restrictions on consumer 3D printers take several forms, often combined: | Restrictions on consumer 3D printers take several forms, often combined: | ||
| Line 12: | Line 11: | ||
==Firearm-blocking printer mandates== | ==Firearm-blocking printer mandates== | ||
In 2026 several states moved to regulate 3D-printed firearms through the printer itself rather than only the design file or the finished weapon. New York enacted the first such law; Washington and California advanced bills along the same lines, and Colorado and the Manhattan District Attorney pursued narrower measures.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="toms-wa" /><ref name="toms-ca" /><ref name="co-bill" /><ref name="manhattanda" /> | In 2026 several states moved to regulate 3D-printed firearms through the printer itself rather than only the design file or the finished weapon. New York enacted the first such law; Washington and California advanced bills along the same lines, and Colorado and the Manhattan District Attorney pursued narrower measures.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="toms-wa" /><ref name="toms-ca" /><ref name="co-bill" /><ref name="manhattanda" /> | ||
===New York blocking-technology mandate=== | ===New York blocking-technology mandate=== | ||
{{Main|New York 3D printer blocking technology mandate}} | {{Main|New York 3D printer blocking technology mandate}} | ||
New York's mandate was enacted as Part C of the FY2026-2027 budget, bills S.9005-C and A.10005-C, and signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on May 27, 2026.<ref name="gov" /><ref name="bill" /> The operative command is in the new General Business Law section 396-eeee (1): | New York's mandate was enacted as Part C of the FY2026-2027 budget, bills S.9005-C and A.10005-C, and signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on May 27, 2026.<ref name="gov" /><ref name="bill" /> The operative command is in the new General Business Law section 396-eeee (1): | ||
<blockquote>''No person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation shall sell or deliver any three-dimensional printer in the state of New York unless such printer is equipped with blocking technology.'' | <blockquote>''No person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation shall sell or deliver any three-dimensional printer in the state of New York unless such printer is equipped with blocking technology.''<ref name="bill-pdf" /></blockquote> | ||
Executive Law section 837-aa (1)(b) defines that blocking technology as integrated measures that keep a printer from running any job unless the file has been evaluated by a firearms blueprint detection algorithm and found not to produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts.<ref name="bill" /> The algorithm, defined in section 837-aa (1)(c), reads printing files ''"whether in the form of stereolithography (STL) files or other computer aided design files or geometric code."''<ref name="bill" /> To supply data for those checks, section 837-aa (3)(b) authorizes the Division of Criminal Justice Services to build a library of firearms blueprint files ''"including scans of seized firearms."''<ref name="bill-pdf" /> | Executive Law section 837-aa (1)(b) defines that blocking technology as integrated measures that keep a printer from running any job unless the file has been evaluated by a firearms blueprint detection algorithm and found not to produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts.<ref name="bill" /> The algorithm, defined in section 837-aa (1)(c), reads printing files ''"whether in the form of stereolithography (STL) files or other computer aided design files or geometric code."''<ref name="bill" /> To supply data for those checks, section 837-aa (3)(b) authorizes the Division of Criminal Justice Services to build a library of firearms blueprint files ''"including scans of seized firearms."''<ref name="bill-pdf" /> | ||
| Line 29: | Line 26: | ||
The device-sales requirement is not yet in force. Under section 837-aa, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the Department of State, and the State University of New York must convene a working group within 90 days of enactment; the group has up to one year to recommend minimum safety standards; the Division then has up to nine months to promulgate performance-standard rules; and the section 396-eeee sales requirement takes effect one year after those rules are promulgated.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Stacked end to end, those intervals place the earliest possible effective date more than two years after enactment.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The chain can also stop entirely. Section 837-aa (2) provides a feasibility off-ramp: | The device-sales requirement is not yet in force. Under section 837-aa, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the Department of State, and the State University of New York must convene a working group within 90 days of enactment; the group has up to one year to recommend minimum safety standards; the Division then has up to nine months to promulgate performance-standard rules; and the section 396-eeee sales requirement takes effect one year after those rules are promulgated.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Stacked end to end, those intervals place the earliest possible effective date more than two years after enactment.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The chain can also stop entirely. Section 837-aa (2) provides a feasibility off-ramp: | ||
<blockquote>''[I]f the working group determines that it is not technologically feasible to require three-dimensional printers sold in the state of New York to include blocking technology, the working group shall so report, and no regulations shall be required to be promulgated pursuant to this section, until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.'' | <blockquote>''[I]f the working group determines that it is not technologically feasible to require three-dimensional printers sold in the state of New York to include blocking technology, the working group shall so report, and no regulations shall be required to be promulgated pursuant to this section, until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.''<ref name="bill-pdf" /></blockquote> | ||
If the working group makes that finding, no rules issue and the sales requirement is deferred indefinitely.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Enforcement of the sales requirement is civil and runs through the Attorney General: a gun-industry member found by a court to have violated section 396-eeee is liable for a civil penalty of $5,000 for each qualified product unlawfully sold, and the Attorney General may also sue to enjoin violations and obtain restitution.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The requirement does not apply to a buyer who holds both a New York gunsmith license under Penal Law section 400.00 and a federal firearms license, and only after the Attorney General verifies the licenses and issues written authorization.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> | If the working group makes that finding, no rules issue and the sales requirement is deferred indefinitely.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> Enforcement of the sales requirement is civil and runs through the Attorney General: a gun-industry member found by a court to have violated section 396-eeee is liable for a civil penalty of $5,000 for each qualified product unlawfully sold, and the Attorney General may also sue to enjoin violations and obtain restitution.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> The requirement does not apply to a buyer who holds both a New York gunsmith license under Penal Law section 400.00 and a federal firearms license, and only after the Attorney General verifies the licenses and issues written authorization.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> | ||
| Line 36: | Line 33: | ||
===Other state and local efforts=== | ===Other state and local efforts=== | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 63: | Line 59: | ||
===Reactions=== | ===Reactions=== | ||
Supporters framed the New York law as a public-safety floor. The Governor's office said the budget set ''"first-in-the-nation minimum safety standards for 3D printers sold in New York to be equipped with basic technology that prevents the unlicensed, illegal production of lethal firearms and firearm parts."''<ref name="gov" /> Everytown for Gun Safety praised the package as nation-leading action and described it as shutting down the ''"plastic pipeline"'' of do-it-yourself firearms.<ref name="everytown" /> The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action objected to enacting the measure through the budget, calling it a ''"strategic move to put divisive legislation into an all-or-nothing budget bill"'' rather than a standalone vote.<ref name="nra" /> | Supporters framed the New York law as a public-safety floor. The Governor's office said the budget set ''"first-in-the-nation minimum safety standards for 3D printers sold in New York to be equipped with basic technology that prevents the unlicensed, illegal production of lethal firearms and firearm parts."''<ref name="gov" /> Everytown for Gun Safety praised the package as nation-leading action and described it as shutting down the ''"plastic pipeline"'' of do-it-yourself firearms.<ref name="everytown" /> The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action objected to enacting the measure through the budget, calling it a ''"strategic move to put divisive legislation into an all-or-nothing budget bill"'' rather than a standalone vote.<ref name="nra" /> | ||
| Line 69: | Line 64: | ||
==Technical feasibility== | ==Technical feasibility== | ||
===What 3D printers can and cannot make=== | ===What 3D printers can and cannot make=== | ||
A firearm concentrates the force of a fired cartridge in a small set of metal parts. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute sets the maximum average pressure for the 9mm Luger cartridge at 35,000 pounds per square inch, contained on every shot by the barrel, chamber, bolt, and slide.<ref name="saami" /> The frame or lower receiver, which houses the trigger group and keeps the metal parts aligned, bears far less. In its assessment of 3D-printed firearm components, the Small Arms Survey described the division of labor in the AR-15: | A firearm concentrates the force of a fired cartridge in a small set of metal parts. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute sets the maximum average pressure for the 9mm Luger cartridge at 35,000 pounds per square inch, contained on every shot by the barrel, chamber, bolt, and slide.<ref name="saami" /> The frame or lower receiver, which houses the trigger group and keeps the metal parts aligned, bears far less. In its assessment of 3D-printed firearm components, the Small Arms Survey described the division of labor in the AR-15: | ||
<blockquote>''In the AR-15 design, for example, the thermal and mechanical stresses of firing are borne mainly by the barrel, bolt, and upper-receiver assemblies. The lower receiver is primarily intended to ensure the correct alignment and interface of the operating parts of the firearm, and to house the trigger and fire selector and safety mechanisms.'' | <blockquote>''In the AR-15 design, for example, the thermal and mechanical stresses of firing are borne mainly by the barrel, bolt, and upper-receiver assemblies. The lower receiver is primarily intended to ensure the correct alignment and interface of the operating parts of the firearm, and to house the trigger and fire selector and safety mechanisms.''<ref name="smallarms" /></blockquote> | ||
Consumer fused-deposition printers can make that low-stress frame in thermoplastic. They cannot make a barrel or chamber that survives a centerfire cartridge.<ref name="smallarms" /> Under federal law the frame or receiver is the regulated part: 18 U.S.C. section 921 (a)(3) includes ''"the frame or receiver of any such weapon,"'' and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives defines a handgun frame at 27 CFR section 478.12 (a)(1).<ref name="usc921" /><ref name="cfr47812" /> The pressure-bearing barrel and slide carry no such status and are sold online as ordinary parts; a California legislative committee analysis, citing a Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General estimate, put the cost of 3D-printing a 9mm handgun frame and adding unregulated metal components at around $700.<ref name="oig" /> | Consumer fused-deposition printers can make that low-stress frame in thermoplastic. They cannot make a barrel or chamber that survives a centerfire cartridge.<ref name="smallarms" /> Under federal law the frame or receiver is the regulated part: 18 U.S.C. section 921 (a)(3) includes ''"the frame or receiver of any such weapon,"'' and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives defines a handgun frame at 27 CFR section 478.12 (a)(1).<ref name="usc921" /><ref name="cfr47812" /> The pressure-bearing barrel and slide carry no such status and are sold online as ordinary parts; a California legislative committee analysis, citing a Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General estimate, put the cost of 3D-printing a 9mm handgun frame and adding unregulated metal components at around $700.<ref name="oig" /> | ||
| Line 83: | Line 76: | ||
===Detection methods and their failure modes=== | ===Detection methods and their failure modes=== | ||
The central technical objection to the scanning mandate is that a printing file describes geometry, not purpose, so a scanner cannot reliably separate a restricted part from an ordinary one. Phillip Torrone of Adafruit, whose analysis Techdirt reproduced, framed the task as a classification problem: | The central technical objection to the scanning mandate is that a printing file describes geometry, not purpose, so a scanner cannot reliably separate a restricted part from an ordinary one. Phillip Torrone of Adafruit, whose analysis Techdirt reproduced, framed the task as a classification problem: | ||
<blockquote>''A firearms blueprint detection algorithm would need to identify every possible firearm component from raw STL/GCODE files, while not flagging pipes, tubes, blocks, brackets, gears, or any of the millions of legitimate shapes that happen to share geometric properties with gun parts. This is a classification problem with enormous false positive and false negative rates.'' | <blockquote>''A firearms blueprint detection algorithm would need to identify every possible firearm component from raw STL/GCODE files, while not flagging pipes, tubes, blocks, brackets, gears, or any of the millions of legitimate shapes that happen to share geometric properties with gun parts. This is a classification problem with enormous false positive and false negative rates.''<ref name="techdirt" /></blockquote> | ||
Techdirt also noted that many printers run offline or on community-maintained firmware that no state library reaches, so a scanning requirement could not be enforced on them.<ref name="techdirt" /> The Electronic Frontier Foundation summarized the approach as ''"an unfeasible tech solution."''<ref name="eff" /> | Techdirt also noted that many printers run offline or on community-maintained firmware that no state library reaches, so a scanning requirement could not be enforced on them.<ref name="techdirt" /> The Electronic Frontier Foundation summarized the approach as ''"an unfeasible tech solution."''<ref name="eff" /> | ||
===Legitimate prints | ===Legitimate prints wrongly flagged as firearm parts=== | ||
Critics argue that setting a scanner wide enough to catch a firearm part necessarily flags benign objects built to the same proportions. Torrone's list of shapes that share geometry with gun parts named pipes, tubes, blocks, brackets, and gears.<ref name="techdirt" /> One illustration, developed in a [[User:Louis/3D printer firearm-blocking mandates and geometric false positives|companion essay]], pairs a firearm sound-suppressor baffle, drawn in US Patent 7,987,944 as a conical bell with a central aperture, with the internal cones of Nikola Tesla's 1920 valvular conduit, US Patent 1,329,559.<ref name="baffle" /><ref name="tesla" /> Critics likewise argue that a per-file scan is easily defeated by editing a file slightly or splitting a part into pieces that each resemble nothing in particular.<ref name="techdirt" /><ref name="eff" /> | Critics argue that setting a scanner wide enough to catch a firearm part necessarily flags benign objects built to the same proportions. Torrone's list of shapes that share geometry with gun parts named pipes, tubes, blocks, brackets, and gears.<ref name="techdirt" /> One illustration, developed in a [[User:Louis/3D printer firearm-blocking mandates and geometric false positives|companion essay]], pairs a firearm sound-suppressor baffle, drawn in US Patent 7,987,944 as a conical bell with a central aperture, with the internal cones of Nikola Tesla's 1920 valvular conduit, US Patent 1,329,559.<ref name="baffle" /><ref name="tesla" /> Critics likewise argue that a per-file scan is easily defeated by editing a file slightly or splitting a part into pieces that each resemble nothing in particular.<ref name="techdirt" /><ref name="eff" /> | ||
==Consumer | ==Consumer rights and ownership concerns== | ||
The consumer-rights objection is that a blocking mandate puts a state-defined filter between owners and hardware they bought. The Electronic Frontier Foundation framed print-blocking as a return of digital rights management, writing that the New York approach repeats ''"the mistakes of DRM."''<ref name="eff" /> In its ''"Permission to Print"'' series the group tied the tactic to the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], which it said made bypassing code that restricts the use of copyrighted content a federal crime, and treated a mandated filter on an owner's machine as a restriction on lawful use of property.<ref name="eff-permission" /> | The consumer-rights objection is that a blocking mandate puts a state-defined filter between owners and hardware they bought. The Electronic Frontier Foundation framed print-blocking as a return of digital rights management, writing that the New York approach repeats ''"the mistakes of DRM."''<ref name="eff" /> In its ''"Permission to Print"'' series the group tied the tactic to the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], which it said made bypassing code that restricts the use of copyrighted content a federal crime, and treated a mandated filter on an owner's machine as a restriction on lawful use of property.<ref name="eff-permission" /> | ||
| Line 103: | Line 93: | ||
==Court cases== | ==Court cases== | ||
Whether a firearm design file is protected speech has been litigated apart from the printer mandates.<ref name="ca3" /> In ''Defense Distributed v. Attorney General New Jersey'', No. 23-3058, decided February 12, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge by Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation to New Jersey's restrictions on distributing 3D-printed gun code.<ref name="ca3" /><ref name="courthouse" /> The court held that ''"Purely functional code with no expressive purpose, use, or intent is simply not covered by the First Amendment,"'' and affirmed because the plaintiffs had not pleaded that their files were expressive.<ref name="ca3" /> | Whether a firearm design file is protected speech has been litigated apart from the printer mandates.<ref name="ca3" /> In ''Defense Distributed v. Attorney General New Jersey'', No. 23-3058, decided February 12, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge by Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation to New Jersey's restrictions on distributing 3D-printed gun code.<ref name="ca3" /><ref name="courthouse" /> The court held that ''"Purely functional code with no expressive purpose, use, or intent is simply not covered by the First Amendment,"'' and affirmed because the plaintiffs had not pleaded that their files were expressive.<ref name="ca3" /> | ||
| Line 109: | Line 98: | ||
==Manufacturer and platform policies== | ==Manufacturer and platform policies== | ||
Some companies market the kind of filtering that the state mandates would require. Print&Go, a 3D-printing workflow company, sells a product called "3D GUN'T" that it describes as a solution to prevent the printing of 3D-printed ghost guns, and the Manhattan District Attorney's 2025 letter pointed to that software as a model for printer makers to adopt.<ref name="printandgo" /><ref name="manhattanda" /> Other restrictive practices come from the printer makers themselves rather than from third-party filters: cloud-authorization and firmware locks are documented in the [[Bambu Lab Authorization Control System]], and a copyleft-compliance dispute over locked firmware in the [[Creality K2 series GPLv3 violation]]. | Some companies market the kind of filtering that the state mandates would require. Print&Go, a 3D-printing workflow company, sells a product called "3D GUN'T" that it describes as a solution to prevent the printing of 3D-printed ghost guns, and the Manhattan District Attorney's 2025 letter pointed to that software as a model for printer makers to adopt.<ref name="printandgo" /><ref name="manhattanda" /> Other restrictive practices come from the printer makers themselves rather than from third-party filters: cloud-authorization and firmware locks are documented in the [[Bambu Lab Authorization Control System]], and a copyleft-compliance dispute over locked firmware in the [[Creality K2 series GPLv3 violation]]. | ||
| Line 120: | Line 108: | ||
*[[Right to Repair]] | *[[Right to Repair]] | ||
*[[Bambu Lab Authorization Control System]] | *[[Bambu Lab Authorization Control System]] | ||
*[[ | *[[Flashforge#Flashforge_threatens_to_report_customers_for_printing_firearms_or_weapon_components|Flashforge threatens to report customers for printing firearms or weapon components]] | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 164: | Line 152: | ||
<ref name="vanderstok">{{Cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf |title=Bondi v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852 |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |date=2025-03-26 |access-date=2026-06-02}} Page 7 states that "a frame or receiver is, even when sold separately, subject to the Act's requirements"; the Court upheld the ATF's 2022 frame-or-receiver rule.</ref> | <ref name="vanderstok">{{Cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf |title=Bondi v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852 |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |date=2025-03-26 |access-date=2026-06-02}} Page 7 states that "a frame or receiver is, even when sold separately, subject to the Act's requirements"; the Court upheld the ATF's 2022 frame-or-receiver rule.</ref> | ||
<ref name="testimony">{{Cite web |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/sites/default/files/admin/structure/media/manage/filefile/a/2026-03/everytown-for-gun-safety.pdf |title=Testimony of Everytown for Gun Safety to the Senate Finance Committee and Assembly Ways and Means Committee in Support of PPGG Part C |author=Elisabeth Ryan |publisher=Everytown for Gun Safety |date=2026-02-12 |access-date=2026-06-02}} Policy counsel Elisabeth Ryan's written testimony on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety supporting New York's 3D printer blocking mandate.</ref> | <ref name="testimony">{{Cite web |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/sites/default/files/admin/structure/media/manage/filefile/a/2026-03/everytown-for-gun-safety.pdf |title=Testimony of Everytown for Gun Safety to the Senate Finance Committee and Assembly Ways and Means Committee in Support of PPGG Part C |author=Elisabeth Ryan |publisher=Everytown for Gun Safety |date=2026-02-12 |access-date=2026-06-02}} Policy counsel Elisabeth Ryan's written testimony on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety supporting New York's 3D printer blocking mandate.</ref> | ||
<ref name="everytown-ca">{{Cite web |url=https://www.everytown.org/press/california-assembly-passes-landmark-bill-to-stop-the-rise-of-3d-printed-ghost-guns/ |title=California Assembly Passes Landmark Bill to Stop the Rise of 3D-Printed Ghost Guns |publisher=Everytown for Gun Safety |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-02}} States that AB 2047 "would require that consumer 3D printers sold in California include existing technology capable of blocking attempts to print firearms and illegal gun parts."</ref> | <ref name="everytown-ca">{{Cite web |url=https://www.everytown.org/press/california-assembly-passes-landmark-bill-to-stop-the-rise-of-3d-printed-ghost-guns/ |title=California Assembly Passes Landmark Bill to Stop the Rise of 3D-Printed Ghost Guns |publisher=Everytown for Gun Safety |date=2026-05-27 |access-date=2026-06-02}} States that AB 2047 "would require that consumer 3D printers sold in California include existing technology capable of blocking attempts to print firearms and illegal gun parts."</ref> | ||
<ref name="wa-hb2321">{{Cite web |url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2321&Year=2025 |title=HB 2321 - Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies |publisher=Washington State Legislature |access-date=2026-06-02}}</ref> | <ref name="wa-hb2321">{{Cite web |url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2321&Year=2025 |title=HB 2321 - Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies |publisher=Washington State Legislature |access-date=2026-06-02}}</ref> | ||
| Line 174: | Line 161: | ||
[[Category:Anti-consumer practices]] | [[Category:Anti-consumer practices]] | ||
[[Category:Right to | [[Category:Right to repair]] | ||
[[Category:Legislation]] | [[Category:Legislation]] | ||
[[Category:Digital rights management]] | [[Category:Digital rights management]] | ||