GoKawiilIn the summer of 2024, former Army National Guard member Andrew Scott Hastings spent a sweaty afternoon carefully packing boxes with parts he made using his 3D printer. These weren’t novelty figurines or replacement Ikea pieces. The boxes were instead filled with a handful of homemade firearm lower receivers and more than 100 “switches,” small devices capable of converting a semiautomatic gun into a fully automatic weapon. Their intended recipients, federal prosecutors allege, were al-Qaida operatives.
Months later ATF agents busted two men in Colorado Springs for allegedly using 3D printers to churn out hundreds of illegal machine gun conversion devices as a part of a DIY black market. To avoid detection the duo allegedly stuffed their products into Lego boxes and shipped them to buyers across the country.
There was, however, no recent case that thrust 3D-printed guns — a type of untraceable “ghost gun” — back into the public consciousness quite like the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024. Suspected gunman Luigi Mangione, then 26, allegedly shot Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel using a partially 3D-printed Glock-style frame and a 3D-printed silencer, otherwise known as a suppressor, the latter of which would otherwise require months of federal paperwork to obtain legally.
Today, almost anyone with a printer, internet access, and enough patience can browse file-sharing sites and attempt to make their own gun.
But a new volley of legislation progressing in California and New York aims to shake up that stalemate by moving regulation from the files to the machines themselves, requiring 3D printers to employ blueprint scanning “print blocker” software that, in theory, would detect gun files and stop the print before it starts. It’s essentially taking the long-running debate over online content moderation and translating it to the physical world.
The problem is, neither New York nor California specifies what the blocking technology must actually look like. That flexibility gives the printing industry and technologists more time and freedom to experiment with different technical approaches, but it simultaneously leaves critics on edge — unsure whether a relatively contained gun control measure could eventually evolve into something closer to a broad infrastructure for file surveillance.
The first rumblings of blocking technology legislation emerged in Washington state earlier this year with HB 2321, which would have required all 3D printers sold in the state to come equipped with “firearm blueprint detection algorithms,” alongside a database of prohibited guns and components maintained by the state’s attorney general. The bill faced immediate pushback from makers and industry experts who argued it would needlessly sweep up legitimate non-firearm parts in its net and drive hobbyists away from 3D printing altogether. It died in committee, but the bill’s skeleton would go on to form the backbone of ongoing efforts in California and New York.
Photo: Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge
California’s AB 2047 would require the state’s Department of Justice to maintain an approved roster of 3D printer makes and models equipped with certified firearm-blocking technology. The DOJ would retain the ability to update and alter the requirements for that roster over time. A recent addition to the bill provides an exception for Hollywood, which regularly uses 3D printers to make gun props. If passed, manufacturers who want to sell printers in the state would have to attest that they have implemented a firearm detection algorithm approved by the government in each make and model they submit — though the details of exactly what that scanning tech entails are left unspecified.
What is clear is that any printer sold after March 1st, 2029, that doesn’t appear on the approved list would be illegal to sell in the state, with civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation. Hackers or tinkerers who knowingly disable or circumvent the blocking software on an approved printer, meanwhile, could face misdemeanor charges and potential jail time. The bill passed the California Assembly on May 26th but still needs Senate approval and a signature from Gov. Gavin Newsom before becoming law.
... continue reading