Four US states and the American Congress are now moving to regulate what 3D printing files you may legally possess, what firmware your machine may run, and whether your printer is permitted to operate without government surveillance. The goal is reducing untraceable firearms, which is a legitimate and important goal. The potential collateral damage to the miniature industry, however, if these bills pass unchanged, is the current, open ecosystem that makes professional miniature printing possible.
Given the potential impact to the creator community, Minarium has reviewed each bill in full. Here is what every creator needs to know.
What the Legislation Actually Proposes
Five distinct pieces of legislation are currently active, spanning four US states and the federal level. Each takes a different approach, but together they represent a coordinated effort to extend firearms law into the domain of digital fabrication.
Colorado’s HB 26-1144, titled “Prohibit Three-Dimensional Printing Firearms and Components,” passed the Colorado House Judiciary Committee on February 18, 2026, by a vote of 7 to 4, and is now advancing to a full House floor vote. At the moment, the bill criminalizes the manufacture of firearms or firearm components using a 3D printer or CNC milling machine. Notably, it also makes it a crime to possess digital instructions that could be used to manufacture such items if circumstances suggest intent to do so, and separately criminalizes distributing those files. A first offense is a Class 1 misdemeanor; subsequent offenses escalate to a Class 5 felony, which carries a sentence of one to three years in prison and fines of up to $100,000.
Washington’s HB 2321 takes a fundamentally different approach by targeting the hardware itself. Introduced in January 2026, the bill would require that any 3D printer sold or transferred in Washington after July 1, 2027 be equipped with mandatory “blocking features” powered by a firearm blueprint detection algorithm. The printer would be required to scan every file, compare it against some type of standard, perhaps a state-maintained database of prohibited designs, and reject flagged jobs automatically. The bill also specifies that the blocking features must be engineered to resist circumvention by users with “significant technical skill.” The Attorney General would be required to establish and maintain the prohibited-file database, with annual updates.
New York’s S.9005 pursues the same hardware-level approach but embeds the requirement within the state’s executive budget, meaning it could become law without a standalone vote on the merits. Under S.9005, any printer sold in New York without a pre-installed firearms blueprint detection algorithm would be prohibited.
California’s AB 2047, the “California Firearm Printing Prevention Act,” was introduced on February 17, 2026 by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. It establishes the most bureaucratically complex framework of any state bill to date. The California Department of Justice would be required to develop performance standards for detection algorithms, certify compliant algorithms, and publish a roster of approved printer makes and models. By March 1, 2029, no 3D printer could be legally sold or transferred in California unless it appeared on that roster. Knowingly disabling or circumventing the blocking software would be a misdemeanor, and civil penalties for non-compliant sales could reach $25,000 per violation.
At the federal level, H.R. 4143, the “3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2025,” was introduced on June 25, 2025 by Representative Jared Moskowitz (D-FL-23) and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Rather than regulating printers directly, it would amend federal firearms law to make it a crime to distribute, over the internet, any digital file or computer code that can automatically direct a 3D printer to manufacture a firearm or nearly complete frame. If enacted, it would effectively function as a nationwide prohibition on sharing printable firearm design files online.
Why Miniature Creators Should Be Paying Attention
None of these bills name miniature printing. None of their sponsors have referenced the hobby. That is precisely the problem. When legislation is written broadly enough to capture an entire category of technology, the people harmed most are often those who were never the intended target.
Engineers who know the technology have flagged compliance as a major issue. Dan Shapiro, CEO of Glowforge, testified before Washington’s legislature that compliance with HB 2321 would be impossible, because software capable of reliably identifying dangerous geometry simply does not exist. A printer works with shapes, he argues. It cannot read intent.
For miniature creators, this lands close to home. A flintlock pistol, a plasma rifle, a ship’s cannon, a crossbow rack. Our catalog is built from exactly the geometry these algorithms would be trained to catch. False positives are not a theoretical risk. They are an operational certainty. California’s AB 2047 raises the stakes further by mandating manufacturer-locked software and banning the third-party slicers and custom resin profiles that make high-quality miniature printing possible in the first place.
The Problem Is Precision, and the Current Bills Lack It
The goal of reducing the availability of untraceable firearms is a legitimate, important one, and the 3D printing community should not argue otherwise. What the evidence shows, however, is that the current legislative drafts are not precise instruments. They cast a wide net over digital files, open hardware, and the firmware of machines owned by millions of artists, educators, engineers, and hobbyists who have no connection to firearms.
A grassroots initiative, Dont-Ban-3Dprinters.com, has been launched specifically to track this wave of legislation and provide the broader maker community with plain-language breakdowns of each proposal, guidance on contacting lawmakers, and real-time status updates as the bills move through their respective chambers. The site is being translated into multiple languages, reflecting recognition within the global maker community that U.S. legislative trends in this space may influence policy far beyond American borders.
Broadly written laws have a way of producing unintended consequences long after the legislative session has concluded. For creators who design and sell STL files professionally, or who depend on open printing ecosystems to produce their best work, those consequences merit serious attention now, before any of these bills become law.
Want to learn more about the actual legislation? Minarium suggests you review each bill below to gain more insight into each proposal.
· Colorado HB 26-1144 full bill text: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB26-1144
· Washington HB 2321 full bill text: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2321&Year=2025
· New York S.9005 via Tom’s Hardware coverage: https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/new-york-state-takes-steps-to-ban-3d-printed-guns-proposal-will-require-3d-printers-to-prevent-weapon-printing
· California AB 2047 full bill text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2047
· H.R. 4143 — 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2025 (Congress.gov): https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4143