U.S. states are starting to introduce new bills aimed at stopping people from making 3D-printed “ghost” guns, but not everyone is on board.
In a series of blog posts, the open-source hardware company Adafruit criticized the recently introduced legislation in Washington state and New York, calling the measures misguided, overly broad, and potentially harmful to the open manufacturing industry.
This January, lawmakers in both states introduced proposals targeting so-called “ghost guns,” firearms made from kits or 3D-printed components that lack serial numbers and are difficult for law enforcement to trace. Some versions made largely of plastic have also raised concerns about their ability to evade metal detectors.
Ghost guns have increasingly made headlines in recent years, especially after parts of the weapon allegedly used in the shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson were reported to have been 3D printed.
The issue has also drawn federal attention. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) authority to regulate ghost guns.
Even before then, the ATF reported that the use of ghost guns in crimes skyrocketed roughly 1,000 percent between 2017 and 2023.
In response, lawmakers in Congress last summer introduced a bill that would outlaw the distribution of digital blueprints and instructions for 3D-printed guns.
The newly proposed state laws, however, take a different approach. The measures in Washington and New York would require 3D printers sold in those states to include blocking technology, software that scans print files against a firearms blueprint detection algorithm, and prevents the printing of files flagged as potential firearm components.
“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,” wrote Adafruit’s Phillip Torrone. “This is a classification problem with enormous false positive and false negative rates.”
Torrone also warned about potential downstream effects, arguing that such blocking systems could require printers to remain connected to the cloud or locked behind vendor-controlled subscriptions.
Additionally, Terrone noted that New York law would apply to “any machine capable of making three-dimensional modifications to an object from a digital design file using subtractive manufacturing.” Under this definition, the law would go beyond traditional 3D printers and could include CNC mills, which use computer instructions to cut materials.
“None of these controls stop ‘determined actors.’ What they do is burden lawful users, destroy open-source innovation, and force proprietary stacks and cloud services, not safety,” he wrote.
Instead, Adafruit argues that lawmakers should focus on enforcing laws against the intentional and illegal manufacturing of guns, rather than trying to widely regulate 3D printers.
English (US) ·