W
ritten by: Amanda Barros Farrar
Since the advent of the household 3D printer, legislatures have struggled to stay ahead of potentially dangerous new uses for the technology. With some raw materials and computer code, any person can manufacture a firearm at home. New York is taking a new approach in tackling the matter by addressing the problem at its source—the printers themselves.
“Ghost guns”—firearms that lack serial numbers and cannot be tracked—have long been a concern for gun safety advocates. But the explosion of the 3D printing industry has only made the problem more complex. Law enforcement agencies have raised concerns that 3D printers allow those who should not be able to legally obtain a firearm to create one relatively easily, or to mass-produce firearms by printing parts later sold as “ghost gun kits.”
How is New York Addressing the Problem?
The newly enacted 2026-2027 state budget includes a provision that requires 3D printers sold within the state of New York to include software that prevents the printing of firearm parts. Printers will be required to carry software that compares a submitted design to a database of known firearm parts. If a design is sufficiently similar to a part in the database, the printer will refuse to print. The budget allocated funding for an expert panel to develop recommendations for these blueprint detection algorithms. The algorithms are scheduled for rollout in 2029, but if the panel determines it is not yet feasible, the deadline can be pushed back further.
The legislation makes it a felony for anyone to manufacture, or causes to be manufactured, any ghost gun, unfinished frame or receiver, firearm silencer or “major component of a firearm.”. Another provision makes it a felony for a person to distribute or sell firearm-printing code without valid gunsmith and federal firearms licenses.
Feasibility of Blueprint-Blocking and Freedom of Speech Concerns
Meanwhile, internet freedom advocates are concerned about chilling speech and free expression. The criminalization of sharing these files could implicate journalists and other researchers studying the ghost gun phenomenon. The algorithmic technology also necessarily requires surveillance of all prints to flag the ones that match the database. This means that all printing files will be read and screened, opening the likelihood of the software blocking other, perfectly legal, items. Many firearm parts are structurally similar to commonly printed items, such as pipes and hooks, raising the question as to whether the technology is sophisticated enough to distinguish between parts strictly used for ghost guns, dual-use parts, or innocent shapes.
There are no current plans expanding the blueprint-blocking software beyond firearms, which are argued to have a unique and compelling public policy rationale behind the ban. Yet, free-speech advocates worry that—once the infrastructure is in place—the same tech can be used to prevent all sorts of items from being printed or distributed. Controversial or political prints, such as protest symbols, could be blocked for fear of incitement, such as whistles that were 3D-printed and used in anti-ICE demonstrations. It could also be used to prohibit prints of zealously guarded intellectual property, ranging from hard-to-source repair parts to fan art of popular characters. Advocates worry about an ever-expanding database of prohibited prints, with a blurry distinction between legal and illegal.
Second Amendment Advocates Raise Concerns
Gun-rights organizations, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the legislation is an example of over-regulating firearms for political, rather than practical purposes. Those organizations say that targeting the technology, rather than users, does little to meaningfully curb overall ghost gun manufacturing. They say that those intent on manufacturing their own guns will innovate their way around the software block. Legislation has, however, been successful in shaping behavior by removing easy-to-choose options. Proponents of blueprint-blocking are betting on the friction created by the inability to print discouraging most would-be ghost gun manufacturers.
Ghost gun regulation has been litigated before. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) introduced new rules that required gun-building kits to have serial numbers and follow the same sale requirements as traditionally manufactured guns. The rule was quickly challenged, culminating with the Supreme Court case Bondi v. VanDerStok. The Court ultimately held that the ATF’s classification of ghost gun kits was within its scope of the Gun Control Act of 1968, as “weapon” could be used to describe “unfinished objects when their intended function is clear.”
In this case of blueprint-blocking, legislative, rather than agency, regulation gives it stronger footing. However, the New York law also goes one step further than the kits at issue in VanDerStok, prohibiting not only the requisite parts, but the instructions. This raises the question of whether the blueprint code is significantly more like protected speech or a component part of a firearm—an issue not addressed in VanDerStok.
What’s the wider impact?
Currently, seventeen states—mostly on the West coast and in the Northeast—currently regulate or outright prohibit 3D-printed firearms. While New York is the first to actually enact this approach, California is pushing similar legislation. AB 2047 proposes similar blueprint-blocking requirements on 3D printers sold in California, creating and maintaining a list of printer models that comply with developed standards. As the two biggest states in the country and economic powerhouses, it is likely that even without states following suit, manufacturers will be sufficiently pressured to include the changes for all markets.
Sources:
A10005-C/S9005-C, N.Y. Legislature, 2026. (N.Y. 2026), https://www.assembly.state.ny.us/2026budget/2026_bills/enacted/A10005c.pdf?v=1779364956.
AB-2047, 2026 Cal. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2026), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2047.
Bondi v. VanDerStock, 604 U.S. 458 (2025)
David A. Lieb, Some people are making guns with 3d printers. A new law seeks to cancel their print jobs, AP News (June 13, 2025, 1:44 PM), https://apnews.com/article/3d-printers-firearms-ghost-guns-737b48cd483da5394076bc99d94619ca.
Lisa Marie Pane, ‘Ghost guns’ are untraceable, easy to make, more prevalent. AP News (November 22, 2019 5:59 PM), https://apnews.com/article/f56aedfde481467283dedb18a1c401fa.
Rory Mir, Print Blocking is Anti-Consumer – Permission to Print Part 1, Electronic Frontier Foundation. (April 2, 2026), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/print-blocking-anti-consumer-permission-print-part-1.
Bans for 3D Blueprints: New York Governor Pushes Anti-Gun, Anti-Speech Proposals, National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action. (January 12, 2026), https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260112/bans-for-3d-blueprints-new-york-governor-pushes-anti-gun-anti-speech-proposals.