HB1144 creates a new criminal offense in Colorado for knowingly manufacturing or producing a firearm or firearm component using three-dimensional printing, including additive manufacturing with a 3D printer and subtractive manufacturing with a CNC milling machine or similar device. The bill classifies a first offense as a class 1 misdemeanor and a second or subsequent offense as a class 5 felony. It also defines key terms such as firearm component, large-capacity magazine, rapid-fire device, and gunsmithing program, and it limits the prohibition to potentially functional firearms and components rather than prop firearms or other nonfunctional items.
The bill includes narrow exceptions for federally licensed firearm manufacturers and for instructors or students in accredited gunsmithing programs when the manufacturing is solely for educational instruction. It takes effect July 1, 2026, and applies only to offenses committed on or after that date. The measure adds a new section to Colorado criminal law and includes a severability clause and a safety clause.
Impact
HB1144 amends Colorado criminal statutes by adding section 18-12-119 to prohibit the 3D printing or similar manufacture of functional firearms and certain firearm components. It expands the state’s firearms regulatory framework to cover additive and subtractive manufacturing methods, while expressly excluding nonfunctional or prop items and preserving limited educational and licensed-manufacturer exceptions. The bill affects individuals who manufacture firearms or components, as well as gunsmithing programs, firearm manufacturers, and enforcement authorities responsible for prosecuting violations.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have strong support among many Democratic sponsors and ultimately passed both chambers, but the recorded votes show meaningful opposition and several failed amendment attempts. It cleared House Judiciary and later passed third reading in both chambers, with the House and Senate each approving final action on the measure. The vote pattern suggests the bill was generally favored by supporters of tighter gun regulation, while a substantial minority opposed it or sought to change its scope.
Contention
The main points of contention are the bill’s restriction on firearm manufacturing technology and whether its definition of “three-dimensional printing” should include CNC milling and similar subtractive methods. Opponents likely objected to the breadth of the prohibition, the criminal penalties, and the inclusion of unfinished frames, receivers, large-capacity magazines, and rapid-fire devices within the definition of firearm component. Supporters appear to have emphasized public safety and preventing untraceable or privately made firearms, while the exceptions for licensed manufacturers and accredited gunsmithing programs suggest an effort to limit the bill’s reach to non-educational, non-licensed production.