Concerning measures to prohibit the use of three-dimensional printing to manufacture firearms.
Summary
HB 26-1144 creates new criminal and civil prohibitions aimed at the use of 3-dimensional printing and similar digital manufacturing tools to make firearms and certain firearm components in Colorado. The bill defines “three-dimensional printing” broadly to include both additive manufacturing with a 3D printer and subtractive manufacturing with a CNC milling machine, and it targets the manufacture or production of firearms, unfinished frames or receivers, large-capacity magazines, and rapid-fire devices. It also prohibits the knowing distribution of digital instructions, including CAD files or other electronic code, when those instructions may be used to produce a firearm or firearm component in violation of state law.
The bill includes exceptions for federally licensed firearm manufacturers and for instructors, students, and institutions operating accredited gunsmithing programs when the activity is solely for educational instruction. It also limits the law to potentially functional firearms and firearm components, expressly excluding non-functioning or prop firearms. Violations of the manufacturing prohibition are classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, with a second or subsequent offense elevated to a class 5 felony, while unlawful distribution of digital firearms production instructions is treated as a civil infraction. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, and applies only to offenses committed on or after that date.
Impact
The bill adds a new section to the Colorado Revised Statutes, section 18-12-118, expanding state firearms law to cover digital manufacturing methods and the sharing of firearm-making files. It creates new offenses related to 3D-printed or CNC-produced firearms and firearm components, and it establishes definitions for terms such as digital instructions, distribute, firearm component, gunsmithing program, and three-dimensional printing. The measure also interacts with existing firearms restrictions by referencing conduct that would violate section 18-12-111.5, and it creates a new enforcement framework with both criminal penalties and a civil penalty for file distribution.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests the bill moved forward successfully and ultimately was signed by the Governor, indicating overall support for the measure. The bill’s focus on preventing untraceable or privately manufactured firearms, while preserving exceptions for licensed manufacturers and educational gunsmithing programs, suggests a policy approach intended to balance public safety concerns with limited carveouts for legitimate uses. No committee transcript or recorded vote details were provided, so the specific level of debate or bipartisan support cannot be determined from the available materials.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on the scope of the prohibition and whether it reaches too far into digital speech, hobbyist activity, or lawful manufacturing technology. The bill’s ban on possessing or distributing digital instructions when circumstances indicate intent to manufacture firearms could raise concerns about proof of intent and enforcement against online sharing. At the same time, supporters would likely emphasize the public safety rationale for restricting the manufacture of potentially untraceable firearms and firearm components. The explicit exemptions for federally licensed manufacturers and accredited gunsmithing programs appear designed to address concerns from industry and educational institutions.