New York is considering a law that would mandate 3D printers sold for home and business use include technology to prevent them from manufacturing guns. This initiative, also under consideration in California, seeks to counter the production of untraceable “ghost guns” increasingly found in criminal activities. The proposed legislation represents a novel approach by targeting the equipment used to produce firearms, rather than the individuals making them, raising questions about technological feasibility, personal privacy, and constitutional rights.
The number of 3D printers globally has expanded significantly over the past 15 years, from an estimated 30,000 in 2012 to over 3 million currently. During this period, the industry’s annual value increased from approximately $2 billion to $26 billion, according to Bill Decker, executive chairman of the Assn. of 3D Printing. While high-end printers can cost thousands, some models are now available for a few hundred dollars.
These devices can produce a variety of items, including toys, prosthetic limbs, and airplane components. They also have the capability to create firearms or parts for assembly using digital designs accessible online. Homemade guns without serial numbers are often referred to as “ghost guns” due to the difficulty law enforcement faces in tracing them.
A U.S. Department of Justice report released last year indicated a rise in the use of firearms made with 3D printers in crimes. The number of privately manufactured guns recovered in crimes and submitted to federal authorities increased from approximately 1,600 in 2017 to nearly 19,000 in 2021.
About one-third of U.S. states have already implemented measures to ban or regulate build-it-yourself firearms that lack serial numbers and bypass the background checks required for purchases from federally licensed dealers. The new effort in New York and California differs by focusing on the manufacturing equipment itself.
The blocking technology proposed in these two populous states could establish industry standards for 3D printers nationwide. It also has the potential to serve as a model for other Democratic-led states looking to enhance their gun regulations. Many of these states already prohibit certain semiautomatic weapons and permit the temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others.
Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of the proposed blocking technology and its potential impact on data privacy and constitutional rights. Critics of the legislation warn of censorship and data privacy risks, alongside concerns about Americans’ rights to construct their own firearms. Supporters, however, view 3D printing as a new frontier in gun safety.
The debate over these proposed laws will likely continue as states weigh public safety concerns against individual liberties and technological limitations. Future developments will reveal whether this approach to regulating 3D printer guns can be successfully implemented and if it will influence broader national gun control strategies.