Imagine your 3D printer refusing to print a replacement part for your car because it vaguely resembles a firearm component. That’s the potential reality some open-source advocates fear as states introduce legislation aimed at curbing 3D-printed “ghost guns.” But could these laws cast too wide a net, ensnaring legitimate users and stifling innovation?
In a series of blog posts, Adafruit, the open-source hardware company, has voiced strong concerns about recently proposed laws in Washington state and New York. They argue these measures are poorly conceived, overly broad, and could seriously harm the open manufacturing community.
This past January, lawmakers in both states introduced bills targeting “ghost guns”—firearms assembled from kits or 3D-printed parts, lacking serial numbers, making them difficult for law enforcement to trace. Some are even concerned about plastic versions evading metal detectors.
Ghost guns have been increasingly linked to high-profile crimes. Remember the United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson shooting? Parts of the weapon used were reportedly 3D printed.
The federal government is also paying attention. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) authority to regulate these weapons.
According to the ATF, the use of ghost guns in crimes increased roughly 1,000 percent between 2017 and 2023.
Last summer, Congress introduced a bill that would outlaw the distribution of digital blueprints for 3D-printed guns.
The state laws proposed in Washington and New York take a different route. They would require 3D printers sold in those states to incorporate technology that scans print files, checks them against a firearms blueprint database, and prevents the printing of anything flagged as a potential gun component.
The Devil is in the Details
I recently tried to design a custom enclosure for a Raspberry Pi project, and it made me think of the complexities involved in automated shape recognition. How precise can these firearm blueprint detection algorithms really be?
“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 raised concerns about potential side effects, suggesting that such systems might force printers to remain connected to the cloud or be locked behind vendor-controlled subscriptions. Imagine a world where your printer’s functionality is dictated by a remote server.
What happens if my 3D printer is incorrectly flagged?
False positives are a major worry. What if you’re trying to print a prosthetic limb, a medical device, or even a toy, and the software mistakenly identifies it as a firearm component? The frustration and delays could be significant. The cure could be worse than the disease.
The Scope of the Proposed Laws
Consider the potential implications of these laws. These aren’t just about hobbyist 3D printers; they could affect a range of manufacturing tools.
Terrone pointed out that the New York law applies to “any machine capable of making three-dimensional modifications to an object from a digital design file using subtractive manufacturing.” That means it could extend beyond traditional 3D printers to 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.
How will these laws affect open-source innovation?
The open-source community thrives on collaboration and the free exchange of ideas. Requiring proprietary software and cloud connections could stifle this spirit, creating barriers to entry and hindering the development of new technologies. It’s like trying to contain a wildfire with a garden hose.
Adafruit’s Stance
Where does Adafruit see the solution? They suggest a different path.
Instead of broadly regulating 3D printers, Adafruit argues that lawmakers should concentrate on enforcing laws against the intentional and illegal manufacturing of guns. Go after the bad actors, not the tools themselves.
Are there alternative approaches to preventing 3D-printed gun violence?
Perhaps focusing on education and responsible gun ownership, or investing in research to develop more effective tracing technologies, could be more productive than blanket restrictions on 3D printers. What if the focus was on the individual instead of the technology?
These proposed laws are more than just about guns; they’re about the future of manufacturing, open-source innovation, and the balance between safety and freedom. Will these measures truly make us safer, or will they simply create new challenges for legitimate users and innovators, while doing little to deter those intent on breaking the law?