In the summer of 2024, former Army National Guard member Andrew Scott Hastings spent a sweaty afternoon carefully packing boxes with parts he made using his 3D printer. These weren\u2019t novelty figurines or replacement Ikea pieces. The boxes were instead filled with a handful of homemade firearm lower receivers<\/a> and more than 100 \u201cswitches,\u201d small devices capable of converting a semiautomatic gun into a fully automatic weapon. Their intended recipients, federal prosecutors allege<\/a>, were al-Qaida operatives.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Months later ATF agents busted two men in Colorado Springs<\/a> for allegedly using 3D printers to churn out hundreds of illegal machine gun conversion devices as a part of a DIY black market. To avoid detection the duo allegedly stuffed their products into Lego boxes<\/a> and shipped them to buyers across the country.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n There was, however, no recent case that thrust 3D-printed guns \u2014 a type of untraceable \u201cghost gun\u201d \u2014 back into the public consciousness quite like the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024. Suspected gunman Luigi Mangione<\/a>, then 26, allegedly shot Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel using a partially 3D-printed Glock-style frame and a 3D-printed silencer, otherwise known as a suppressor<\/a>, the latter of which would otherwise require months of federal paperwork to obtain legally.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 3D-printed guns have been around for over a decade<\/a>. Cody Wilson, a self-described crypto anarchist<\/a>, created the first functional printed firearm in 2013, and lawmakers and courts have tussled with how to rein them in ever since. Those efforts largely targeted the gun files themselves and the websites that hosted them, but courts have (with some exceptions<\/a>) repeatedly treated gun code as a form of protected speech<\/a>, frustrating gun control advocates at every turn. Though many states have passed laws<\/a> specifying who can print or share gun files, they are notoriously difficult to actually enforce.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Today, almost anyone with a printer, internet access, and enough patience can browse file-sharing sites and attempt to make their own gun.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n But a new volley of legislation progressing in California and New York aims to shake up that stalemate by moving regulation from the files to the machines themselves, requiring 3D printers to employ blueprint scanning<\/a> \u201cprint blocker\u201d software that, in theory, would detect gun files and stop the print before it starts. It\u2019s essentially taking the long-running debate over online content moderation and translating it to the physical world.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The problem is, neither New York nor California specifies what the blocking technology must actually look like. That flexibility gives the printing industry and technologists more time and freedom to experiment with different technical approaches, but it simultaneously leaves critics on edge \u2014 unsure whether a relatively contained gun control measure could eventually evolve into something closer to a broad infrastructure for file surveillance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The first rumblings of blocking technology legislation emerged in Washington state earlier this year with HB 2321<\/a>, which would have required all 3D printers sold in the state<\/a> to come equipped with \u201cfirearm blueprint detection algorithms,\u201d alongside a database of prohibited guns and components maintained by the state\u2019s attorney general. The bill faced immediate pushback from makers and industry experts who argued it would needlessly sweep up legitimate non-firearm parts in its net and drive hobbyists away from 3D printing altogether. It died in committee, but the bill\u2019s skeleton would go on to form the backbone of ongoing efforts in California and New York.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Photo: Amelia Holowaty Krales \/ The Verge<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n California\u2019s AB 2047<\/a> would require the state\u2019s Department of Justice to maintain an approved roster of 3D printer makes and models equipped with certified firearm-blocking technology. The DOJ would retain the ability to update and alter the requirements for that roster over time. A recent addition<\/a> to the bill provides an exception for Hollywood, which regularly uses 3D printers to make gun props. If passed, manufacturers who want to sell printers in the state would have to attest that they have implemented a firearm detection algorithm approved by the government in each make and model they submit \u2014 though the details of exactly what that scanning tech entails are left unspecified.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n What is clear is that any printer sold after March 1st, 2029, that doesn\u2019t appear on the approved list would be illegal to sell in the state, with civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation. Hackers or tinkerers who knowingly disable or circumvent the blocking software on an approved printer, meanwhile, could face misdemeanor charges and potential jail time. The bill passed the California Assembly on May 26th<\/a> but still needs Senate approval and a signature from Gov. Gavin Newsom before becoming law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cPerfect systems don\u2019t exist.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n A similar effort in New York was signed into law in late May<\/a>. Over the past few months, Gov. Kathy Hochul has described 3D-printed gun parts as the \u201cfastest growing gun safety threat in the country<\/a>\u201d and has even invoked<\/a> the image of gun makers supposedly printing parts on their kitchen tables. On May 22nd, the state legislature finalized the FY 2027 budget<\/a>, which includes a section mandating gun-blocking technology on printers<\/a> sold in the state, among a handful of other anti-ghost gun provisions. New York\u2019s law goes further by applying to CNC machines and making it a felony to distribute gun files to anyone who isn\u2019t a licensed gunsmith.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Like in California, the New York law requires every 3D printer sold in the state to include software that blocks it from printing a firearm or firearm component. And like in California, the exact specifications of what constitutes an acceptable firearm blueprint detection algorithm remain exasperatingly vague, left for a panel of experts to determine at a later date.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n New York specifically calls for the formation of a working group of tech and gun policy experts who will convene to make \u201cminimum safety standards\u201d this proposed blocking technology would need to meet to comply with the mandate. Crucially, the same group has to admit if they find this kind of tech is \u201cnot technologically feasible.\u201d In other words, the law as written advocates in favor of technology that experts still aren\u2019t really sure will actually work.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve already gone after the iron pipeline,\u201d Hochul said in a March press conference<\/a> in reference to ghost guns. \u201cNow we\u2019re going after the plastic pipeline.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Hochul\u2019s office declined to comment about how they intended to enforce the law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Supporters argue this on-device software is needed to close an enforcement gap that lets those with felony convictions and others access weapons they otherwise couldn\u2019t legally obtain. Laws are already on the books in dozens of states<\/a> prohibiting the unlicensed manufacturing of 3D-printed guns, but those are nearly impossible to enforce in practice, since the printing occurs in private. Mandatory blocking technology installed on printers would, in theory at least, address that problem by stopping the job before its gun part is ever completed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n In a private video meeting with members of the 3D printer industry obtained by The Verge<\/em>, academic experts in gun policy and printer software said it\u2019s possible printer manufacturers could have various paths to compliance with the proposed laws. Rutgers University professor and New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center director of research Daniel Semenza<\/a> said legislators aren\u2019t necessarily seeking perfection. The mandates instead are intended to add friction to the gun printing process so it isn\u2019t trivially easy for a novice with little technical know-how to manufacture weapons. In other words, the most advanced, potentially privacy-invasive blueprint scanning option might not be needed to avoid running afoul of the authorities.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe goal is to raise the bar so you can\u2019t be a curious kid in your bedroom who is able to download a file, press print, and then you have the gun or 3D-printed part,\u201d Semenza said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe unfortunate truth is that it doesn\u2019t stop every person from [printing a gun],\u201d Semenza added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n For such a system to actually work, approved printers would have to scan every<\/em> file a user presents, regardless of whether that person has the slightest interest in guns.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n One easier-to-achieve approach would check print jobs against a database of hashes \u2014 unique digital fingerprints tied to known gun or gun component files \u2014 and block the print if there\u2019s a match. The method is similar in concept to how tech platforms prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material<\/a> by checking uploads against a database of known hashes maintained by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n That may sound straightforward, but critics say the fundamental way 3D printers work on a mechanical level would make it toothless. Any modification to a print file\u2019s source code, even a trivially small one, produces a different hash, potentially bypassing detection while leaving the printed object functionally unchanged. Hashing only works when exact copies<\/em> are involved.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The second, more effective and more controversial approach involves so-called predictive code scanning. Companies like Spain-based Print&Go claim their AI tools can analyze a CAD file before it prints<\/a> and predict with a high degree of accuracy whether the resulting object would constitute a prohibited gun or gun component. This method goes beyond simply comparing exact fields listed on some databases. It in effect attempts to predict what a printer will spit out.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Photo: Amelia Holowaty Krales \/ The Verge<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cBesides just relying on a list of known guns, the self-trained detection method can spot new or modified ghost guns STL files that aren\u2019t in the database yet,\u201d Print&Go writes on its website<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n That second approach in particular has drawn backlash. And gun lovers aren\u2019t the only ones bristling at the idea of mandating gun file scanning on printers. An outpouring of hobbyists, independent makers, and right-to-repair advocates worry this type of on-device surveillance, even if well intentioned, risks fundamentally usurping the open-source, DIY ethos of 3D printing. Still-evolving file-scanning technology, some tell The Verge<\/em>, could misidentify everyday objects like hoses or Nerf toys as possible guns. Worse still, makers say a no-print database that earnestly starts with gun files could be abused and expanded by corporate entities looking to enforce IP and copyright protections.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cIt\u2019s all a big ball of stupid and I hate it \u2026 I see it as a toe in the door on controlling manufacturing.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Tech ostensibly sold to stop shootings, in other words, may eventually prevent a maker from printing their own car part or novelty lamp.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201c<\/strong>It\u2019s all a big ball of stupid and I hate it,\u201d Seattle Makers founder Jeremy Hanson<\/a> told The Verge<\/em>. Hanson, who has been involved in various maker spaces since childhood and currently works to provide tools, workspaces, and know-how to other creators, worries efforts to implement blocking technologies into printers could stymie future makers. Hanson and his colleagues pushed back against the Washington requirement<\/a>, helping lead to its eventual defeat. Another, weaker bill that makes it illegal for anyone intending to manufacture unlicensed firearms to possess or share gun files was signed into law in late March<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cI see it as a toe in the door on controlling manufacturing,\u201d Hanson added. \u201cIt\u2019s already illegal to have a homemade unlicensed gun, and this technology [3D printing] isn\u2019t efficient for manufacturing firearms. But it\u2019s a good way to sell it to the public. The actual mechanism for control is vague and remains undetermined.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Other makers worry applying this form of \u201ccensorware\u201d to printers could dissuade future creators from experimenting with the tech for fear of breaking a law. Popular 3D printer enthusiast and YouTuber Loyal Moses imagines a future where 3D printing \u201cmoves to the basement<\/a>\u201d and is viewed with a veneer of shady criminality. Older, pre-scanning \u201cdumb\u201d printers would become sought-after gray-market commodities.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n More broadly, makers worry that scanning software could push 3D printing away from its open-source roots and toward the kind of closed, tightly controlled walled gardens that have come to define smartphones and social media. And while supporters of the bills argue those hypothetical, slippery slope concerns may needlessly impede necessary action against guns, critics like Electronic Frontier Foundation associate director of technology policy and research Cliff Braun<\/a> note the mechanism at play could mark a point of no return.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a difference between a slippery slope saying someone is maybe going to do something in the future and literally building the infrastructure to do that,\u201d Braun told The Verge<\/em>. \u201cAnd that\u2019s what these bills do.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n This momentum around blueprint scanning reflects a new reality, says Nick Suplina, formerly the senior vice president for law and policy at gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety<\/a>. Everytown is a major supporter of the legal efforts across the country and has testified in numerous public hearings defending them. Suplina said gun printing technology has \u201cleapt forward,\u201d a claim that is supported at least in part by the increasingly sophisticated-looking weapons found in police raids around the world.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n These aren\u2019t the volatile single-shot peashooters of the mid-2010s. The FGC-9, one of the more popular gun designs online<\/a>, fires multiple 9mm rounds without breaking, and its core components can be built with a printer costing as little as $200<\/a>. (FGC stands for \u201cfuck gun control.\u201d) Their use is also no longer limited to gun nerds with too much time on their hands. The FGC-9 has been used by rebel forces fighting against Myanmar\u2019s military junta<\/a> and seized from neo-Nazi cells in Europe<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cYou\u2019re going from statistically negligible to statistically identifiable. But that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s overtaking a meaningful share of criminal gun activity yet.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n And while fully or even mostly 3D-printed guns in the US are a tiny fraction of the millions of firearms in circulation, their numbers are increasing. In 2021, the New York Police Department said it recovered just a single 3D-printed gun. In 2024, that number jumped to 109<\/a>. A separate 2024 Everytown report<\/a> found similar results in 20 other cities. In Seattle, 3D-printed guns recovered from crime scenes increased from 34 in 2021 to 84 in 2024. In Detroit, recoveries increased from 21 to 57 during that same period.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n This increase in 3D-printed gun recoveries comes as recoveries of \u201cghost guns\u201d generally, which can be made from an assortment of non-3D-printed parts, have trended downward in recent years. Experts link the recent decline of non-3D-printed ghost gun seizures<\/a> to 2022 federal rules requiring serialization<\/a> of so-called \u201c80 percent\u201d DIY gun kits. 3D-printed guns, which can skirt around these new serial number requirements, the theory goes, are potentially filling that market gap for criminals.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Citing that momentum, Suplina said it\u2019s time to pump the brakes on 3D-printed guns before they reach escape velocity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201c<\/strong>What we\u2019re seeing is that typical pattern like you would with an outbreak,\u201d he said. \u201cSmall numbers doubling year over year, to a point where we realize that action right now is critical or else we\u2019re going to have an unmanageable problem very, very soon.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Wilson, who has fought back against 3D-printed gun regulations since the technology\u2019s inception, pushes back on that framing. \u201cYou\u2019re going from statistically negligible to statistically identifiable,\u201d Wilson told The Verge<\/em>. \u201cBut that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s overtaking a meaningful share of criminal gun activity yet.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n WWhen asked how file-scanning tech would work on 3D printers, supporters repeatedly point to the success paper printers have had in preventing the proliferation of counterfeit money. Since the mid-1990s, paper printers have been programmed to detect a hidden pattern embedded in real banknotes<\/a> and refuse to reproduce them. This process started with $100 notes and eventually expanded to include all denominations other than $1 bills. For the most part, it\u2019s been a success.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThis is the analogy here,\u201d Suplina said of preventing paper printers from making counterfeit money. \u201cYou go to the source, you stop the firearms from being printed on the printer \u2026That is the way to stop this problem in its tracks.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Print&Go says it uses AI and pattern matching to analyze print jobs and compare files against a maintained database of known firearms and components. If the system flags a high enough likelihood of a weapon part, it stops the print. The company says its software can be installed directly into a printer\u2019s firmware, meaning the protection works even when the printer isn\u2019t connected to the internet.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n John Amin, Print&Go\u2019s founder, told The Verge <\/em>his company began developing the current software after they heard about students bringing 3D-printed guns to school. The paper printer comparison was used as evidence something like this was potentially in reach for 3D printers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe technology is developed to protect, not to piss off,\u201d Amin said. In a follow-up email, Amin told The Verge <\/em>his company is \u201ccollaborating actively\u201d with both Everytown and the New York governor\u2019s office.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n But the comparison to anti-counterfeiting tools in paper printers only goes so far. In that case, printers are looking for known banknote identifiers and preventing those from being printed, and the identifiers on the bills are designed explicitly to be detectable. Most people never realize printers have this software because it\u2019s so specifically tailored to forged currency. Successfully stopping prints of gun parts, on the other hand, might require targeting such a broad range of shapes as to block completely unrelated prints.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Photo: Amelia Holowaty Krales \/ The Verge<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Makers and technologists told The Verge<\/em> they were skeptical of how well the scanning tech could work in practice. Braun describes the process in general as \u201ccensorware<\/a>\u201d and questions whether average consumer printers have enough processing power to run meaningful geometric analysis locally. If they don\u2019t, he said, manufacturers may have no choice but to route files through third-party cloud servers \u2014 raising the prospect of slower print times, false positives, and exposure of users\u2019 private files to the printer manufacturer or potential hackers. Even if those problems are solved, Braun argues, bad actors will simply make incremental modifications to their files to slip past detection.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThere\u2019s just an infinite number of ways for people to sidestep this,\u201d Braun said. \u201cAnd a natural consequence of making this work is that you\u2019re going to start preventing people from printing things they want to print just to fix their household appliances.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Amin, meanwhile, said his company\u2019s false positive rate is low and continually improving but nonetheless admitted some errors would inevitably occur.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cPerfect systems don\u2019t exist,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Past efforts to limit the proliferation of firearm files online have fallen short for two closely related but distinct legal reasons: platform protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and First Amendment protections for the code itself. Section 230 famously absolves platforms from liability for content uploaded by their users \u2014 the same reasoning that has shielded gun marketplaces like Armslist.com (the so-called \u201cCraigslist of Guns<\/a>\u201d) from negligence suits brought by gun violence victims, and that prevents file-sharing sites like Thingiverse or Printables.com from being inundated with lawsuits when users upload gun files.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Many of those repositories voluntarily remove gun files anyway under their terms of service. Thingiverse, for example, recently agreed to implement AI scanning and human review of flagged uploads<\/a> after Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg sent a letter<\/a> documenting gun files still appearing on the platform despite its long-standing prohibition.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The question of whether gun code is also protected speech is even more complex, and still in dispute. Sites like DEFCAD<\/a> and Wilson\u2019s Defense Distributed, whose explicit mission is to share gun files, have had to argue in court that restricting 3D-printed gun files violates the First Amendment. Courts haven\u2019t been entirely clear on that issue.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n In February, the Third Circuit upheld a New Jersey ban on sharing 3D-printed gun files<\/a>, ruling<\/a> that \u201cpurely functional\u201d computer code doesn\u2019t carry the same First Amendment protections as expressive code, and that Defense Distributed had failed to demonstrate its files fell into the protected category. Supporters of the code-as-speech argument have long held that all computer code, at a fundamental level, should be considered a form of expression. This ruling was interpreted by legal experts to have narrowed that understanding.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThese files are not expressive speech, they\u2019re purely functional code that leads to illegal lethal weapons in the wrong hands,\u201d said Suplina.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Wilson, whose company sued the New Jersey attorney general over enforcement of the ban, told The Verge<\/em> he thinks the issue of whether or not code is speech will likely wind up before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThese files are not expressive speech, they\u2019re purely functional code that leads to illegal lethal weapons in the wrong hands.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Legal battles over blueprint scanning are primarily taking place in New York and California, but passage anywhere could have ripple effects nationwide. If a larger state like California passes its bill, Braun said manufacturers like Bambu Lab or Prusa Research may simply opt to include scanning software on all new models regardless of where they\u2019re sold, rather than maintain separate product lines. Scholars often refer to this hedging of bets to avoid litigation as \u201cThe California Effect<\/a>\u201d in a variety of industries, from software to car manufacturing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Others who host files may cut off access to those particular states to avoid potential legal liability. Wilson told The Verge <\/em>he\u2019s preparing to \u201cturn off\u201d access to Defense Distributed\u2019s gun files for users with IP addresses from affected states. Some printer manufacturers, particularly smaller players with less financial wiggle room, may simply exit those markets altogether.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cOur printers are made in the Czech Republic,\u201d Hanson said. \u201cThey simply won\u2019t sell in Washington if they have to jump through these hoops.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Lawmakers pushing forward these mandatory gun-blocking software systems are hoping to get voluntary buy-in from the 3D printer industry.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n During a ghost gun demo with reporters earlier this year, David Stuart, chief of the counterterrorism unit at the New York County District Attorney\u2019s Office,<\/a> told The Verge<\/em> they have met regularly with printer manufacturers and file-hosting sites. Those meetings reportedly led several 3D printer manufacturers to update their user agreements and policies to prohibit firearm manufacturing. At least one file-hosting site also notified users that printing firearms is illegal and not in compliance with their policies following the DA\u2019s outreach, Stuart said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n A past letter<\/a> from the New York DA\u2019s office addressed to printer maker Creality specifically named Print&Go\u2019s 3D GUN\u2019T software as a \u201ccommon sense safeguard\u201d it could potentially implement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cI don\u2019t even think these laws are about guns.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n No 3D printer manufacturers or file-hosting sites would comment on whether they supported the firearm-blocking tech or how they intended to proceed in New York and California moving forward. Flashforge, Bambu Lab, Snapmaker, Prusa, Creality, MakerWorld, and Printables.com<\/a> also did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n In an emailed statement, Hugo Fromont, cofounder of the prominent 3D-printer file marketplace Cults said it already takes steps to remove models that violate the law and said that sharing firearm blueprints is \u201cabsolutely forbidden\u201d under the company\u2019s terms of service.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Concerns around this technology aren\u2019t limited to accuracy and privacy. Makers told The Verge<\/em> that well-meaning efforts to limit gun files open a Pandora\u2019s box where other objects could be added to the no-print database over time. Once that infrastructure exists, they warn, corporate entities could lobby to expand it to protect their intellectual property. That strikes at the core of the right-to-repair movement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Benjamin Heckendorn, an engineer and 3D printing enthusiast who\u2019s spoken out against the new new bill on YouTube<\/a>, described them as a kind of Trojan horse.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cI don\u2019t even think these laws are about guns,\u201d Heckendorn, who goes by the name Ben Heck Hacks<\/a>, told The Verge<\/em> in an email. \u201cThe real goal is stopping all the IP infringing stuff that people print.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cIf you think companies like John Deere, Disney, or Nintendo aren\u2019t going to be interested in a world where your printer can automatically recognize and block objects that resemble their IP or their products you\u2019re not paying attention to how aggressively big brands defend control when the tooling exists,\u201d Loyal Moses speculated<\/a> in a video criticizing AI file detection.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n When The Verge <\/em>asked whether Print&Go\u2019s database could eventually be expanded beyond firearms, Amin didn\u2019t entirely rule out the possibility.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cI cannot answer you because we are a company, so the decision is not something just in my hands,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Whether these anxieties around IP enforcement actually come to pass may depend less on gun blocking tech as a concept and more on the exact type of software process that\u2019s implemented. A basic hashing approach, while easily bypassable, has much less inherent risk for abuse than a less proven file prediction approach.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of stemming the tide of guns, the blocking tech mandates under consideration would mark an inflection point in the trajectory of 3D printing as a whole. Printers, like so much else of the digital world, would now essentially require permission<\/em> to work.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The question of whether to alter 3D printing\u2019s path may then ultimately rest on how gravely one really views the threat of homemade, printed firearms. And in a country where the total number of firearms has been estimated<\/a> to outnumber people<\/a>, and where gun show loopholes and other trivial work arounds undermine even basic background check requirements, the threat of 3D-printed guns can feel premature.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Still, the uptick in high-profile violence involving printed firearms in recent years has awakened momentum for change. Even if the most ambitious forms of gun scanning tech are held at bay, it seems inevitably the earlier Wild West era of 3D printed firearms access is nearing its end.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 3D printing: Sean Hollister<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Art direction and additional 3D design: Cath Virginia<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"Black](\"https:\/\/platform.theverge.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/06\/268560_3D_print_gun_AKrales_0577.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=2400\"\/)
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n![\"3D](\"https:\/\/platform.theverge.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/06\/268560_3D_print_gun_AKrales_0598.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=2400\"\/)
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n![\"Sculpture](\"https:\/\/platform.theverge.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/06\/268560_3D_print_gun_AKrales_0379.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=2400\"\/)
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n