- The ban, if implemented, would mean that any printer without this firearm-blocking technology could not legally be sold or transferred in California
- The move is still pending Senate review before being enacted into law
- It could mean that 3D printers could become more expensive or more restrictive for users in the state in the near future as manufacturers pass on added compliance costs to users
The state of California is moving toward enacting a ban on the sale of 3D printers that lack a built-in algorithm preventing users from producing ‘ghost guns’ on a whim.
The controversial bill was passed last week and is pending Senate confirmation before ultimately reaching California Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk, where it must still be signed.
The move remains controversial, with critics arguing that it directly impedes innovation and consumers’ rights and could lead to other forms of government-mandated censorship and control over what users do with their purchases.
A piece of legislation that may be hard to implement
California’s AB-2047 bill has been the subject of controversy since it was first introduced to the assembly by member Rebecca Bauer‑Kahan on the 17th of Feb 2026.
It aims to set legal requirements, including mandating that state-approved algorithms be included with 3D printers (at the firmware or application level), which would make it impossible for users to print untraceable 3D-printed firearms.
It places the onus on manufacturers, who must file documentation indicating that their printers contain the “firearm blueprint detection algorithm”.
The bill acknowledges the limitations of the task at hand, stating that a California DOJ-mandated “acceptably low level of evasion” will serve as a benchmark for such measures.
The performance standards for the bill have yet to be drafted, with the bill stating that the DOJ or a ‘relevant agency’ will publish said guidelines by the 1st of January 2028.
Critics point out that this might, however, be an exercise in futility, given that users should, in effect, be able to use open-source slicers to circumvent such restrictions by simply using a VPN, even if such a restriction were implemented via geolocation, for example.
Proponents of the regulation point out that the rules will bolster safety by closing a long-standing loophole that has enabled commercial 3D printers to produce untraceable weaponry.
They also cite United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s murder, allegedly with a 3D-printed weapon by Luigi Mangione in 2024, a case that drew national attention as a key example of how the tech can be abused with ease.
Many remain skeptical about the practical enforcement of the legislation, however, which might be easier to pass than to implement, owing to a mix of legal challenges, industry resistance, and courts that have historically treated 3D gun files as a First Amendment right.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.
