Your 3D Printer Is Not a Gun Factory. Washington Legislators Disagree.
By MakerViking
Published
Updated
11 min read
Category: News & Updates
Washington's HB 2320 is on the governor's desk. It targets ghost guns, but it names 3D printers and CNC machines in a criminal statute and criminalizes possessing CAD files based on intent. A Norwegian maker and TinkerAtlas founder breaks down what the bill actually says, where the real concerns are
<h2 class="font bold" I've been quiet about Washington's HB 2320. That changes now.</h2 <p class="mb 2" Before anyone reads this as a gun politics piece, I need to set some context. It's not.</p <p class="mb 2" I'm Norwegian. I live in Norway. I don't own a firearm, and I've never designed or printed anything weapon related. I've been 3D printing since 2018: miniatures, functional parts, art pieces, community projects. That's the world I come from, and that's the lens I'm looking at this bill through. I built TinkerAtlas because I believe in this community, in makers, tinkerers, hobbyists, and small creators who are building incredible things with affordable manufacturing tools.</p <p class="mb 2" I am not a gun rights advocate writing to defend the Second Amendment. I'm a maker writing to defend makers.</p <p class="mb 2" And if you're a gun owner, a sport shooter, or someone who exercises their legal right to manufacture firearms at home, this bill should concern you too. But you don't need me to make that argument. You already know. What I can tell you is that this bill reaches far beyond firearms, and that's the part that isn't getting enough attention.</p <p class="mb 2" Right now, makers in Washington state need defending.</p <p class="mb 2" I've watched this bill move through the Washington legislature without saying much publicly. I've been heads down building TinkerAtlas every day as a solo founder, pouring everything I have into keeping a community platform alive and growing. But the real reason for my silence? I didn't think a bill with language this broad would get this far. I figured the drafting would be tightened somewhere along the way. In committee, on the floor, somewhere.</p <p class="mb 2" I was wrong.</p <p class="mb 2" HB 2320 passed both chambers and is sitting on Governor Ferguson's desk right now, waiting for a signature. It passed 58 38 in the House and 29 18 in the Senate.¹ It takes effect immediately as an emergency measure. This is real.</p <p class="mb 2" When a Norwegian guy who sculpts models and runs a maker community is sounding the alarm about an American firearms bill, the bill has a problem.</p <hr <h2 class="font bold" What the bill actually says.</h2 <p class="mb 2" I think too many people are arguing about this bill based on headlines and hot takes rather than the actual text. I don't want to be one of them. So before I get into why makers should care, here's what HB 2320 actually does.</p <p class="mb 2" The bill amends Washington's existing firearms laws to specifically address manufacturing via 3D printers and CNC milling machines. Here are the key parts:</p <p class="mb 2" It becomes a class C felony (up to five years in prison) to manufacture a firearm, frame, receiver, or unfinished frame or receiver using a 3D printer, CNC milling machine, or "other means" unless you hold a federal firearms manufacturing license or are a licensed dealer authorized for repairs.⁸</p <p class="mb 2" The bill uses the phrase "knowingly or recklessly" throughout its manufacturing provisions. So this isn't about someone accidentally printing something that happens to qualify as a component. You'd need to know what you were making, or be reckless about it.⁸</p <p class="mb 2" Possessing "digital firearm manufacturing code" with intent to distribute it to unlicensed people, or with intent to manufacture, starts as a $500 civil infraction. Second offense is a misdemeanor, third and beyond are gross misdemeanors. The bill defines this code as digital instructions that "may be used to program a three dimensional printer or a computer numerical control (CNC) milling machine to manufacture or produce" a firearm, frame, receiver, unfinished frame or receiver, magazine, or unlawful firearm part.⁸</p <p class="mb 2" It's also illegal to sell, transfer, distribute, or offer to sell digital firearm manufacturing code to anyone who isn't a licensed manufacturer or authorized dealer.⁸</p <p class="mb 2" One thing worth acknowledging: an earlier version of this bill had a "rebuttable presumption" that would have assumed criminal intent just from having a file on your computer. Guilty until proven innocent. That was rightfully torn apart during hearings and the Senate stripped it out. The enrolled version requires proof of intent. Good.</p <hr <h2 class="font bold" So why should makers care?</h2 <p class="mb 2" If the bill targets clearly defined illegal items and requires proof of intent, what's the problem?</p <p class="mb 2" A few things, actually.</p <p class="mb 2" <strong Your tools are named in a criminal statute.</strong Yes, the restrictions are about manufacturing illegal items, not about the tools themselves. And "or other means" is there to close a loophole so nobody can claim the law doesn't apply because they used a manual mill instead of a CNC. I get that. The phrase modifies the act, not the tools.</p <p class="mb 2" But here's what happens in practice: a criminal statute that names your tools changes how people react to those tools. When a makerspace board reads a law that puts "3D printer" and "felony" in the same paragraph, the legal nuance of what modifies what doesn't matter much. What matters is the feeling that their equipment just became a liability.</p <p class="mb 2" And that's not something I'm making up. During committee hearings, members of a nonprofit community makerspace testified that they were considering removing their 3D printers and CNC machines to avoid potential criminal exposure. These are people who make air filtration systems, tools, and figurines.⁶</p <p class="mb 2" Could that makerspace protect itself with waivers and basic oversight? Probably. The "knowingly or recklessly" standard means they'd likely be fine with reasonable precautions. But the fact that they felt they needed to testify about removing equipment says something about how this law lands in practice. Legal protection on paper is one thing. Confidence in a small organization without legal counsel is another.</p <p class="mb 2" <strong The "may be used" definition.</strong The bill covers files that "may be used" to produce a firearm or component. In legal language, "may" means it's physically possible to use the file for that purpose. It doesn't mean "if you squint hard enough and add a bunch of other parts." A cosplay gunblade prop clearly can't produce a functional firearm. A random cylinder probably can't handle the forces involved. So those wouldn't qualify.</p <p class="mb 2" That's narrower than the panic online would have you believe. But it still leaves a grey zone, and grey zones are where self censorship lives. The question isn't whether a court would convict you for having a flexi dragon STL on your hard drive. The question is whether the statute makes people think twice about sharing files, hosting repositories, or contributing to open source projects that might include something ambiguous. You don't need a conviction to change behavior. You just need doubt.</p <p class="mb 2" <strong The distribution restriction works differently.</strong This is the part I haven't seen enough people talk about. The manufacturing provisions require you to act "knowingly or recklessly." The file possession provisions require "intent." But Section 6(5) of the enrolled bill simply says no person may sell, transfer, distribute, or offer to sell digital firearm manufacturing code to a person who isn't a licensed manufacturer or authorized dealer.⁸</p <p class="mb 2" No "knowingly." No "intent." Just: don't distribute. For anyone running a file sharing platform, an open source repository, or a community file library, that's a real question with no clear answer yet.</p <hr <h2 class="font bold" The technology they're mandating doesn't exist.</h2 <p class="mb 2" HB 2320 has a companion bill, HB 2321, and this is where things get properly absurd.</p <p class="mb 2" HB 2321 would require every 3D printer sold in Washington to include a "firearms blueprint detection algorithm" that detects and blocks print requests for firearms or illegal parts.³ Violating this would be a Class C felony with up to five years in prison and $15,000 in fines for corporations.⁴</p <p class="mb 2" The bill's own sponsor admitted it was "filed intentionally as a conversation starter."⁵ A conversation starter with a five year prison sentence attached.</p <p class="mb 2" No commercially validated firearm detection technology exists for 3D printers.⁴ Not "it's early stage." Not "it needs refinement." It doesn't exist because the concept doesn't work.</p <p class="mb 2" Dan Shapiro, CEO of Seattle based Glowforge, explained why: these machines work with raw geometry. Squares, circles, curves. The software has no context for what the final object will be.⁵ A cylinder is a cylinder. It could be part of a barrel. It could also be a vase, a pipe fitting, a pen holder, or a telescope housing. You'd need an algorithm that looks at a collection of shapes and figures out whether they could become a gun and only a gun. That's not hard. It's impossible.</p <p class="mb 2" And Shapiro pointed out the obvious market consequence: mandating impossible requirements hands a market advantage to Chinese competitors who would just ignore Washington's rules.⁵ Bambu Lab and Creality keep shipping the same machines with the same firmware while Washington based manufacturers either move or close up shop. You don't get fewer printers. You get fewer American printers.</p <hr <h2 class="font bold" This isn't staying in Washington.</h2 <p class="mb 2" New York's Governor Hochul announced nearly identical proposals in January 2026: mandatory blocking software on printers, criminal penalties for possessing firearm CAD files without a license, and a database of recovered 3D printed guns.⁴ Washington's bill sponsor explicitly said HB 2321 was aligned with New York's legislation. Rhode Island, New Jersey, California, Colorado, and Hawaii have enacted similar laws.⁵</p <p class="mb 2" The pattern is there: a real public safety concern (ghost guns are a real problem, I'm not dismissing that) followed by legislation drafted so broadly that it pulls in far more than the intended target. And each state builds on the last. What Washington passes becomes the starting point for the next state's version.</p <hr <h2 class="font bold" The legal questions.</h2 <p class="mb 2" Restricting code raises First Amendment concerns that go beyond the gun debate.⁷ When a law makes it illegal to possess a digital file based on what you might do with it, enforcing that law means looking at what's on people's computers. That might be justified for the specific problem of ghost guns. But the framework it creates doesn't come with a built in boundary. The next law can use the same structure for different purposes.</p <hr <h2 class="font bold" Why I'm speaking up now.</h2 <p class="mb 2" I run a community of almost 400 makers. Many of them own 3D printers and CNC machines. They use those tools to build things, fix things, and share things. Not a single one of them is a threat to public safety.</p <p class="mb 2" But if legislation like this keeps spreading, all of them end up in the blast radius of laws written without enough understanding of the technology they cover.</p <p class="mb 2" I was quiet because I was busy building. I was quiet because I didn't think this bill would pass as written. I was wrong, and I'm not making that mistake again.</p <hr <h2 class="font bold" What I'm asking.</h2 <p class="mb 2" I'm not asking you to take a position on gun control. People disagree about that, and that's fine. What I'm asking is narrower: pay attention to what happens when firearms policy gets written so broadly that it pulls in manufacturing tools along with it.</p <p class="mb 2" If you're a maker, if you own a printer, if you run a makerspace, if you build open source firmware, if you teach students how to use CNC machines, or if you just think owning a 3D printer shouldn't put you on the wrong side of a law aimed at gun manufacturers, make some noise.</p <p class="mb 2" This bill is on the governor's desk right now. Share this. Talk about it. If you're in Washington, contact the governor's office. If you're not, keep an eye on your own state legislature. This template is already being copied.</p <p class="mb 2" We didn't pick this fight. But we can't sit it out.</p <p class="mb 2" <strong <em TinkerAtlas</em </strong <em is a community platform for makers, 3D printing enthusiasts, and tinkerers. If you want to follow this story or join the conversation, you can create a</em <a target=" blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text blue 600 hover:text blue 800 dark:text blue 400 dark:hover:text blue 200 underline cursor pointer transition colors" href="https://tinkeratlas.com/signup" free account</a .</p <hr <h3 class="font bold" Sources</h3 <ol <li <p class="mb 2" Washington State Legislature, HB 2320 Roll Call Votes — <a target=" blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text blue 600 hover:text blue 800 dark:text blue 400 dark:hover:text blue 200 underline cursor pointer transition colors" href="http://app.leg.wa.gov" app.leg.wa.gov</a </p </li <li <p class="mb 2" USA Carry, "Washington Bill Faces NRA Fire for 'Unconstitutional' 3D Printing Crackdown," February 8, 2026 — <a target=" blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text blue 600 hover:text blue 800 dark:text blue 400 dark:hover:text blue 200 underline cursor pointer transition colors" href="http://usacarry.com" usacarry.com</a </p </li <li <p class="mb 2" BillTrack50, "WA HB2321" — <a target=" blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text blue 600 hover:text blue 800 dark:text blue 400 dark:hover:text blue 200 underline cursor pointer transition colors" href="http://billtrack50.com" billtrack50.com</a </p </li <li <p class="mb 2" Consumer Rights Wiki, "Washington house bill 2321 regarding 3d printers" — <a target=" blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text blue 600 hover:text blue 800 dark:text blue 400 dark:hover:text blue 200 underline cursor pointer transition colors" href="http://consumerrights.wiki" consumerrights.wiki</a </p </li <li <p class="mb 2" GeekWire, "Proposals take aim at 3D printing tech to strengthen Washington state laws against ghost guns," January 27, 2026 — <a target=" blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text blue 600 hover:text blue 800 dark:text blue 400 dark:hover:text blue 200 underline cursor pointer transition colors" href="http://geekwire.com" geekwire.com</a </p </li <li <p class="mb 2" Washington State Legislature, House Bill Report on Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2320 — <a target=" blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text blue 600 hover:text blue 800 dark:text blue 400 dark:hover:text blue 200 underline cursor pointer transition colors" href="http://app.leg.wa.gov" app.leg.wa.gov</a </p </li <li <p class="mb 2" FOX 13 Seattle, "WA ghost gun bill sparks backlash from 3D printing community," February 4, 2026 — <a target=" blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text blue 600 hover:text blue 800 dark:text blue 400 dark:hover:text blue 200 underline cursor pointer transition colors" href="http://fox13seattle.com" fox13seattle.com</a </p </li <li <p class="mb 2" Washington State Legislature, Senate Engrossed Amendment 2320 S.E AMS ENGR S5533.E (Enrolled bill text) — <a target=" blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text blue 600 hover:text blue 800 dark:text blue 400 dark:hover:text blue 200 underline cursor pointer transition colors" href="http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov" lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov</a </p </li </ol <p class="mb 2" </p
