Colorado Lawmakers Are Prepping a 3D-Printer Gun Bill to Close a Non-Existent “Loophole”

In the recording, Boesnecker frames the proposal as a response to a gap in existing law, specifically, claiming individuals have the legal authority to 3D-print unserialized firearm receivers at home. According to Boesnecker, this capability was not fully contemplated when “ghost gun” legislation was passed in 2023, and a new bill is needed to address it.

There is just one problem with that explanation.

Colorado law already explicitly prohibits the 3D printing of unserialized firearm receivers under CRS 18-12-111.5. And the bill that does so is one Boesnecker sponsored himself.

In the audio, Boesnecker states that his prior “ghost gun” legislation was focused on regulating unfinished kits that could be completed with basic tools, but that lawmakers did not anticipate how easy it would become to manufacture firearms using a 3D printer.

He states that people are now able to “print those unserialized firearms very easily,” effectively skirting existing law, and that the forthcoming bill would close that gap by ensuring people who self-manufacture firearms are subject to the same requirements as everyone else. The problem, as he describes it, is the printing of unserialized firearm receivers.

But that conduct is already illegal under Colorado statute because the “Ghost Gun” law already explicitly covers 3D printing of unserialized firearm receivers.

Boesnecker’s own Colorado SB23-279, passed in 2023, did not merely address mail-order kits or partially finished receivers as he claims. The bill’s language is broader and far more specific.

It prohibits a person from manufacturing or causing to be manufactured a firearm frame or receiver “including through the use of a three-dimensional printer,” unless the person is a federally licensed firearms manufacturer.

That language is not ambiguous. It does not hinge on interpretation.

3D printing is named directly.

Which means the exact conduct Boesnecker describes – the printing an unserialized receiver at home – is already prohibited under existing law.

This matters because it undermines the stated rationale for introducing a new bill. If the activity is already illegal, then a new law cannot be about closing a loophole. It must be about expanding the scope of regulation beyond what is currently prohibited

And the broader context makes this even clearer.

Colorado SB25-003, which Boesnecker also referenced in the town hall and co-sponsored, goes significantly further than serialization requirements. That bill completely bans the manufacture of certain classes of firearms in Colorado, including semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that accept detachable magazines, along with many pistols.

There is no exemption for private manufacture. There is no permit-to-purchase option that authorizes manufacturing.

The permit-to-purchase system created by SB25-003 applies only to retail sales through licensed dealers. It does not allow an individual to manufacture a regulated firearm under any circumstances.

Taken together, we know Colorado law already:

• Prohibits the 3D printing of unserialized firearm receivers

• Prohibits most forms of private firearm manufacture outright

When the laws Boesnecker helped pass already address the exact conduct he claims is a “gap,” then we know any new legislation cannot honestly be about closing a loophole. It must be about expanding the scope of regulation beyond what is currently prohibited.

To understand what that expansion looks like in practice, we need look no further than Washington State’s 2026 legislative proposals, which have aggressively taken aim at the technology itself, not just the act of manufacture.

Washington legislators introduced two bills, HB 2320 and HB 2321, aimed at updating their “ghost gun” laws to reflect modern technology. These bills go well beyond simply banning the printing of a receiver with a 3D printer.

According to reporting from GeekWire, Washington HB 2320 would ban the use of 3D printers or CNC machines to create firearm components, restrict the distribution of digital CAD files to unlicensed individuals, and even create a “rebuttable presumption” of criminal intent for anyone possessing such manufacturing code.

The companion bill, Washington HB 2321, would require that all 3D printers sold or transferred in the state be equipped with “firearm blueprint detection algorithms” and other blocking technologies designed to automatically identify and reject attempts to print firearm parts — effectively forcing hardware manufacturers to build censorship into their products.

These dystopian proposals highlight what the next step looks like once a state moves past simple bans on unlicensed manufacture, they begin regulating the technology, software, and information itself.

Critics, including business owners, hobbyists and makerspace operators, have spoken out against Washington’s proposals, warning that the laws could unintentionally sweep in lawful uses of 3D printing technology.

For example, one makerspace owner told local media that under Washington’s bill as written, he feared his makerspace might need to remove all 3D printers to avoid criminal liability, even though their use had nothing to do with firearms.

Another concerned citizen, a dentures maker, testified that she wasn’t interested in firearms manufacturing but feared they could be caught up in legal trouble for possessing a machine without proper blocking features.

The same GeekWire article referenced above covered statements given by a manufacturing stakeholder…

Dan Shapiro, co-founder and CEO of Seattle startup Glowforge — makers of laser-engraver machines — is also worried about any overreach, especially in HB 2321.

“I look at this and I say, there isn’t a way that we could comply,” Shapiro told GeekWire. “There’s no product that we could build that would be legal for sale under this. Software not only doesn’t exist, it can’t exist because you can’t look at physical pieces and determine conclusively whether or not it’s going to turn into something dangerous.”

Shapiro explained that because laser cutters and CNC mills interpret raw geometry — squares, circles, and curves — the software lacks the context to identify a specific end product.

“The version of this that [the legislation] is wishing exists is that you could look at a set of shapes and somehow understand whether or not that set of shapes could be made into a gun and only a gun, and that just isn’t possible,” he said.

Shapiro also warned that “imaginary requirements” would hand a market advantage to Chinese competitors who would ignore Washington’s mandates.

“If I’m in a state that has outlawed our product and set imaginary requirements that we can only ship our product if we do the impossible, then our own state has effectively said, ‘Sorry, you can’t buy from Seattle. You have to buy from [China] because they’re the ones who are going to sell the product,’” Shapiro said. “They’re not going to care that our laws ask for the impossible.”

Supporters of the bills in Washington frame this as closing gaps in public safety, but even they acknowledge the reach of what they’re proposing and claim it was introduced as “conversation starter”. But we know exactly where “conversation starters” lead.

If Colorado’s next bill similarly goes “beyond receivers,” there are a variety of ways it could do so:

• Regulating digital firearm design files as illegal to possess or share without a license

• Mandating firearm-blocking features or detection software in 3D printers sold in the state

• Criminalizing possession or use of certain manufacturing tools beyond just unlicensed manufacture

• Assigning civil liabilities tied to technology platforms and third-party software

In Washington, lawmakers openly acknowledge that current law already restricts untraceable firearm manufacture, but choose to expand regulation anyway. If a 3D-printing bill is introduced here in Colorado, we know it will not stay narrowly tailored to receivers, because those are already illegal, and will instead look much broader, encroaching on the hardware, software, and information that make 3D fabrication possible.

As of the writing of this article, this bill has not been introduced. Once it is introduced, it will have several steps to go through before it could ever reach the governor’s desk, and you have multiple opportunities to engage along the way. We will keep you informed. In the meantime, here is what you can do right now:

1. Share this information with everyone you know

Tell your friends, family, hobbyists, gunsmiths, FFLs, and community members who engage with 3D printing what this type of legislation would do and why it matters. Most people won’t read the bill themselves but they will listen to you, and probably read this article.

2. Stay informed and connected

Sign up on our email list so you’ll be among the first to receive updates, alerts, and calls to action as this bill moves through committee hearings, floor votes, and public comment periods.

3. Follow our Legislative Watch page

On our 2026 Legislative Watch page, we track every bill, every step of the way, from initial referral to committee schedules, amendments, hearing notices, votes, and final disposition. Bookmark it and check back regularly. You will find updated information on all Colorado firearm related bills there.

4. Find out who your state representatives and senators are

If you don’t already know who they are, find out who your state representatives and senators are and write their information down. You can look them up on our Elected Officials page then reach out to them directly. Tell them you’re paying attention. Tell them you oppose regulating 3D printers.

Stay tuned. We aren’t going down without a fight.