Washington's proposal would require 3D printers sold after a future date to ship with "blocking features" – software or firmware that screens common file formats and rejects jobs flagged as firearms or illegal components. It also mentions multiple compliance paths, including printer-level checks, mandatory pre-print software, or a "handshake" authentication system between the printer and approved software.
New York lawmakers have floated similar detection mandates tied to printer sales, effectively pushing machines toward file inspection and model blacklists.
California has gone further with a plan to restrict sales to DOJ-approved printers on a roster, with anti-circumvention rules meant to stop users from disabling gun-detection safeguards, as well as and proposals that hint at compliance reporting.
Lets ignore things like "rights" and whether they "should" for a second (full disclosure: imo, this would violate your rights in multiple ways beyond just the 2A, and they should not do this for additional reasons beyond your rights):
How do they enforce this?
One, how would they even detect and validate this information? Anyone can make a CAD file using programs like Fusion, OnShape, FreeCAD, or one of the countless other 'less accessible' CAD programs (e.g. SolidWorks, PTC Creo, Inventor, etc). It would be a literal torrent of data, and DOJs could never hope to keep up. When someone does use a 3D printed gun, that someone printed in-state but using files that were not on their rosters, that state's DOJ and AG will be in a world of political hurt over why they didn't catch every single file out there when new ones are being made all the time.
Two, I can go buy a half-dozen steppers, a PSU, Raspberry Pi, some T-slot & fasteners, and a hotend, and slap together a Voron in a week. Even if they switched to an "allow list", instead of a block list, for files, how would they propose to force a completely open source printer to comply with this requirement?Criminalize their very possession unless you use an approved 3D printing OS distro? That's up there with criminalizing a regular old printer unless its from an approved manufacturer, because you might print some propaganda of some kind with it. The only other way would be treat the only truly unique parts of a 3D printer - the hot end - as a controlled item, the same way frames and lower receivers are treated as the "gun" part of a gun.
The fact some states are even trying to include CNC machines in this just complicates matters further. Because at that point, everyone with a 3D printer or desktop CNC might as well go get their FFL Type 07 licenses and call it a day - even if they never print a single gun component ever. Its just good legal CYA at that point.
