Bill Summary
HB26-1144 would create new crimes related to using “three-dimensional printing” to manufacture firearms or certain firearm components in Colorado, and it would also restrict possessing or sharing certain digital instructions used for that manufacturing. The bill includes an exemption for federally licensed firearm manufacturers.
- Defines “three-dimensional printing” broadly to include both additive manufacturing (3D printers) and subtractive manufacturing (CNC milling machines), plus “similar” devices.
- Prohibits manufacturing or producing a firearm or “firearm component” using a 3D printer, CNC milling machine, or similar device.
- Defines “firearm component” as an unfinished frame or receiver, a large-capacity magazine, or a rapid-fire device.
- Prohibits possessing “digital instructions” in circumstances indicating intent to manufacture in violation of the bill or intent to distribute to a person in Colorado who is not a federally licensed firearm manufacturer.
- Prohibits offering to sell or distributing “digital instructions” by any means, including over the internet, to a person in Colorado who is not a federally licensed firearm manufacturer.
- Sets penalties as a class 1 misdemeanor, with a second or subsequent offense becoming a class 5 felony.
- Effective date: July 1, 2026 (for offenses committed on or after that date). Includes severability and a safety clause.
Position: Oppose!
This bill goes after tools, files, and “intent” instead of targeting violent behavior. Colorado can enforce laws against threats, violence, and illegal firearm use without turning everyday technology and digital data into a legal minefield for regular people.
Why I Am Taking This Position
Start with the bill’s own language. It bans manufacturing or producing a firearm or firearm component by “three-dimensional printing,” then defines that term to include CNC milling machines and “similar” devices. That is a wide net over modern manufacturing tools, not a narrow public-safety fix.
Next, it criminalizes possessing “digital instructions” based on “circumstances that indicate intent.” That kind of standard invites subjective and uneven enforcement. The bill defines “digital instructions” as CAD files or other code stored electronically as a digital model. That is a lot of ordinary computer activity to hang criminal liability on.
It also restricts distribution of those instructions, including online, to a person in Colorado who is not a federally licensed firearm manufacturer. That pushes Colorado into trying to police information transfer across the internet through a state criminal statute. That is a recipe for courtroom fights and selective targeting, not a clear recipe for better safety.
The exemption for federally licensed firearm manufacturers highlights the target: ordinary citizens who are not federally licensed manufacturers. If the plan starts by treating lawful people like the problem, it is the wrong plan. A dry way to say it is: when government can’t regulate behavior cleanly, it starts regulating the tools.
Finally, the penalty structure should concern anyone who cares about proportionality and due process. A first offense is a class 1 misdemeanor, but a second or subsequent offense becomes a class 5 felony. When the bill’s trigger includes a vague “intent” standard, escalation like that is not careful lawmaking.
If lawmakers want a serious conversation, they should bring a focused bill with tight definitions and narrow enforcement aimed at criminal misuse. This one is too broad and too subjective.
Call to Action – What You Should Do!
Contact your state representative and state senator. Tell them you oppose HB26-1144 as written and you expect laws that target violent criminal misuse, not broad bans on tools, files, and subjective “intent.”
If you agree, share this with one neighbor who still thinks, “It won’t apply to me.”
