Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ghost Guns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to curb 3D‑printed ‘ghost guns’ draws strong testimony on safety, constitutional and technical grounds
Summary
Sponsor Rep. Osman Saladin said HB 2,320 updates state law to make 3D‑printed and CNC‑milled firearms and related digital manufacturing code unlawful for unlicensed people; supporters described recovered 3D‑printed weapons and youth access, while opponents raised First and Fifth Amendment and overbreadth concerns and technical drafting issues.
The committee heard extensive testimony January 21 on HB 2,320, a package of measures aimed at curbing the manufacture and distribution of untraceable firearms produced with 3D printers or CNC milling machines and restricting digital instructions that enable such manufacture.
Staff summarized four core components: prohibiting manufacture of certain restricted firearms and components by 3D printers or CNC machines unless the maker is federally licensed; banning distribution or possession of digital firearm manufacturing code that would enable unlicensed manufacture; prohibiting sale or transfer of printers or milling machines marketed primarily to produce firearms; and creating civil remedies by treating certain violations as per se Consumer Protection Act violations.
Sponsor Representative Osman Saladin described incidents recovered in Pierce County and recent cases involving juveniles printing weapons. “With a 3D printer that can cost a few hundred dollars and a digital file downloaded online, someone can now manufacture an untraceable firearm at home,” Saladin said. Supporters — including school officials, physicians, public‑safety researchers and survivors’ families — said the bill modernizes state law in response to new technology and rising recoveries of 3D‑printed parts.
Opponents raised constitutional and technical concerns. The National Rifle Association’s state director warned the bill’s language is overbroad, could implicate First Amendment protected code, and creates a problematic rebuttable presumption of intent that may implicate Fifth Amendment rights. Makerspace operators and 3D‑printing firms urged narrower drafting to avoid sweeping in general‑purpose printers, CAD files that lack machine instructions, or legitimate industrial uses. Technical witnesses recommended defining “digital firearm manufacturing code” to exclude geometry files that do not contain tool‑paths or machine executable instructions.
The committee received detailed, often emotional testimony from survivors and students highlighting school safety concerns, and technical testimony from industry representatives on file formats, G‑code and tooling. No vote was taken; staff noted amendment filing deadlines and the committee’s plan to hold executive session and further deliberations.
