Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ghost Guns 3d topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to expand Colorado’s ghost‑gun ban to 3‑D printing and related digital files after adding mens‑rea language
Summary
After hours of testimony from survivors, engineers, hobbyists and civil‑liberties groups, the Judiciary Committee adopted a sponsor amendment inserting 'knowingly' into key sections of HB26‑1144 and voted 7–4 to send the bill— which would ban 3‑D printing of firearms and certain components and regulate possession/distribution of digital fabrication files— to the Committee of the Whole.
Sponsors Rep. Rob Gilchrist and Speaker Pro Tem Basenacker told the House Judiciary Committee HB26‑1144 is a cleanup and update to Colorado’s 2023 ghost‑gun law designed to close manufacturing and distribution gaps created by rapidly advancing 3‑D printing and CNC machining technologies. The bill would explicitly prohibit 3‑D printing of firearms, unfinished frames/receivers, large‑capacity magazines and rapid‑fire conversion devices, ban distributing the digital files or instructions used to program fabrication machines, and create criminal penalties for knowing manufacture or distribution in specified circumstances.
The hearing drew exceptionally long and varied testimony. Survivors and gun‑safety groups (Everytown, Brady, Giffords) described recovered 3‑D printed weapons in Colorado and national trends and urged tighter rules. They cited cases (including Club Q and a Colorado Springs operation) to argue that unregulated digital fabrication enables untraceable weapons. FFLs, district attorneys and some law‑enforcement witnesses supported the proposal as a necessary tool to hold bad actors accountable.
Opponents included firearm‑rights advocates, machinists, engineers, hobbyists, free‑speech and technical experts, cosplayers and university faculty. Their concerns focused on: the bill’s potential First Amendment consequences (criminalizing possession and distribution of digital files), vagueness about what counts as a firearm 'component', collateral effects on makerspaces, teaching and STEM programs, enforcement practicality (file formats are machine‑readable), and the risk of criminalizing innocuous use (prop guns, airsoft parts, cosplay, nonfunctional models). Several legal and technical witnesses warned that courts have recognized source code and technical files as speech in some cases and cautioned the state could face constitutional challenges.
In response to those concerns, Rep. Espinosa offered and the committee adopted amendment L001 adding the mens‑rea qualifier 'knowingly' to several sections that previously lacked an explicit mental‑state element. Sponsors argued the change avoids strict liability and aligns the bill with existing statute (SB23‑279) and model penal code practice. The amendment was adopted without objection.
Committee members discussed enforcement, exemptions for federally licensed manufacturers, protections for legitimate educational uses, potential unfairness in enforcement and whether the bill would be duplicative of existing law. Supporters said the bill closes an important gap that criminal actors exploit; opponents said it risks criminalizing speech, hobbyists and students while doing little to stop determined criminals or out‑of‑state actors.
After debate the committee voted 7–4 to advance HB26‑1144 as amended to the Committee of the Whole.
