House passes bill restricting 3‑D printing of guns after hours of floor debate

The Colorado House on Feb. 27 passed House Bill 11‑44, which expands prohibitions on three‑dimensional printing of firearms, certain firearm components and digital instructions, after several hours of floor debate and multiple failed and adopted amendments.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Gilchrist, urged colleagues to support the measure as a public‑safety update to existing law. "This bill provides a necessary expansion to that law," Gilchrist said, arguing the change closes a statutory gap and helps prevent untraceable, unserialized weapons from being circulated. She cited prior actions and recoveries by law enforcement to underline the risks the bill targets.

Rep. Rhett Basenecker, a sponsor listed frequently in debate, described amendments that narrow criminal exposure and add exemptions. "L003 strikes the possession provisions in the bill...and it specifies the distribution section," Basenecker said, urging members that the amendment prevented penalizing mere possession of files while still addressing distribution.

Opponents raised First and Second Amendment concerns and questioned the efficacy and enforceability of the law. Representative Flannell pointed to the bill’s fiscal note and argued the available state data showed only one recent comparable conviction, asking, "If there is in fact one person that has committed this crime, I don't see the reason for this bill." Representatives and other opponents warned the measure risks criminalizing digital speech and ordinary maker activity and may be difficult to enforce because files are distributed across the internet.

Lawmakers debated dozens of floor amendments that focused on: whether the statute should criminalize possession of digital instructions; how broadly to define "potentially functional" or "firearm component"; exemptions for federal firearms licensees (FFLs) and accredited gunsmithing programs; whether serialization pathways should be required; and appropriate penalty classifications. Notable procedural outcomes included the adoption of several sponsor amendments clarifying exemptions for FFLs and accredited instructional programs and the defeat of substitute amendments that would have removed possession‑based penalties.

Representative Johnson, supporting an exemption for accredited educational programs, said the change "ensures a pathway to those careers" and highlighted concerns from technical colleges and local stakeholders who use additive and subtractive manufacturing in instruction.

Representative Soper and others pressed sponsors on the draft’s language about "potentially functional" items and how that term could sweep in theatrical props, museum pieces and other non‑functional items. "If something has had the firing pin removed and it's not functional...the fact that it could potentially be functional makes it a problem," Soper said during debate; sponsors argued the wording is deliberate to prevent easy conversions to functional weapons.

The House ultimately approved HB 11‑44 as amended. The transcript records the bill’s passage on the floor but does not include a roll‑call tally in the moment the chair announced final passage; the committee of the whole later reported adoption votes for the day's business and its report was adopted by a recorded count (committee report adoption recorded as 38 yes, 18 no, 9 excused). The formal bill passage on third reading will follow the regular calendar steps noted by the clerk.

What happens next: HB 11‑44 as amended was ordered and grossed for third reading and final passage on the calendar. Supporters said the bill modernizes existing ghost‑gun law to account for evolving 3‑D printing technology; opponents said it risks unintended consequences for speech, education and law‑abiding makers and questioned enforcement practicality.

Actions and procedural status: HB 11‑44 was debated at length on the floor, considered with multiple substitute and floor amendments, and passed "as amended" on the House floor; the committee of the whole later reported the bill and related business to third reading and final passage on the calendar. Vote tallies for several amendments are recorded in the transcript (passed/failed as announced); the transcript did not print a specific roll‑call tally at the instant the chair announced the bill’s floor passage.