Colorado Gun Bill Targeting 3D Printing and Digital Files Advances With Significant Amendments

Colorado HB26-1144 has now advanced to a third and final House vote before it moves over to the state Senate. There it will get another public hearing along with two separate votes of the full Senate chamber before it could ever land on Governor Jared Polis’ desk.

If you’ve been following this bill from the beginning, you already know the pitch: they’re selling it as a crackdown on 3D-printed guns and “ghost gun” culture. But what this bill actually targets is broader than that: it targets 3D printing, CNC machining, and the digital files/instructions used to run those machines. The original bill outright banned the manufacture of firearm frames/receivers, magazines over 15 rounds, and rapid fire trigger devices if using a 3D printer, CNC machine, or similar computer controlled device. It also criminalized the possession and distribution of the digital files used to manufacture those objects. 

The amendments they adopted in the House are worth noting, because they basically revealed that when questions about enforcement and constitutionality beyond the Second Amendment got loud enough, they attempted to “narrow” the bill, but without giving up the core concept that the state should be able to police information. Read the amended bill here.

Manufacture: Outlawing the outlawed

One of the most important things to understand about HB26-1144 is that it overlaps with laws Colorado already enacted, and it does so using the same penalty structure.

In 2023, the General Assembly passed SB23-279, making it unlawful to manufacture, possess, sell, or transfer an unserialized firearm, frame, or receiver. The law explicitly includes 3D printing, mentioning it six times in the bill text. A first offense is a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent offense becomes a Class 5 felony.

Magazines over 15 rounds have been illegal since 2013 with possession classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Rapid fire trigger devices were classified as “dangerous weapons” in 2025 under SB25-003. Possession of a “dangerous weapon”, according to Colorado State Statute, is a Class 5 felony for a first offense, and subsequent offenses a Class 4 felony.

HB26-1144 attempts to prohibit the manufacturing of all these same items using 3D printing or CNC machining, and it attaches the same Class 1 misdemeanor / Class 5 felony escalation.

If you cannot lawfully possess or transfer the item, and manufacturing it would already place you in unlawful possession, then that conduct is already criminal.  The penalties are already in place.

This sharpens the constitutional concern. Bill sponsors frame 3D printing and CNC machining as a new technological frontier requiring new criminal liability. But if the penalties are identical to those already on the books for the same end result, that argument weakens considerably. The state already has the legal tools to prosecute unlawful possession or sale/transfer. HB26-1144 simply creates another statutory route to reach the same outcome.

This is layering charges in an effort to expand prosecutorial leverage without addressing new conduct.

Many of the bill’s supporters in the legislature regularly describe themselves as champions of criminal justice reform. Yet Colorado has already seen racial disparities in convictions of its high-capacity magazine ban, as highlighted in a recent guest analysis. If those disparities exist under the current statute, adding overlapping charges will only compound them. Lawmakers who claim to care about equity in the justice system should pause here. If the underlying conduct is already criminal and already penalized, and if conviction patterns already raise red flags, the responsible course is not to stack new statutes on top. It is to reconsider whether this bill should move forward at all.

Digital Files: “Possession” got scrubbed out

One of the most controversial aspects of the original bill language was the idea that merely possessing digital files could be criminalized. That is the point where this stopped being a conventional gun control debate and became a First Amendment problem. When the state treats digital instructions as illegal to possess, it is no longer regulating conduct, it is regulating information.

That concern dominated the House Judiciary hearing. People waited for hours to testify. Hobbyists, cosplayers, engineers, parents with kids in STEM, civil liberties advocates, and everyday gun owners repeatedly returned to the same question: are we really creating a category of “digital contraband”? Are we prepared to treat code and CAD files as something the government can prosecute simply because of what they might produce? And what will the repercussions of that be on innovation?

In the amended House version, you can see we hit a pressure point. The standalone criminalization of mere possession is no longer in the amended bill. It now focuses solely on manufacturing and distribution of digital files.

But the core premise remains. The bill still regulates the transfer and use of digital instructions tied to firearm production. The theory that certain categories of information should be restricted because of what “could happen” is still embedded in the bill, it has simply been repositioned to survive longer.

They added “KNOWINGLY” to try to clear the murky waters

The House amendments add “knowingly” to key sections involving manufacturing and the offering or distribution of digital instructions.

The distribution section now says a person “shall not knowingly” offer to sell or distribute digital instructions to a person in Colorado who is not a federally licensed firearm manufacturer, when those instructions “may be used for an activity that constitutes a violation” of our Ghost Gun statute: C.R.S. 18-12-111.5.

That word holds weight in criminal law. It defines the mental state of the defendant that prosecutors must prove. Lawmakers add “knowingly” when they recognize a statute risks sweeping too broadly. Digital files can be shared, downloaded, or stored without clear intent, and the same file can serve lawful or unlawful purposes.

Including “knowingly” is an attempt to narrow the bill and shield it from vagueness challenges. It does not resolve the ambiguity though. Instead, it acknowledges it.

The penalty was dialed back

Under the amended House version, the bill now classifies unlawful distribution of these digital instructions as a civil infraction (similar to a jay walking ticket). The original bill had stiff penalties that went from a Class 1 Misdemeanor to Class 5 Felony.  

The “cosplay prop” issue forced its way into amendments

One of the biggest practical problems this bill ran into had nothing to do with ghost guns on the black market or hardened criminals. It had to do with cosplay, prop builds, airsoft parts, and even Nerf accessories. During House Judiciary testimony, the same question kept surfacing: how do you determine what a digital file is “for” without reading someone’s mind?

A CAD file for a magazine-shaped object does not come labeled with intent. To an untrained eye – and often even to a trained one – a file used to create a functioning firearm component can look nearly identical to a file used for a non-functioning prop. The same digital geometry can serve different purposes depending on how it is printed, assembled, or modified. The file does not tell the story. The finished product does. But this part of the bill isn’t about the finished product…and we know that. So maybe just label all digital files “Nerf Gun 30 round mag”. (kidding, sort of)

These concerns forced their way into the amendments. The House version now limits the section to “potentially functional” firearms and components and explicitly excludes non-functioning or prop builds.

Drawing a line around specific parts

Another amendmnt also narrowed the scope of what the bill covers. The language now makes clear that it applies only to the specific firearm components defined in the statute: frames, receivers, magazines over 15 rounds, and rapid-fire devices. Other firearm parts are not included. The manufacture, or distribution of files, for items outside those defined categories remains lawful under this bill.

Whether that list remains stable over time is another question, but in its amended form, the scope is limited to those specific parts.

They carved out gunsmithing programs

The original bill exempted federally licensed firearm manufacturers (FFLs with a 07) from the manufacturing prohibition.

The amended version adds a carve-out for instructors and students in accredited gunsmithing programs, and institutions operating those programs, but only when the manufacturing or distribution is solely for educational instruction within the program.

So basically, they’re fine with the technology in the “right hands.” They just want to fence off who gets to use it.

Where are we now

HB26-1144 is moving. Once it passes the state House, it goes to the state Senate where Coloradans will get another chance to provide public testimony. You can track this bill on our Legislative Watch page and sign up on our email list to stay in the know.

I encourage you to contact both your State Senator and Governor Jared Polis via both phone and email. Focus your message on the stuff that even non-gun people understand instantly: enforceability, vagueness, and the government stepping into the business of policing digital files…policing INFORMATION. Because once that door is open, it doesn’t stay limited to one topic forever