- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Washington Today
By the People, for the People
California Proposes Bill Requiring DOJ-Approved 3D Printers with Firearm Blocking Tech
New legislation would ban non-certified 3D printers in the state by 2029 and criminalize efforts to bypass the software.
Published on Feb. 27, 2026
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
The California State Assembly has introduced AB-2047, the "California Firearm Printing Prevention Act," which would require all 3D printers sold in the state to be DOJ-approved models equipped with "firearm blocking technology." The bill would ban the sale or transfer of any 3D printer not on a state-maintained roster of certified makes and models by March 1, 2029, and would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly disable or circumvent the blocking software.
Why it matters
The proposed legislation has drawn criticism from tech and civil liberties groups who argue that accurately identifying gun parts from 3D printed geometry is extremely difficult, and that the open-source nature of most desktop 3D printer firmware would make any blocking requirement easy to bypass. Opponents also view the bill as an overreach that would regulate general-purpose machines and force 3D printer owners to run state-approved surveillance software.
The details
AB-2047 would require 3D printer manufacturers to submit attestations for every make and model they wish to sell in California, which the Department of Justice would then review and certify as equipped with "firearm blocking technology." The DOJ would publish a list of approved printers, and after March 1, 2029, it would be illegal to sell or transfer any 3D printer not on that list. The bill also criminalizes efforts to disable or circumvent the blocking software, with violators facing civil penalties of up to $25,000 per incident.
- AB-2047 was introduced in the California State Assembly on February 17, 2026.
- The bill would ban the sale or transfer of any 3D printer not on the state's approved roster after March 1, 2029.
The players
AB-2047
Also known as the "California Firearm Printing Prevention Act," this is a proposed bill in the California State Assembly that would require 3D printers sold in the state to be DOJ-approved models with "firearm blocking technology."
California Department of Justice (DOJ)
The state agency that would be responsible for reviewing and certifying 3D printer models as equipped with the required "firearm blocking technology" under AB-2047.
Firearms Policy Coalition
A gun rights advocacy group that has flagged AB-2047 and criticized the proposed legislation.
Jon Lareau
An individual who criticized AB-2047 as "stupidity on steroids," noting the difficulty of accurately identifying gun parts from 3D printed geometry alone.
The Foundry
A group that argued "Regulating general-purpose machines is another" and that AB-2047 would "require 3D printers to run state-approved surveillance software and criminalize modifying your own hardware."
What they’re saying
“Regulating general-purpose machines is another. AB-2047 would require 3D printers to run state-approved surveillance software and criminalize modifying your own hardware.”
— The Foundry (Slashdot)
“stupidity on steroids”
— Jon Lareau (Slashdot)
What’s next
The California State Assembly will continue to debate and consider AB-2047, with a potential vote on the bill in the coming months.
The takeaway
The proposed California legislation highlights the ongoing tensions between technological advancement, public safety concerns, and individual liberties. While the bill aims to address the potential misuse of 3D printing technology, critics argue that it represents an overreach that could stifle innovation and infringe on personal freedoms.


