S-2165-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Edward Markey (D-MA)
What it does
This bill would add a new subsection to 18 U.S.C. 922 making it unlawful to intentionally distribute, over the internet or World Wide Web, computer-aided design (CAD) files or other code that can automatically program a 3D printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver. It contains no stated exemptions, penalty provisions beyond existing law, or funding. Congress's findings state the bill targets untraceable and potentially undetectable firearms rather than regulating programmers' speech.
Who benefits
Law enforcement agencies and ATF, which rely on serial numbers for firearms tracing and may see fewer untraceable guns. Communities and venues (such as airports) concerned about plastic firearms evading metal detectors. People barred from gun possession are the intended targets, so potential victims of violence by prohibited persons may benefit indirectly. Supporters of existing federal firearms licensing and background-check systems, which the bill seeks to keep from being bypassed.
Who is hurt
Hobbyists, designers, and open-source firearm developers who share design files online. Publishers and website hosts of firearm CAD files, who would face criminal exposure. Lawful home gun makers who rely on shared files. Digital-rights and free-speech advocates concerned about restrictions on code. Platforms and internet services that may need to monitor or remove content, and the courts and prosecutors who would handle enforcement and likely litigation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that downloadable files let anyone with an inexpensive printer make a firearm with no serial number, background check, or sales record, undermining the federal licensing scheme. They cite ATF trace data (over 639,000 requests in 2024), recoveries of untraceable guns by the Los Angeles and D.C. police, and the Santa Monica College shooting by a person who failed a background check. They contend that because files spread instantly and globally, restricting distribution is the only effective point of control.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill criminalizes publishing information and code, which they contend is protected speech under the First Amendment, and that courts have treated computer code as expressive. They argue that lawful home manufacture of firearms is generally legal under federal law and that the files are widely mirrored online, so enforcement would be difficult and the effect on crime uncertain. They contend the bill is broad, covering any code that could help complete a firearm from an unfinished receiver, which may sweep in lawful designers and researchers.
Constitutional context
The central issue is the First Amendment: whether firearm CAD files are protected speech and whether a content-based distribution ban survives strict scrutiny, with Bernstein v. Department of Justice (9th Cir. 1999) treating code as expressive and Brandenburg v. Ohio and United States v. Stevens limiting speech bans; the Supreme Court has not squarely resolved this question for 3D-printing files. Second Amendment arguments under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) may also arise, and Congress would rely on the Commerce Clause (United States v. Lopez, 1995) for authority.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand federal criminal law and DOJ and ATF would gain enforcement responsibility, while federal courts would check the law through First and Second Amendment review and prosecutors retain discretion over charging.
Historical precedent
The Undetectable Firearms Act (1988, reauthorized in 2013 and 2023) bans manufacture and possession of firearms not detectable by metal detectors, and the State Department's attempt to restrict online posting of 3D-gun files under export rules led to litigation (Defense Distributed v. Department of State) that was never resolved by a Supreme Court ruling on the speech question.