Colorado lawmakers are pushing legislation that would criminalize possession of computer code used to manufacture firearms, triggering fierce backlash from Second Amendment advocates who warn the measure represents an unprecedented attack on both gun rights and free speech protections.
House Bill 26-1144, introduced by Democratic Reps. Lindsay Gilchrist and Speaker Pro Tempore Andy Boesenecker alongside Democratic Sens. Tom Sullivan and Katie Wallace, passed the House Judiciary Committee on February 18, 2026, by a 7 to 4 party-line vote after hours of testimony. The measure now heads to the full House for consideration.
The legislation builds on Colorado’s existing 2023 ghost gun law by banning manufacturing firearms or firearm components using 3D printers, CNC milling machines, or “similar devices.” More controversially, it criminalizes possession of digital instructions like CAD files or code for programming these machines if authorities determine the person possesses them with “intent to manufacture” or “intent to distribute.”
Distributing such digital files to anyone in Colorado who is not a federally licensed firearms manufacturer would also become illegal. A first offense carries Class 1 misdemeanor charges with potential jail time, while a second or subsequent offense escalates to a Class 5 felony punishable by one to three years in prison, mandatory two-year parole, fines up to $100,000, and loss of firearm ownership rights. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026, if signed into law.
Gun rights organizations have mounted fierce opposition centered primarily on constitutional concerns. The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action warned that HB26-1144 “prohibits the possession of digital instruction files and/or code related to firearm components by private individuals, raising First, Second and Fifth Amendment violation implications” and “sets forth a dangerous precedent for enforcement and policing of the internet by state officials.”
Beyond First Amendment concerns, critics attack the bill’s definitions as dangerously broad and its enforcement standards as unconstitutionally vague. The legislation defines “3D printing” to encompass CNC milling machines and “similar devices,” which opponents argue sweeps in a massive range of standard manufacturing tools used by machinists, hobbyists, and small businesses, not just 3D printers.
The Colorado State Shooting Association, the state’s official NRA affiliate, formally opposes HB26-1144 alongside the broader suite of Democratic gun regulation measures. State Rep. Ava Flanell, a Republican from Colorado Springs and former firearms instructor, called the bills “heavy handed” and warned they “will make it harder for responsible citizens to exercise their rights,” arguing the legislature should focus on “holding criminals accountable” rather than restricting tools.
Scott James, the Weld County Commissioner for District 2, criticized this legislation, stating that it “pushes Colorado into trying to police information transfer across the internet through a state criminal statute.” He added that the passage of this bill would be “a recipe for courtroom fights and selective targeting, not a clear recipe for better safety.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation has long argued that 3D printing is a “high cost, limited production technology that does not present a public safety risk” and that criminals are not meaningfully using 3D printing to produce firearms.
As of late February 2026, HB26-1144 has cleared the House Judiciary Committee and awaits a vote from the full Colorado House of Representatives. Given the party-line nature of all votes so far and Democratic control of the legislature, passage is considered likely, but legal challenges, particularly on First Amendment grounds, are widely anticipated. If Colorado criminalizes the possession of ones and zeros on hard drives while exempting licensed manufacturers, the state will have crossed a constitutional line that transforms peaceable citizens into felons for possessing information, setting the stage for what could become a landmark free speech case that extends far beyond firearms.
Third Circuit Rules 3D-Printed Gun Files Are Not Protected Speech
GOA Backs West Virginia Bill to Allow State-Facilitated Machine Gun Transfers for Civilians
About José Niño
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
Here Comes the DFCTP!
“Department of Future Crimes and Thought Police.”