NRA-ILA | Bans for 3D Blueprints: New York Governor Pushes Anti-Gun, Anti-Speech Proposals

Manufactured panic has frequently been used to lay the policy foundation for legislative and legal efforts meant to ban legally manufactured and lawfully owned firearms. There are guns and then there are guns we are supposed to believe are especially dangerous, even if (as is almost always the case) they are actually underrepresented in firearm-involved crime. The latest entry in this rogue’s gallery is the infamous “ghost gun,” which supposedly circulates in a shadowy netherworld beyond the prying eyes of anti-gun officialdom. Leading the charge against these spectral menaces is New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who has announced her intent to further crack down on 3D printed guns in her recent preview to the state of the state agenda for 2026.

Late last year, NRA-ILA reported on the Everytown for Gun Safety hosted 3D Printed Firearms Summit in New York City where the goal was to “build cross-sector collaboration and chart actionable strategies to stem the tide of 3D printed firearms-related violence.”

More “actionable strategies” have now been officially charted including some first-in-the-nation proposals. The Governor’s plan goes well beyond New York’s existing (and constitutionally dubious) penalties for possession of 3D printed firearms and now seeks to punish technology, ideas, plans, and the First Amendment by:

• Making it a crime for a person to sell, distribute, or possess digital instructions to manufacture or produce a 3D printed firearm or component without a license.
• Requiring 3D printer manufacturers to establish new “safety standards” that require the creation of technology that will block the production of firearms and firearm components.
• Requiring gun manufacturers to design pistols so that they cannot be modifiable.
• Requiring police departments to report any and all recoveries of 3D printed firearms to the New York State Police Criminal Gun Clearinghouse database.

How precisely these efforts will work to stop criminals is unmentioned. When criminals, by definition, are not following existing laws, it is difficult to see a public safety solution in layering more regulations upon those legally engaged in 3D printing or the business of 3D printing. What is obvious is the intent to further target the mere existence of a Second Amendment right for New Yorkers in any form.

All firearms continue to be heavily regulated regardless of how they are manufactured. There exists no legal loophole where 3D printed firearms are treated any differently under the law than firearms manufactured by other means. Firearms and related items that are illegal under federal and/or state law are still illegal if privately made, including unserialized and unregistered firearms in the State of New York. And if a criminal is prohibited from possessing a “mortal” firearm, he is prohibited from possessing a “ghost gun” as well.

These new proposals are certainly meant to eradicate the ability to manufacture any privately made firearms. Such arms remain legal under federal law and the laws of most states as long as the person is not prohibited from possession of firearms, the firearm is detectable, and the firearm is not made or sold for profit.

But they are also meant to suppress information and knowledge about these items as well, which makes them not just a Second Amendment problem but a First Amendment problem as well. Is Kathy Hochul also suggesting she has the authority to ban books, videos, diagrams, blueprints, instructions, and lectures regarding the design and manufacture of firearms, even those that would be illegal to possess under state law?

Recall additionally from NRA-ILA’s previous alert that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been keeping busy laying groundwork for these exact efforts by sending letters to and threatening legal action against various 3D printer manufacturers and demanding online platforms take down gun designs. He has also petitioned YouTube to censor videos with reference to the legal 3D printing of firearm parts. Additionally, there have already been calls on companies to install software in their printers that would detect the shapes of common gun parts and block their printing. These will no longer be requests but requirements if Hochul has her way.

All citizens should be gravely concerned with unconstitutional prior restraints on free speech when government works to require private companies to monitor and censor information on what citizens in most jurisdictions are legally allowed to create and possess in their own homes. Information on firearms design and technology has been in the public domain on an interrupted basis throughout the nation’s history. The advocates of these schemes may just as well be trying to suppress information on building a fire in a misguided campaign against arson.

As the 2026 legislative session kicks off in Albany, we await the formal text of Hochul’s proposals. Jettisoning constitutional rights, however, is a form of lawlessness itself, not a viable strategy to stop lawbreakers.