Official Luthiers Forum!

New York - once a bastion of manufacturing - has put the nation' first law in place which requires anyone conducting additive or subtractive computer-aided manufacturing (e.g., 3D printing, laser engraving/cutting, CNC) to run any computer design or manufacturing file through a state-controlled database check prior to conducting the manufacturing operation. The new law - passed as a part of the New York State budget bill - affects nearly all users - whether for business or personal use.

I mention this because a) we are increasingly using additive and subtractive manufacturing in small shops for product creation, jig and fixture making, and prototyping, and b) most other states with a similar pronounced list to port are considering this type of legislation ostensibly to end any manufacturing of firearms, firearm parts, things that vaguely resemble firearms, and - apparently - pistol-grip charcoal lighters without the direct sanction of the state.

Whatever your particular list (port, starboard, don't care. etc.), this will affect you if a 3D printer, laser engraver/cutter, CNC system, or other computer-controlled manufacturing technology is part of your work flow and you find yourself residing in a state which seeks to surveil your activities in that domain.

An informative YouTube video re: this law.

https://youtu.be/n4QxcwAm2bQ?t=10

Grrrrrr……more guberment intrusion by the nanny state.

Outrageous.

I can't imagine what enforcement could even look like.

Unless of course the new quiver full of legal arrows are only there to fire at any politically incorrect MFG's -- large or small -- making anything. All pushed under the guise of preventing that one-in-a-million guy making a scary sounding gun part. I wonder what's next, license to purchase or build CNC, 3D printers or well, lets include a computer or phone - that would do it.

What will these states do after everyone who works is forced to leave?

_________________
Brian R, Wood Mechanic
N8ZED

Link goes to and advert fot David Trone is proudly endorsed by the Maryland State Education Association!

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

Goodness... a reminder that incompetent and incomprehesible are happy to war against each other during the primary season. Link fixed!

Wonder how long that’ll take to come to Canada…

Outrageous indeed. Wondering how that will stand up in court?
A CAD file could be considered proprietary, intellectual property, providing competitive advantage, or a flat out trade secret.
Thanks for the warning....

_________________
Measure Twice,

Karl Borum

They will have to pry my 1940s lathe from my cold………
Glad I have conventional machines and know how to use them.

_________________
Say what you do, Do what you say.

Good luck with enforcement-government can't get out of their own way.....

Looking into the bills (Senate / Assembly) it appears that:

• it hasn't passed yet
• there is no database of CAD plans. You don't have to submit any files
• there is a database of ghost guns that the police would maintain
• there are penalties for manufacturing ghost guns and possessing plans for ghost guns

So you can happily go about creating your CAD plans for guitars.

Greg

The bill was bundled into the NY state budget bill which was signed into law by the NY Governor on May 27th of this year. The law bans the sale of additive or subtractive manufacturing equipment that is not equipped with code blocking technology, but is not immediately effective. The signing on May 27, 2026 did not switch on the device requirement. The § 837-aa working group and file-library provisions took effect on enactment, but the § 396-eeee sales prohibition is gated behind a chain of contingent steps and will not bind printer sellers for years. The operative section of the budget bill is § 837-aa (2), which triggers various actions:

- Within 90 days of the section's effective date the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the Department of State, and the State University of New York will convene a working group of experts in additive-manufacturing technology, artificial intelligence and digital security, firearms regulation, public safety, and consumer product safety.

- No later than one year after it convenes, the working group is to recommend minimum safety standards for blocking technology.

- The Division then has, under § 837-aa (3)(a), up to nine months after receiving those recommendations to promulgate performance-standard rules.

- Subpart B's effective-date clause provides that the § 396-eeee sales requirement takes effect one year after those rules are promulgated. Stacked end to end, those statutory intervals place the earliest possible effective date for the device-sales requirement more than two years after enactment.

The statute carries a feasibility escape hatch in § 837-aa (2): If the working group determines that it is not technologically feasible to require three-dimensional printers sold in the state of New York to include blocking technology, the working group shall so report, and no regulations shall be required to be promulgated pursuant to this section, until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible. If the working group makes that finding, no rules issue and the sales requirement never takes effect, deferred indefinitely until a future finding of feasibility.

So yes - the bill is signed and in effect. Keep in mind that highly unpopular bills are often hidden in 'deadlined, have-to-pass' legislation. This particular bill was contentious from its inception and would likely not have survived floor debate in either chamber of the legislature, hence the dodge to the budget bill after liberal application of lobbyist funds.

As to the database, see above.

As to feasibility, much like other schemes devised by regulators, the law pushes the boundaries of recognition technology. That said, feasibility has seldom deterred legislatures, as both the California microstamping legislation and Maryland's now-sunsetted cartridge collection and registration requirements show.

So no - no ban today, but within a few years? Likely, and that will create a need for printers and other devices to be modified with appropriate code. As a bare minimum, printer prices will increase to accommodate code base costs and recurring updates, as well as the snitch patches that the state will likely have to mandate for enforcement purposes.

At least 5 other states are considering similar technology, largely as a result of lobbying by multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg-funded groups. You may recall Mr. Bloomberg as the author of 'stop and frisk' policies in NYC later deemed unconstitutional, as well as the 16 ounce soda ban in that same city. I suspect there is a very thin line separating public safety advocate and behaviors-focused control freak.