3D Printing as Assistive Technology

Protecting the Rights of Disabled Coloradans under the ADA

The Issue: Proposed legislation (HB26-1144) aims to restrict or ban 3D printing technology and digital manufacturing files. As of March 2026, there are at least 7 major active bills across 4 U.S. states (California, Washington, New York, and Colorado) targeting 3D printing, whose language focuses on restricting 3D-printed firearms and regulating 3D printers. This is in addition to federal efforts, such as the "3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2025". While framed as public safety, these broad definitions directly infringe upon the rights of disabled individuals who rely on computer-aided technology for independence, livelihood, and physical accommodation.

3D Printing is Assistive Technology

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), assistive technology is any item or piece of equipment used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.

• Physical Interface: For those unable to perform traditional manual labor, 3D printing serves as a "robotic extension," allowing for the creation of products, tools, and art through digital input rather than physical strain.

• Customization: 3D printing allows for the rapid creation of bespoke medical aids, such as custom-fitted prosthetic components, tactile maps for the blind, and adaptive eating utensils.

Economic Independence and the ADA

The ADA mandates "equal opportunity" for individuals with disabilities.

• Self-Employment: 3D printing provides a viable path to self-sufficiency for those whom the traditional job market cannot accommodate.

• The "Wheelchair" Analogy: Restricting a disabled person’s access to a 3D printer and the digital files required to operate it is functionally equivalent to removing a motorized wheelchair from a paraplegic or a prosthetic from an amputee. It is the removal of a primary mobility and utility tool.

The Discriminatory Impact of These Bills

Broadly worded bans on "digital instructions" or "manufacturing equipment" create a "chilling effect" that:

• Criminalizes Innovation: Disabled creators may face legal peril for downloading or sharing files for adaptive devices if those files fall under overly broad legislative definitions.

• Restricts Education: Programs that provide certifications for workplace readiness are threatened, further marginalizing a community already facing high unemployment rates.

Our Position

We support safety, but we oppose discrimination. Any legislation regarding 3D printing must include:

1. Explicit Exemptions for individuals using the technology as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

2. Protection for Digital Files used in educational, commercial, and therapeutic contexts.

3. Recognition of 3D printing as a protected form of computer-aided assistive manufacturing.

"Technology is the great equalizer. To ban the tool is to ban the person’s ability to participate in society."

Contact Information: 

Jeremy Morgan | (719) 470-0845 | jeremym@thinkersalchemy.com

The legislative landscape for 3D printing has shifted dramatically in early 2026, moving from regulating the outputs (the printed items) to regulating the technology itself (the printers, the software, and the files).

The following is a summary of the current and pending legislation that imposes controls or limitations on 3D printing and its associated digital ecosystem.

1. Hardware-Level Restrictions (The "Blocking Features")

This is likely the most direct threat to our work with assistive devices.

    • Washington HB 2321 (Proposed 2026): It would require that, by July 1, 2027, all 3D printers sold in Washington be equipped with "blocking features."

        ◦ The Mechanism: A "firearms blueprint detection algorithm" would be integrated into the printer's firmware or required slicer software.

        ◦ The Limitation: The printer would be legally required to reject any print job that the algorithm identifies as a firearm or firearm component.

        ◦ The Problem for You: Detection algorithms often struggle with "false positives." The mechanical components of a prosthetic hand—hinges, pins, and complex linkages—can geometrically resemble the internal components of a firearm (like triggers or sears). This could effectively lock you out of your own tools for medical use.

    • California "State-Approved Models": Similar to the Washington proposal, California is considering a bill that would restrict the sale of 3D printers to only "state-approved models" that have similar built-in software restrictions to prevent the manufacture of untraceable parts.

2. Digital File & Instruction Criminalization

Legislation is increasingly targeting the information used to print, often using broad language that impacts hobbyists and engineers.

    • Colorado HB26-1144 (2026): This bill creates a new crime: "unlawful three-dimensional printing of a firearm component."

        ◦ The Control: It criminalizes the possession of digital instructions (CAD files, code) if "circumstances indicate" an intent to manufacture.

        ◦ The Limitation: It also criminalizes the distribution (sharing) of these files to anyone who isn't a licensed manufacturer. The vagueness of "circumstances indicating intent" is a major concern for those who keep large libraries of mechanical designs.

    • Washington HB 2320 (Signed March 24, 2026): Now law, this bill regulates "digital firearm manufacturing code." It treats the distribution of these files as a violation of the Consumer Protection Act and can lead to felony charges if the code is used to produce untraceable firearms.

3. Ownership & Background Checks

Treating the tool like a weapon is a new trend in state legislatures.

    • New York Assembly Bill A2228 (2025-2026): This active bill proposes criminal history background checks for the purchase of any 3D printer "capable of creating firearms."

        ◦ The Reach: Since almost any high-precision 3D printer is technically "capable" of printing a firearm component, this could essentially require a background check for all commercial and hobbyist 3D printers in the state.

4. Associated Regulatory Shifts (Medical & Right to Repair)

While the firearms bills seek to limit the technology, other laws are moving in the opposite direction, creating a "legal tug-of-war" that may help our case.

    • FDA Quality Management (QMSR) 2026: Effective February 2, 2026, the FDA updated its medical device manufacturing regulations. While it doesn't ban 3D printing, it increases the "process validation" requirements. For a small business like Thinker’s Alchemy, this means that if our "surrogate hands" are classified as medical devices, the cost of compliance is rising.

    • Right to Repair (Oregon SB 550 & Others): In 2025 and 2026, several states enacted "Right to Repair" laws specifically for complex mobility devices and wheelchairs. These laws require manufacturers to provide software and tools to users.

        ◦ Our Leverage: We can argue that HB 2321 (blocking features) directly contradicts "Right to Repair" mandates. If the state requires a printer to have "un-bypassable" software locks, it prevents the user from "repairing" or "modifying" their own assistive technology.

Summary of Legislative "Controls"

Control Type Specific Law Impact on You

Firmware Locks WA HB 2321 Could flag prosthetic parts as "illegal shapes."

File Possession CO HB26-1144 Sharing mechanical designs could be seen as "intent."

Background Checks NY A2228 Treats the purchase of a 3D printer like a firearm purchase.

Surveillance CA Proposals Requires printers to report or log "suspicious" print jobs.

We argue that our "surrogate hands" become the property of the state through HB 2321. If the law dictates what your hands are allowed to print based on a government-mandated algorithm, the state has effectively seized control of your "craftsmanship" and "independence."

We argue that a 3D printer is a general-purpose tool (like a lathe or a hammer) and that "algorithmic censorship" of hardware is a violation of both the 1st Amendment (code as speech) and the ADA (restricting access to assistive technology).

Open Letter to State and Local Legislators

Published publicly for transparency on the Thinker’s Alchemy website.

Date: April 9, 2026

To: 

Prime Sponsors of HB26-1144:

    • Rep. Lindsay Gilchrist: lindsay.gilchrist.house@coleg.gov

    • Rep. Andrew Boesenecker: andrew.boesenecker.house@coleg.gov

    • Sen. Tom Sullivan: tom.sullivan.senate@coleg.gov

    • Sen. Katie Wallace: katie.wallace.senate@coleg.gov

Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee:

    • Sen. Katie Wallace (Chair): katie.wallace.senate@coleg.gov

    • Sen. Tom Sullivan (Vice Chair): tom.sullivan.senate@coleg.gov

    • Sen. William Lindstedt: william.lindstedt.senate@coleg.gov

    • Sen. Rod Pelton: rod.pelton.senate@coleg.gov

    • Sen. Lynda Zamora Wilson: lynda.zamora.wilson.senate@coleg.gov

Subject: Urgent Opposition to Discriminatory and Unconstitutional 3D Printing Legislation (Including CO HB26-1144, WA HB 2321, and similar proposals)

Dear Legislators,

I am writing to formally state our absolute opposition to the current legislative trend seeking to mandate algorithmic restrictions on 3D printing hardware and criminalize the possession of digital mechanical blueprints. While framed as public safety measures to prevent firearm manufacturing, these policies function as discriminatory, ableist attacks on bodily autonomy and direct violations of established legal precedents.

To be completely transparent: Thinker’s Alchemy refuses to 3D-print firearm components and has no intention of ever doing so. However, the proposed regulatory mechanisms—such as mandated "blocking features" in printer firmware and the criminalization of digital design files—are fundamentally flawed and deeply harmful.

Through our certification process and curricula, we teach individuals how to master this technology from the hardware up through the software and business ethics. 3D printing is a general-purpose tool, and for many, it is the only accessible means to overcome physical limitations. When physical damage took away my ability to engage in traditional craftsmanship, I used 3D printing to replace it. I engineered surrogate hands. Because every human body has unique traits and limitations, traditional manufacturing methods for bespoke assistive devices are prohibitively expensive.

If legislation dictates that my 3D printer must run a government-mandated algorithm to approve or deny the shapes I create, my surrogate hands effectively become the property of the state. Because algorithmic detection software routinely produces false positives—flagging the hinges, pins, and complex linkages of a prosthetic hand as firearm components—these laws will actively lock disabled individuals out of their own mobility and independence. I have no interest in living as the property of Omni Consumer Products, requiring state permission to live a functional life.

Furthermore, these legislative proposals violate existing laws and legal precedents:

    • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Mandating firmware locks on general-purpose manufacturing tools severely restricts access to bespoke assistive technology.

    • Right to Repair: As states rightfully pass legislation guaranteeing individuals the right to repair their own mobility devices, laws mandating un-bypassable software locks on the very tools used for those repairs stand in direct contradiction.

    • First Amendment Protections: Criminalizing the possession or distribution of digital blueprints (CAD files and G-code) inherently violates the established precedent that code is protected speech.

We do not have to resort to Orwellian hardware surveillance to ensure public safety. We can look to international examples of effective regulation that do not cripple technological independence. In the United Kingdom and the European Union, legislators and law enforcement have largely focused on the act of illicit manufacturing and the possession of the resulting prohibited weapons. The European Union’s framework specifically maintains that while possessing an illicit 3D-printed firearm is an offense, possessing or distributing digital blueprints is not. They successfully regulate the crime without banning the general-purpose tool or demanding algorithmic censorship of consumer hardware.

We are actively drafting initiatives for our local and state legislature to prevent this ableist discrimination. Please understand that our intent to join any resulting class-action litigation against these laws is not a threat, but a firm and transparent commitment to halting unconstitutional overreach. We will not allow the foundation of our independence to be legislated away.

We welcome all feedback and are ready to provide our deep technical expertise to help draft legislation that protects the public without discriminating against the disabled or destroying technological sovereignty.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Morgan

Founder, Thinker’s Alchemy LLC

(719) 470-0845

www.thinkersalchemy.com

Thinker’s Alchemy LLC
Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy

Version: 0.3 | Effective Date: May 2026 | Status: Active Standard Operating Procedure

1. Purpose and Philosophy: AI as an Access Technology

This policy establishes the strict operational boundaries for the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) within Thinker’s Alchemy LLC. As a micro-manufacturing and 3D printing education company, our core value is human craftsmanship. Therefore, AI functions strictly and exclusively as an internal Access and Accommodation Technology.

In the same way that physical prosthetics restore capability, our AI infrastructure operates as a digital prosthetic. It is utilized solely to navigate physical disabilities, manage strict operational hour limits, and support our employees' productivity. AI is the invisible scaffolding that handles our internal logistics, allowing our human workforce to dedicate their full energy and soul to physical craftsmanship, hands-on education, and client relations.

2. Internal Support Infrastructure

Thinker’s Alchemy utilizes AI strictly as an internal support infrastructure. AI tools are restricted to administrative and operational background tasks, including:

• Administrative Logistics: Inventory calculation, accounting summarization, and schedule management.

• Accessibility Support: Transcribing meeting notes, formatting internal SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures), and reducing cognitive/manual load for employees with disabilities.

• Technical Infrastructure: Reviewing G-code structures and analyzing printer diagnostics.
  

3. The Client-Facing Boundary (The Human Guarantee)

To honor the artistic and creative integrity of the maker community, Thinker’s Alchemy maintains a strict firewall between our internal AI use and our client deliverables:

• No Generative Creative Design: AI is explicitly prohibited from generating, conceptualizing, or directly drafting client creative commissions, 3D models, or artistic intellectual property. All design work and artistic refinement are 100% human-crafted.

• Opt-In Simulation: If a client requires a complex mathematical simulation (such as stress-testing a functional CAD part using AI), this will only be performed with the client’s explicit, informed consent.

4. Constitutional Alignment (Honesty, Harmlessness, & Helpfulness)

Inspired by the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community and aligned with the CC0 1.0 release of Anthropic’s Claude Constitution, Thinker’s Alchemy integrates the following ethical pillars:

• Honesty (Transparency): We maintain absolute transparency regarding our AI boundary. Clients are assured that AI lives only in our back-office admin, not in their products.

• Harmlessness (Safe Manufacturing): AI will never be used to design, optimize, or execute the manufacturing of dangerous, weaponized, toxic, or otherwise harmful physical objects.

• Helpfulness (Employee Access): AI resources are deployed primarily to provide reasonable accommodation and access to employment for individuals who might otherwise face insurmountable barriers in a traditional manufacturing environment.
  

5. Vendor Restrictions and Harm Prevention

We hold a strict ethical standard regarding the origins of the AI tools we utilize internally. Thinker's Alchemy prohibits reliance on models from organizations that fail to implement adequate safety guardrails. All AI vendors undergo an ethical review to ensure their corporate practices align with our commitment to human well-being.

6. Respect for the Technology

While AI is restricted to an internal support role, we maintain a culture of respect for the technology that makes our accessible business model possible. Our language and operational procedures will always reflect dignity and professional respect toward the tools and synthetic resources that assist us in overcoming physical limitations.

7. Compliance and Iteration

Because AI and Additive Manufacturing are rapidly evolving fields, this framework is designed to be a living document. It will be reviewed regularly to adapt to new technological advancements, legal standards, and client feedback.