Understanding AB2047 - What Every California Parent, Teacher & Maker Should Know

Final stage · Act today

AB2047 passed the Legislature. It's on the Governor's desk.

Both chambers have voted yes. The only thing standing between AB2047 and California law is the Governor of California, who can sign it or veto it. There is no committee left to persuade and no floor vote to wait on - the decision now sits with one office.

The one thing worth doing today is writing that office. Letters are logged by bill number and by position, and that tally reaches the Governor before he decides. A short, specific letter asking for a veto lands harder than a form email, because a person has to read it and record it.

Send it to the right inbox

Email your letter to the Governor's Legislative Unit. This is the office that logs correspondence for the Governor by bill number and by position before he signs or vetoes a bill.

✉️ leg.unit@gov.ca.gov

Tapping the button opens your email with the subject line already filled in. If you write your own, keep the format in step 2.

Format it the way the office expects

Two small things make a letter easy for staff to read and file correctly.

Font. Set your letter in Century Gothic, 13 pt.

Subject line. Make it unambiguous:

RE: AB 2047 (Grayson) Request for Veto

The pattern is RE: [Bill] (Author) Request for Veto - or Request for Signature if you are ever writing in support of a bill.

Say what belongs in the letter

Keep it concise but detailed. A strong letter walks through each of these, in your own words:

The problem the bill addresses.
Whether a state law is - or isn't - needed to solve it.
The feasibility of actually implementing it.
The budget impact, if any.
Real-world examples that illustrate the issue.
Your request - veto, signature, or support - stated clearly.
Your contact information, so the office can follow up.

Writing from California carries the most weight, but anyone may write. If you're outside the state, the most useful thing you can do is send this page to someone who lives here.

Points you can raise in your letter.

Pick whichever one is true for you and put it in your own words. One real example from a real person carries further than a form letter.

It does not make anyone safer. It regulates a tool, not a crime.
The technology it mandates does not exist and cannot be built. Printers read code, not intent - they cannot tell what a shape is for.
It disrupts education at every level: K-12, CTE, libraries, community colleges, and universities.
It breaks open-source 3D printing, which most classroom printers depend on.
It opens California businesses, schools, and families to civil lawsuits, forcing them to prove a negative to defend themselves.
The $25,000-per-violation penalties hit the wrong people - schools, makers, and small businesses - while bad actors route around the law entirely.
It costs the state real money: a new DOJ certification department and years of research into software experts say is impossible.

A Letter From the Industry

The letter

🔍 Click to read full letter

Organizational Signatories30 organizations

PRUSA Research

Printed Solid

Legacy Effects

Peopoly

MAKE Magazine

Maker Faire

West3D

Nikko Industries

VORON Design

3D Printing Nerd

Cocoa Press

Microswiss

Greengate3D

LDO Motors

Protoplant, makers of Protopasta

MakeGood

3D-Fuel

Siraya Tech

Monster City Studios

Sliceworx

Thangs 3D

Zellerfeld

FULU Foundation

Repair Preservation Group

Repair Preservation Group Action Fund

Rossmann Repair Group

OCreate

OC Makers Foundation

Matterhackers

Polymaker

Individual Signatories11 individuals

Dr. Adrian Bowyer

Josef Prusa

Marleen Vogelaar

Dale Dougherty

Maksim Zolin

Joel Telling

Anne Pauley

Clayton Parker / Uncle Jessy

Bill Doran / Punished Props Academy

Grant Posner / 3D Musketeers

Louis Rossmann

The bill, explained

What AB2047 actually does.

The bill sets up a new state regulatory regime for 3D printers, rolling out over six steps between today and 2029. Here's each one, in plain language.

By July 2027

California DOJ studies "blueprint detection"

The Department of Justice is directed to investigate firearm blueprint files and existing detection algorithms, and publish performance standards.

Why it matters The state is trying to define a technology that - by consensus in the research community - does not reliably exist yet.

By January 2028

DOJ begins certifying algorithms

Third-party vendors can submit their detection algorithms for state certification, and DOJ publishes guidance on "firearm blocking technology" to be installed on printers.

Why it matters The state picks winners. Every printer maker must license from a narrow, politically chosen set of vendors.

By July 2028

Manufacturers must submit attestations

Every company making or selling 3D printers in California must submit an attestation per make and model, confirming certified blocking tech is installed.

Why it matters Hobbyist-scale makers, open-source projects, and kit builders are effectively locked out - the paperwork itself is a barrier.

By September 2028

DOJ publishes the "approved list"

The state maintains a public list - updated quarterly - of 3D printer makes and models that have submitted valid attestations. If it's not on the list, it can't be sold here.

Why it matters A state permissions list for general-purpose computing hardware. Every firmware update re-triggers the process.

Starting March 2029

The sale ban takes effect

Sale or transfer of any 3D printer not equipped with certified blocking tech and not on the approved list is prohibited. Civil lawsuits may be filed against violators.

Why it matters California becomes the first state in the country to ban the sale of a category of general-purpose hardware based on theoretical misuse.

Ongoing

New criminal penalties

It becomes a crime to disable, uninstall, or circumvent the firearm blocking tech on a 3D printer with intent to manufacture firearms.

Why it matters The same modifications researchers, teachers, and hobbyists make today become criminal acts - based on "intent" judged after the fact.

Who it affects

The people who use 3D printers every day.

AB2047 targets the hardware, but the impact lands on students, teachers, makers, and small business owners using these tools for entirely legal, productive purposes.

🎓

Students & educators

Over 1.5M California students access 3D printing through school maker labs, CTE programs, and college engineering courses. Most school printers wouldn't qualify under AB2047's attestation regime.

K-12 · CTE · Higher Ed

🔧

Makers & small business

Prototype shops, dental labs, custom manufacturers, jewelers, medical device startups - every California small operation that depends on affordable, general-purpose printers.

30,000+ businesses

🧰

Open-source & hobbyists

RepRap, Voron, Klipper, and countless community-built printer designs cannot participate in a manufacturer-attestation system. They'd simply not be sold in California.

Community hardware

🔬

Researchers & engineers

Labs that modify firmware, experiment with extruders, or build next-gen additive manufacturing depend on hardware they can legally configure. Criminalizing circumvention chills real research.

Research & R&D

📚

Libraries & community spaces

Hundreds of California public libraries and community maker spaces offer free 3D printer access. Replacement on compliance grounds would gut those programs - disproportionately in low-income areas.

Public access

🏛️

Taxpayers

AB2047 creates a new DOJ certification regime, a quarterly-maintained list, and a civil enforcement mechanism - all paid for with California tax dollars, to solve a problem federal law already addresses.

State-mandated program

Why it doesn't work

What the bill can't solve.

AB2047 rests on two foundations that cannot bear its weight: the legal foundation conflicts with established First Amendment law, and the technical foundation assumes capabilities that do not reliably exist.

Legal Violations

Constitutional & statutory concerns

Prior restraint on protected speech

CAD files and source code are protected expression; mandatory pre-review is a textbook prior restraint.

Compelled speech

Forcing manufacturers to attest to contested algorithm output is compelled speech on a public concern.

Vagueness in "blueprint"

Shapes shared between firearm parts and countless legitimate objects give no clear notice of prohibited conduct.

Overbreadth

The bill sweeps in general-purpose hardware used overwhelmingly for lawful purposes.

Commerce Clause concerns

A state-specific approved list for interstate hardware raises serious Dormant Commerce Clause issues.

Federal preemption

Federal law already covers firearm manufacture, including via additive manufacturing.

Six more concerns detailed

Delegation, due process, Fourth Amendment telemetry, and state constitutional issues.

12+

Technical Failures

Why the tech can't actually work

Geometry isn't uniquely a firearm

A rifled barrel is a grooved cylinder. So are industrial screws, optical mounts, and thousands of other parts.

Trivial workarounds

Rotation, scaling, splitting a model into parts, or re-exporting defeats shape-based detection - without losing function.

G-code is the wrong layer

By the time a printer sees G-code, shape context is gone. Reconstructing a "firearm" at print time is intractable.

Firmware is open

Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap firmware can be flashed in minutes. Software-level "blocks" are simply removable.

No ground-truth dataset

There is no authoritative dataset of "firearm blueprints" - and the set grows adversarially.

Published error rates are too high

Research on shape-based detection consistently shows error rates incompatible with general-purpose use.

Six more technical barriers

Remote-print workflows, procedural generation, encrypted slicer output, multi-material composites, and more.

Read the full bill text → ↓ AB 2047 Fiscal Analysis ↓ References

Bill progress

Where it stands right now.

AB2047 cleared every committee in both houses, passed the full Assembly floor with 33 amendments, and has now passed the full State Senate. The bill has been enrolled and sent to the Governor. The only step left is his signature or veto - and the bill can still be stopped here. Write the Governor →

FebruaryIntroduced

Bill Introduced Completed

AB2047 is introduced in the California State Assembly, framed as a public safety measure targeting 3D-printed firearms.

MarchPublic Safety

Passed Public Safety Committee Completed

The bill cleared the Assembly Public Safety Committee and was advanced for further review.

AprilJudiciary

Passed Judiciary Committee Completed

The bill cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee and was advanced to Appropriations.

MayAppropriations

Appropriations & Suspense File Completed

The bill cleared the Assembly Appropriations Committee, was placed in the Suspense File, and has now been released with 33 amendments and sent to the floor.

MayAssembly Floor

Passed the Assembly Floor Completed

The full Assembly voted to pass the amended bill, sending it across to the State Senate for the second half of the process.

June 23Senate Judiciary

Passed Senate Judiciary Committee Completed

The bill was heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 23, cleared it, and advanced to the Senate Public Safety Committee.

June 30Senate Public Safety

Passed Senate Public Safety Committee Completed

The bill cleared the Senate Public Safety Committee on June 30 and now advances to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AugustSenate Appropriations

Passed Senate Appropriations Committee Completed

After the summer recess the committee weighed what AB2047 would cost the state, and passed it. That was the last committee standing between the bill and a vote of the entire Senate.

SeptemberSenate Floor

Passed the Senate Floor Completed

The full State Senate voted to pass AB2047. The bill was enrolled and sent to the Governor's desk.

NowFinal

Governor's Desk Awaiting decision

AB2047 is on the Governor's desk. He can sign it into law or veto it - the bill can still be stopped here. Writing his office now is the most useful thing anyone can do. Write the Governor →

Toolkit

Resources to share and use.

Print-ready handouts, letter templates, and talking points - built for schools, families, and neighborhood meetings.

PDF

Parent & teacher one-pager

A single-page handout explaining AB2047 in plain language - ready to bring to your next school board or PTA meeting.

1 pageDownload ↓

DOC

Legislator letter template

An editable letter opposing AB2047. Personalize one paragraph and send in under five minutes.

2 pagesDownload ↓

PDF

School board talking points

Bullet-point arguments tailored for school boards and district administrators concerned about CTE impact.

3 pagesDownload ↓

PDF

Full bill analysis

Section-by-section breakdown with annotations from lawyers, engineers, and policy experts.

32 pagesDownload ↓

ZIP

Social media kit

Friendly graphics sized for X, Instagram, LinkedIn, and TikTok - includes parent-focused copy options.

14 filesDownload ↓

PDF

Small business impact guide

Talking points for dental labs, jewelry makers, prototype shops, and other small businesses.

12 pagesDownload ↓