I strongly oppose the proposed legislation requiring background checks for the purchase of 3D printers. I am an avid user at home and work of 3D printing technology and understand the process of creating an STL file, slicing the file in software that converts the file into GCODE, which then is uploaded via network, USB Key, or MicroSD card to the 3D printer to produce the design.

I currently use both FDM (Fused Deposited Material) and SLA (Stereolithography) 3D printing styles.

While I understand the intention to address concerns about the misuse of 3D printing technology, this measure raises significant issues related to overreach, effectiveness, and unintended consequences.

### 1. **Unnecessary Overreach and Burden on Consumers**
3D printers are general-purpose tools used in countless legitimate and productive applications, including education, manufacturing, medicine, and creative hobbies. Requiring background checks for purchasing a widely available and lawful device places an undue burden on law-abiding individuals and businesses. This approach would treat an everyday piece of technology as inherently dangerous, which is neither accurate nor reasonable.

### 2. **Questionable Effectiveness**
The proposed legislation would likely be ineffective in addressing the root issues it seeks to solve. Individuals intent on using 3D printers for illegal purposes could easily bypass such restrictions by:

- Purchasing printers secondhand through private transactions or online marketplaces.
- Constructing homemade 3D printers using publicly available designs and components.

Instead of imposing restrictions on legitimate users, it would be more effective to focus on education and enforcement targeting the misuse of 3D-printed materials, such as the production of illegal or dangerous items.

### 3. **Hindrance to Innovation and Accessibility**
3D printing is a cornerstone of innovation, democratizing manufacturing and empowering entrepreneurs, students, and researchers. Imposing background checks could create unnecessary delays and costs, discouraging individuals and small businesses from adopting this transformative technology. This is particularly detrimental to underserved communities that rely on affordable access to technology for educational and professional advancement.

### 4. **Existing Legal Protections Are Sufficient**
The misuse of 3D printing to produce illegal items is already addressed under existing laws. For example, manufacturing untraceable firearms or counterfeit goods is illegal regardless of the method of production. Strengthening enforcement of these existing laws would be a far more effective approach than broadly restricting access to the technology itself.

### 5. **Privacy Concerns**
Requiring background checks for 3D printers raises serious privacy concerns, as it would involve collecting personal information from individuals engaged in lawful and harmless activities. Such data collection could create opportunities for misuse or abuse of personal information without achieving any meaningful benefit.

### Conclusion
Rather than enacting overly broad and burdensome legislation, policymakers should focus on targeted measures that address specific concerns about the misuse of 3D printing technology. Educational initiatives, public-private partnerships, and stronger enforcement of existing laws can achieve the desired outcomes without stifling innovation or imposing unnecessary restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

Useless legislation that solves no problem, but serves as a roadblock to getting hobbyists, educators, and manufacturers 3d printers.

It’s a shame that legislators are able to regulate things they clearly have no understanding of