Texas SB 308 (3D-Printed Firearms) — Legal Analysis

What the bill does. It adds 3D-printed guns and 3D-printed major components (barrel, slide or cylinder, frame or receiver) to the prohibited-weapons list in Penal Code §46.05. Making, possessing, transporting, repairing or selling one becomes a crime. The default penalty under the existing statute is a third-degree felony. A new §46.055 makes sharing printable gun files a Class A misdemeanor.

Where it is most exposed.

• Second Amendment: The bill bans possession outright, with no grandfathering, and bans printed guns even if they carry serial numbers. That reaches further than the Delaware law struck down in Rigby v. Jennings.
• First Amendment: The file ban has no Texas-recipient limit, and its knowledge element largely restates the definition. It also makes DPS the gatekeeper for research. Each of these is a weak point the Third Circuit's narrow ruling does not cover.
• Drafting: The terms "using a three-dimensional printer" and "contains a major component" are open-ended, and the bill does not say whether a defendant must know a part was printed.
• Politics. For the first time in decades, the bill's sponsors' party will control the governor's office and the Texas House when the session opens on January 12, 2027. The bill's chances of passing are therefore higher than they were for the 2025 version. That makes the constitutional questions below practical, not just academic.

This memo summarizes public law and litigation as of the date above. It is not legal advice.

How the bill fits Chapter 46

SB 308 adds its new offenses to the existing prohibited-weapons statute instead of writing a standalone section. That choice settles the penalty: most offenses under §46.05 default to a third-degree felony.¹

Provision	Conduct	Penalty	Defenses
§46.05(a-1)(1)–(2)	Making a firearm or major component "using a three-dimensional printer"	Third-degree felony by default under §46.05(e)¹ (2–10 years, fine up to $10,000)²	New §46.05(c): official law-enforcement or court duty; FFL dealer, manufacturer or importer acting within its license; DPS-approved research
§46.05(a-1)(3)	Possessing, transporting, repairing or selling a printed gun, a printed major component, or any gun that "contains" one	Same	Same, plus the existing §46.05(b) official-duty defense
New §46.055	Distributing or publishing a "digital firearm schematic" knowing it facilitates 3D printing a gun or major component	Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year, fine up to $4,000)³	The §46.05(c) defenses carry over

Three structural points.

1. The penalty is not missing. The bill sets no penalty for subsection (a-1), so the existing §46.05(e) default applies. That subsection makes an offense "under this section" a third-degree felony unless an exception applies.¹ SB 308 adds no exception, so possessing one printed pistol frame would carry the same penalty as possessing an unregistered machine gun.
2. Reusing subsection (c). The new defense list reuses the letter (c), which was repealed in 2015.⁴ That is legal but invites confusion with older case law citing the former (c).
3. It drops the 2025 bill's Texas-nexus language. The 2025 predecessor, SB 1711, barred making schematics available "to another person in Texas."⁵ SB 308's §46.055 has no recipient or territorial limit. That broadens what it covers and sharpens the First Amendment and jurisdiction problems discussed below. SB 1711 also used a felony for possession and a Class A misdemeanor for files.⁵ It did not become law. SB 308 is a cleaner redraft of the same idea.

Notes

1. Tex. Penal Code §46.05(e), as shown in the text of S.B. 682, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023) ("an offense under this section is a felony of the third degree"). The 2025 code (Justia) keeps the third-degree default, with the tire-deflation offense as a state jail felony.
2. Tex. Penal Code §12.34.
3. Tex. Penal Code §12.21.
4. Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., ch. 69, §2 (repealing former §46.05(c)); see Justia, §46.05.
5. S.B. 1711, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025) (introduced), proposed §46.132(c), (e).

Second Amendment: the possession and manufacturing ban

The ban on making and possessing printed guns would most likely be struck down if challenged. The only merits ruling on a comparable law found that self-manufacture is protected conduct. Texas would need Founding-era analogues for banning a whole method of making arms, and no court has accepted one yet.

The framework

Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep arms in common use, especially handguns in the home.¹ McDonald applied that right to the states.² Bruen replaced means-end scrutiny with a two-step test. If the plain text covers the conduct, the state must show its law fits the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.³ Rahimi clarified that the state needs a historical analogue that shares the "why" and "how" of the modern law, not a "historical twin."⁴

Step one: is making or possessing a printed gun covered?

Possession is the easier question for challengers. A printed pistol is a handgun, and the bill bans owning it even inside the home. That is close to the conduct at the center of Heller. The ban covers printed guns that are serialized and lawfully made under federal law, so Texas cannot frame it as a traceability rule.

Manufacturing is contested, but recent rulings favor challengers.

• In Rigby v. Jennings, the District of Delaware first preliminarily enjoined Delaware's bans on possessing and self-manufacturing unserialized guns, including 3D-printed ones.⁵ In September 2026 it held both bans facially unconstitutional.⁶ The court reasoned that the right to keep arms includes acquiring them, so cutting off self-manufacture burdens protected conduct. It also held that the right covers disassembly, cleaning, repair and reassembly.⁶
• The Fifth Circuit, whose precedent binds federal courts in Texas, has treated limits on acquiring guns as burdening the right. It struck down the federal ban on licensed dealers selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds.⁷ That reasoning carries over to a ban on making one's own gun.
• Courts have long recognized "ancillary" rights needed to make the core right meaningful, such as range training.⁸ The Ninth Circuit en banc, however, declined to recognize a freestanding right to sell guns. It held that buyers' rights are not burdened while they can still acquire guns in other ways.⁹ Texas would argue the same here: Texans can still buy commercial guns. That last argument is the state's best one on step one. Its weakness is that SB 308 also bans possession. Even a court that rejects a right to manufacture must still deal with a ban on keeping a working handgun.

Step two: historical tradition

In Rigby, Delaware offered historical laws on clubs and knives, trap guns, unusually large firearms and gunpowder storage. The court found them materially different in how and why they burdened the right.⁶ Texas would face the same difficulty. Home gunsmithing was common at the Founding, and no known Founding-era law banned a method of making arms.

The en banc Third Circuit's July 2026 ruling strengthens the challengers' side. It held that commonly owned semi-automatic rifles cannot be categorically banned.¹⁰ It also required a Founding-era tradition rather than much later analogues.¹⁰ The Supreme Court has since agreed to hear two cases on state semi-automatic rifle bans, so the common-use question may be reshaped before SB 308 could take effect.¹¹

What does not help Texas

Bondi v. VanDerStok upheld ATF's rule treating some parts kits and unfinished frames as "firearms" under the Gun Control Act.¹² It was a statutory case, not a Second Amendment one. The rule it upheld regulates commercial kits through serial numbers and background checks; it does not ban anything. If anything, it shows a less restrictive approach that Texas did not take.

The Texas Constitution

Article I, §23 guarantees each citizen "the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State." It lets the Legislature "regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."¹³ That power covers carrying, not keeping or making arms. A defendant in a state prosecution would raise both the state and federal claims.

Notes

1. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
2. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
3. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
4. United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).
5. Rigby v. Jennings, 630 F. Supp. 3d 602 (D. Del. 2022) (granting preliminary injunction in part); see the order, which enjoined the possession and manufacturing bans but not the distribution bans.
6. Rigby v. Jennings, No. 1:21-cv-1523-MN (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2026) (summary judgment in part), as reported by plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition and Pew Pew Tactical. Reports say the commercial-distribution rules survived; one outlet reports the CAD-file ban also survived. Check the opinion before relying on that point. Delaware may appeal to the Third Circuit.
7. Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 127 F.4th 583 (5th Cir. 2025).
8. Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011).
9. Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).
10. Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Att'y Gen. N.J. (consolidated with Cheeseman v. Davenport), 183 F.4th 211 (3d Cir. July 17, 2026) (en banc) (opinion); FPC summary. New Jersey petitioned for certiorari on October 1, 2026.
11. Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (cert. granted June 30, 2026), as described in New Jersey's cert petition.
12. Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. 458 (2025); see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11325.
13. Tex. Const. art. I, §23 (emphasis added).

First Amendment: the file-sharing ban (§46.055)

Whether §46.055 survives depends on a question the Supreme Court has never answered: when is computer code speech? The Third Circuit's February 2026 ruling is the best precedent Texas has, but it was a pleading decision, and a cert petition challenging it is pending. SB 308 is also broader than the New Jersey law that ruling upheld.

Is code speech? The circuit split

Case	Court	Holding on code
Def. Distributed v. Att'y Gen. of N.J. (2026)¹	3d Cir.	Code is not automatically speech. A plaintiff must plead facts showing the code communicates ideas, under a five-factor test.
Universal City Studios v. Corley (2001)²	2d Cir.	Code is speech, but a content-neutral rule aimed at its function gets intermediate scrutiny.
Junger v. Daley (2000)³	6th Cir.	Source code is protected because it expresses ideas about programming.
Bernstein v. DOJ (1999)⁴	9th Cir.	Encryption source code is protected speech. The opinion was later withdrawn for en banc rehearing.

The Third Circuit separated expressive code, which people read, from purely functional code, which instructs machines.⁵ Its factors look at the code's technical nature and how it is actually used. They also ask who sends and receives it, what purposes it serves, and what, if anything, it communicates.⁵ It affirmed dismissal because Defense Distributed's complaint did not plead those facts.⁵ It did not hold that all gun files are unprotected.⁶

The Fifth Circuit has not decided

The Fifth Circuit faced the same files in 2016, when the State Department ordered Defense Distributed to take them down under export rules.⁷ It affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction on the balance of harms and public interest. It expressly left open whether the files were protected speech.⁷ A dissent argued the takedown was an unconstitutional prior restraint and gave officials unchecked licensing discretion.⁷ The government later settled.⁸ A federal court in Washington then blocked the settlement on administrative-law grounds.⁹

So a Texas federal court would write on a clean slate. The Fifth Circuit has also held that New Jersey's attorney general could be sued in Texas over a cease-and-desist letter to Defense Distributed.¹⁰ That suggests Texas courts are a likely venue for challenges to §46.055.

The Supreme Court may step in

Defense Distributed petitioned for certiorari in August 2026 (No. 26-184).¹¹ One question presented is when code gets First Amendment protection.¹² New Jersey waived its response, but the Court requested one anyway, now due November 25, 2026.¹³ A request for a response is a sign the Court is taking the petition seriously. A grant would likely be argued and decided before or near SB 308's September 1, 2027 effective date.

If the files are speech

Content-based rule. Section 46.055 applies because of what the files describe, and the Supreme Court has said creating and sharing information is speech.¹⁴ A law that targets speech because of its subject is content-based and gets strict scrutiny.¹⁵ Texas would argue for intermediate scrutiny under Corley's reasoning that the law targets function, not ideas.²

Speech integral to crime. Texas's strongest fallback is that the files are tools for crime, not ideas. Speech integral to criminal conduct is unprotected.¹⁶ Offers to provide unlawful material are also unprotected.¹⁷ The Fourth Circuit let a murder victim's family sue the publisher of a hit-man manual for aiding and abetting.¹⁸

This argument has two limits.

• In Texas, the underlying conduct (making a printed gun) would itself be the crime only if SB 308's ban stands. If the ban falls on Second Amendment grounds, the files would facilitate lawful conduct.
• Hansen read a federal "encourages or induces" crime narrowly, to mean intentional solicitation or aiding and abetting.¹⁹ Section 46.055 instead punishes sharing a file with mere knowledge that it "facilitates" printing. Because the definition already says the files are designed for printing, that knowledge element adds little. Abstract advocacy of lawbreaking is protected unless it is meant to and likely to cause imminent lawless action.²⁰ DPS approval for research. The research defense applies only to studies "approved by the Department of Public Safety." The bill gives DPS no standards or deadline. Licensing schemes for speech need procedural safeguards.²¹ Laws that leave an official unbridled discretion over speech can be challenged on their face.²²

Overbreadth. Section 46.055 reaches journalists, academics, code repositories and gunsmithing forums nationwide. Facial overbreadth challenges require weighing a law's unconstitutional applications against its legitimate sweep.²³ The missing Texas-recipient limit makes that weighing worse for the state.

Notes

1. Def. Distributed v. Att'y Gen. of N.J., 167 F.4th 65 (3d Cir. 2026); see Everytown Law and Richmond J.L. & Tech..
2. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).
3. Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000).
4. Bernstein v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir.), reh'g en banc granted and opinion withdrawn, 192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1999).
5. Def. Distributed, 167 F.4th 65, as summarized in Richmond J.L. & Tech..
6. The Firearm Blog (noting the ruling turns on what was pleaded).
7. Def. Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State, 838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016), aff'g 121 F. Supp. 3d 680 (W.D. Tex. 2015).
8. See First Amendment Watch (2018 settlement).
9. Washington v. U.S. Dep't of State, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (W.D. Wash. 2018).
10. Def. Distributed v. Grewal, 971 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-984 (Mar. 29, 2021) (docket).
11. Def. Distributed v. Davenport, No. 26-184 (docket).
12. Petition for certiorari; The Firearm Blog.
13. Docket No. 26-184 (waiver filed Sept. 18, 2026; response requested Sept. 24; extended to Nov. 25, 2026).
14. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 570 (2011).
15. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015).
16. Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949).
17. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008).
18. Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., 128 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1997).
19. United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762 (2023).
20. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam).
21. Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965).
22. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988).
23. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (2024).

Vagueness, mens rea and reach

Even if SB 308 survived the constitutional challenges, its definitions would invite challenges on vagueness and mens rea in individual prosecutions. A criminal law is void for vagueness if ordinary people cannot tell what it forbids, or if it invites arbitrary enforcement.¹ The Court applied that rule to a federal firearms statute in 2015.²

Phrases likely to be litigated

Text	The problem	Example
"using a three-dimensional printer"	Unclear whether a printer must make the final part, or whether any role in the process counts	Common printed jigs guide a drill or mill on a commercial frame blank. Metal parts printed by a commercial vendor are another unclear case.
"major component" includes "the barrel"	Printed barrels are rare; the term arguably sweeps in liners and metal barrels formed on printed tooling	A barrel made by electrochemical machining in a printed fixture
"a firearm that contains a major component"	Any gun with one printed part becomes contraband, whatever its maker or serial number	A commercial pistol fitted with a printed replacement slide
"repairs"	Covers anyone who works on a printed gun, including a gunsmith who did not know it was printed	A gunsmith cleaning a customer's pistol
"facilitates the manufacture"	Almost any CAD file for a gun part facilitates printing it	A rendering shared for a design discussion

Knowledge of the "printed" fact

Section 46.05 requires that a person act "intentionally or knowingly." Under Texas law, "knowingly" applies to the nature of the conduct and to surrounding circumstances.³ The bill does not say whether the state must prove the defendant knew a part was printed. A buyer of a used gun may have no way to tell.

Federal courts read knowledge requirements into gun statutes to avoid punishing innocent conduct. The Supreme Court required proof that a defendant knew his rifle could fire automatically.⁴ It later required proof that a defendant knew his own prohibited status.⁵ Texas courts would likely read SB 308 the same way. Drafters could avoid the litigation by saying so.

No grandfathering

SB 308 has no exemption for printed guns made lawfully before September 1, 2027. Section 4 applies only to offenses committed after that date. But keeping a gun on or after that date is a new offense, so every existing owner would have to destroy or surrender the gun. The bill does not say how. That raises the stakes of the Second Amendment challenge and invites as-applied suits from owners.

Territorial reach and platforms

Texas can prosecute only when the conduct or a required result occurs in Texas.⁶ Without a Texas-recipient element, §46.055 on its face reaches a website operator in another state. Prosecuting that operator would raise both jurisdiction and dormant Commerce Clause problems.

Websites hosting files that users upload get extra protection. Federal law bars treating a service provider as the publisher of third-party content. It also preempts inconsistent state law, including state criminal law.⁷ Only federal criminal law is carved out.⁷ So §46.055 could realistically reach only the person who uploads a file, not the platform.

Notes

1. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).
2. Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).
3. Tex. Penal Code §6.03(b).
4. Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).
5. Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019).
6. Tex. Penal Code §1.04(a).
7. 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1), (e)(1), (e)(3).

Federal backdrop

Federal law allows people to make guns for their own use, including by 3D printing, as long as they are not prohibited persons. SB 308 would make Texas one of the strictest states. It goes beyond federal law in four ways.

Federal rule	What it covers	How SB 308 differs
Manufacturer licensing, 18 U.S.C. §923(a)	A license is needed only to be "engaged in the business" of making guns	SB 308 bans unlicensed printing for personal use too
Undetectable Firearms Act, 18 U.S.C. §922(p)	Bans guns that do not set off metal detectors or X-ray machines	SB 308 bans printed guns even when they include the required metal
ATF frame-or-receiver rule, 27 C.F.R. §478.12, upheld in VanDerStok¹	Regulates commercial kits and unfinished frames through serial numbers and background checks	SB 308 bans printed guns instead of tracing them
Export controls (ITAR, later EAR)²	Restrict posting gun files online where foreign persons can download them	SB 308 is a domestic criminal ban, with no export-control nexus

Congress has not banned sharing gun files. The 3D Printed Gun Safety Act of 2025 (S. 2165) would ban online distribution of printable gun files. It has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.³ Earlier versions never reached a vote.³

The gap between federal and Texas law matters to the Second Amendment analysis. A court applying Rahimi would ask why Texas needs an outright ban when tracing rules address the same harm.⁴ It matters for federal preemption too. Federal firearms law generally does not preempt stricter state laws, so a preemption challenge to SB 308 would likely fail.

Notes

1. Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. 458 (2025).
2. See Def. Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State, 838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016) (ITAR); Washington v. U.S. Dep't of State, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (W.D. Wash. 2018).
3. 3DPrint.com; BillTrack50 (referred to Judiciary on June 25, 2025).
4. United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

Other states' laws and how they fared

SB 308 combines the two parts that have been litigated elsewhere. One is a ban on possessing and making printed guns, which lost in Delaware. The other is a ban on sharing files, which survived in New Jersey. It is broader than either.

State	Law	Scope	Court outcome
Delaware	H.B. 125 (2021), 11 Del. C. §§1459A, 1463¹	Bans possessing, making and distributing unserialized guns, including printed ones; bans 3D-printing files	Possession and manufacturing bans held unconstitutional (Sept. 2026); commercial-distribution rules upheld²
New Jersey	N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C:39-9(l)(2)³	Bans distributing printable gun files to unlicensed people in New Jersey	Upheld on a pleading dismissal (3d Cir. 2026); cert pending⁴
California	A.B. 2047 (2025–26), pending⁵	Would require printer sellers to install software that detects and blocks gun prints	Not enacted; civil-liberties groups object⁵
New York	Proposed printer-safeguard bill⁶	Would require printer-level blocking and restrict access to design files	Not enacted
Texas	SB 308 (2027)	Bans printed guns even if serialized; bans sharing files with no recipient limit	—

Two lessons for SB 308.

1. Serialization is the line courts have drawn. Delaware's ban on commercially sold unserialized frames survived as a sales regulation. Its ban on keeping and making guns did not.² A version of SB 308 aimed at serial numbers and background checks would stand on firmer ground than a flat ban.

2. New Jersey's file ban was narrow. It reached only distribution to unlicensed people in the state.³ Section 46.055 has no such limit. The Third Circuit's ruling also depended on the plaintiffs' thin pleading.⁴ A Texas challenger who documents expressive uses of its files would present a harder case. Notes

3. Ammoland, Sept. 2026 (describing H.B. 125 and the codified sections).

4. Rigby v. Jennings, No. 1:21-cv-1523-MN (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2026); FPC; Pew Pew Tactical.

5. Richmond J.L. & Tech.; Courthouse News (law bars distribution to those in New Jersey without a manufacturing license).

6. Def. Distributed v. Att'y Gen. of N.J., 167 F.4th 65 (3d Cir. 2026); No. 26-184 (U.S.).

7. LegiList, A.B. 2047; Straight Arrow News.

8. 3D Printing Industry.

Assessment

If SB 308 passes as filed, a challenge in federal court in Texas would most likely defeat the possession and manufacturing ban. The file ban's fate turns largely on whether the Supreme Court takes No. 26-184.

Provision	Main challenge	Litigation risk	Why
Possession ban, §46.05(a-1)(3)	Second Amendment	High	Bans keeping a working handgun at home; covers serialized guns; no grandfathering; Rigby struck a narrower ban
Manufacturing ban, §46.05(a-1)(1)–(2)	Second Amendment	High	Rigby treats self-manufacture as protected; the Fifth Circuit treats limits on acquiring guns as burdens
File ban, §46.055	First Amendment	Medium; rises if cert is granted	The Third Circuit precedent helps Texas, but §46.055 is broader and the Fifth Circuit is undecided
DPS research approval	Prior restraint	Medium	No standards or deadlines for approval
Definitions and mens rea	Vagueness, as-applied	Medium	Questions about "using" a printer, "contains" and knowledge would arise in individual prosecutions

Political context

The 2026 elections changed the bill's prospects. Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeated Gov. Greg Abbott,¹ Democrat Vikki Goodwin defeated Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick,² and Democrats flipped the Texas House.³ The lieutenant governor presides over the Senate. This memo did not check the Senate's partisan makeup for 2027, and that will shape the bill's path. The session opens January 12, 2027.⁴ The NRA has already flagged other prefiled gun bills for opposition, including HB 173; its list did not mention SB 308.⁴

Open questions to watch

• Whether the Supreme Court grants cert in No. 26-184 after New Jersey responds on November 25, 2026
• Whether Delaware appeals the September 2026 Rigby judgment to the Third Circuit
• How Viramontes and Grant reshape the common-use test
• Whether a committee substitute narrows SB 308 Notes

1. FOX 26 Houston; KUT.
2. FOX 4.
3. KUT.
4. NRA-ILA, Nov. 9, 2026.

Sources

Primary texts: SB 308 as filed (copy provided by the requester); S.B. 1711 (89R); Tex. Penal Code §46.05; Rigby order (2022); Third Circuit en banc opinion; Supreme Court docket No. 26-184. Case citations without links are from standard reporters; check them before filing anything that relies on them.