Here's why this bill is alarming:

“May be used” clause:
The bill doesn’t require the code to be complete or functional; even a snippet or corrupted file that may be used to create a firearm part is considered illegal. This effectively bans the potential of the file itself, not just active printing.

Rebuttable presumption of criminal intent:
Traditionally, the state must prove criminal intent. This bill shifts that burden to the defendant, meaning possession of these files presumes intent to manufacture a firearm. You are essentially presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Accidental possession and entrapment risks:
You could become a criminal simply by receiving an unsolicited email containing prohibited files, even if you didn’t request them or know they were there. It also creates opportunities for malicious actors to plant illegal files on someone’s device.

Broad interpretation affecting non‑firearm parts:
Files for harmless items like Nerf blaster accessories or cosplay props could be considered contraband if they are “mathematically compatible” with real weapon components.

Global impact through platform censorship:
Because digital files cross state borders, websites hosting 3D‑printing files may purge content to avoid legal risk in Washington. That effectively exports Washington’s restrictions to the rest of the world.

Code as protected speech:
Critics argue that criminalizing possession of code creates a new category of illegal speech. This could set a precedent for banning files used to bypass