New York Governor Kathy Hochul Vows to Stay Ahead of Cody Wilson's 3D-Printed Gun Tool

Hochul: 'I'm Going to Be the One Who Says No'

New York Governor Kathy Hochul is not backing away from the state's first-in-the-nation law requiring 3D printers to detect and block firearm designs. In a new interview on The Verge's Decoder podcast, she directly answered Cody Wilson, the founder of Defense Distributed, who recently released a tool called Hochulization that alters the digital fingerprints of gun files so detection systems cannot spot them.

Wilson's software targets the detection rules New York wants embedded in 3D printers sold in the state. The idea is simple on paper: if a printer can recognize a gun file, it can refuse to print it. Wilson's counter is just as blunt. By changing file hashes without changing the final object, he can make the same design look like a different file every time it lands on a printer. He has already said he plans to apply the technique across Defense Distributed's archive of more than 200,000 designs and even open-source the method.

Hochul's response was pointed. You can tell Cody I will get ahead of him next, she said. I can't always be on the forefront when I see someone intentionally thwarting a law. She framed the issue around public safety, arguing that untraceable firearms made at home sidestep background checks, registration, and the basic rules the state uses to keep gun deaths low.

The Detection Debate Is Not New

This argument has been running for more than a decade. Wilson published the first fully 3D-printed gun, the Liberator, in 2013. Since then, his work has moved through lawsuits, export-control fights, and state-level bans. The New York law takes a different angle by putting the burden on the printer rather than the file host. That shift matters because most consumer 3D printers are not built to police what they print.

Not everyone agrees with the state's approach. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has warned that mandatory detection software on 3D printers amounts to censorware and could slide into broader monitoring of what people make at home. A Kentucky creator also highlighted the gray area earlier this year with an e-reader case shaped like a gun: it looks like a weapon but does not work as one, so any detection rule based on shape alone starts to look shaky.

Hochul admitted the edges are tricky. When asked how the law would handle objects that look like guns but are not, she said, I want to make sure we're getting the objective I'm looking for and I'll figure it out. The line captures the practical problem. Drawing a bright legal line around a digital file is hard when the same printer can produce a toy, a tool, and a firearm component.

What Happens Next

The Hochulization tool and Hochul's promise to counter it set up a familiar cat-and-mouse game. Each time a state tightens regulation, builders find a way to route around it. Each routing tactic becomes the reason for another rule. For 3D printer owners who have no interest in guns, the whole fight raises a narrower question: should the machine on your desk be asked to judge what you are allowed to make?

New York's law has not yet forced every printer to comply, and Wilson's tool has not been tested in court. What is clear is that both sides see this as a long-term fight over who controls digital manufacturing. Hochul says she is ready for the next round. Wilson has already said the same.