You can't violate the GPL if you aren't a party to the license (i.e. if you aren't copying copyrighted works). I don't know if it's a GPLv3 violation to distribute software in hardware that the user can technically buy not legally modify. The license just says this:
> The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
> > that would constitute a GPL violation on the part of the government [if the government were the ones distributing it] [...]
It would be nice to close this loophole (prevent or at least disincentivise the goverment from making such laws), but it's not clear how that could be accomplished.
> The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.