> Anybody that wishes to pretend that the legal line has been blurred will find themselves sooner or later in an excellent position to try to prove that to a ve

> Anybody that wishes to pretend that the legal line has been blurred will find themselves sooner or later in an excellent position to try to prove that to a very unrelenting judge. The line is blurred, that is tautological considering the complexification of the issue. The argument would be that the blurring is enough to warrant a different interpretation of the law. > If the legal fiction is that the lower receiver of that gun is the gun, then legally that didn't change so the method of manufacturing it is not relevant. Likely so. > if they don't review the orders (hard to do, after all, you can't know each and every prohibited item) then [they] are still on the hook. In the past making a custom part required a skilled machinist familiar with common machined parts. They would more than likely recognize an unlabelled but common part. Now a part can be made without a single human involved, or if there were they could be lesser-skilled cleaning technicians only. In the past they'd notice what you were doing by default, unless it was severely obfuscated. Now they'd have to hire machinists to spy on customer jobs and try to guess your intent to ban 'bad' items. One is trivial, the other invasive and ultimately impossible. It's a bit moot. They can't effectively pass a law putting the genie back in the bottle without banning 3d printing and rapid-turnaround prototyping - something which would drive the last of our development businesses away.