4 ms·

1st Amendment + 2nd Amendment == The Right to 3D Print and Bear Arms Moreover, how could this be implemented? Determining the 3D volume which a given G-code fi

1st Amendment + 2nd Amendment == The Right to 3D Print and Bear Arms Moreover, how could this be implemented? Determining the 3D volume which a given G-code file will result in is something which the industry would find very useful, but no one has yet achieved. Doing so would probably simultaneously result in the folks doing so being awarded a Fields Medal and the Turing Award (in addition to making a boatload of money licensing the resultant software/patent). On top of that, how does one resolve the matter of the same G-code file (for two nested circles plus some machine-specific codes) resulting in either a metal washer, or a lamp base, depending on whether run on a machine set to metric w/ a coolant system, or Imperial w/ a tool changer? Lastly, who creates the list of forbidden parts? How will it be curated? And most importantly, how will it be secured that it isn't a set of blueprints which are then used to make firearms? A more reasonable bit of legislation would be one which required folks who are barred by statute from owning firearms (convicted felons (who have not had their rights restored)/convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse) to approve with their parole officer any file for a part/object made by a 3D printer or CNC machine before submitting it to the machine.

tracker1 8mo ago
I'll be honest, I've always been mixed on prohibiting parolees and ex-cons from owning firearms in the first place. I think the right itself as part of self-defense is pretty clear and self-evident. I also don't like secondary crimes in general. Killing is bad... killing because you don't like $group is double-bad. Speeding is bad, speeding without a seatbelt is double-bad. etc. If you are such a danger to society that you shouldn't be allowed to be armed in case of defense, then you probably shouldn't be in society and remain locked up. That's just my take on it. I feel similarly on taking away voting rights after prison as well. I may not like how you vote, but I'm just not a fan of taking away people's rights outside prison/jail.
- WillAdams 8mo ago
  Too expensive/punitive, and note that there is an option to be restored to full citizenship after time served/restitution is made. My take on it is that if your judgement is so twisted that you are able to commit a felony and not be able to successfully petition for rights restoration, then you are not suited to deciding by whom the country should be governed.
  - cbdevidal 8mo ago
    It’s political theater. Not intended to actually accomplish much except “See!? We did something! Now vote for us again.” Meanwhile, open source printers can and will just bypass it.
    - WillAdams 8mo ago
      Doesn't the law include that devices which fail to implement such checks are barred from sale? >In addition, knowingly disabling or circumventing the blocking software is a misdemeanor. The inobvious thing is that that aspect of the law cannot be applied to felons or persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, since like failing to pay the tax stamp on a Class-III firearm or accessory, it would require self-incrimination, which thus far, is still illegal.
  - tracker1 8mo ago
    Have you actually looked into what it takes to restore full citizenship in many places? In some locations it means having to get the Governor to act on your behalf. Imagine what it would take to even get in contact with the Governor of a largely populated state, let alone trying to convince them that you should have your rights restored. Your judgement is twisted if you think that's a reasonable expectation for anyone who has served their time.
    - WillAdams 8mo ago
      Yes, I have experience of this, having known a person for decades who has done this --- if a person can't manage it, they shouldn't be voting, and they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms as I reasoned/rationalized above. Just to confirm your meaning --- if a person has demonstrated such poor judgement as to be convicted of a felony, and then cannot trouble themselves to then recant this judgement and argue that they are now capable of making responsible decisions, then they should be allowed to vote and own firearms despite not being willing to make an effort to state that their character has changed?
      - 8mo ago
- bb88 8mo ago
  Here's an interesting story about a non-violent felon becoming violent in my city. Not all felons are this way, but this one was. Oh and yeah, people are allowed to open carry guns in the statehouse here. https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/boise-mall-shooter-died-by-suicide-coroner/277-1e76e130-ad4b-4149-953e-20d4b1728068 https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/boise-mall-shooter-d...
  - Brian_K_White 8mo ago
    It's not interesting because it's not representative. Pair this with some stat that shows it happens the same way most of the time and then it's interesting.
    - bb88 8mo ago
      It is representative because people died.
      - Brian_K_White 8mo ago
        People die everywhere, at all times, doing everything. "people died" does not make an event interesting. "People lived" during the same event. In fact even more people lived. Was that interesting?
        bb88 8mo ago
        If you lost someone, you might feel differently. And the people that lived that day, almost most certainly don't want to die like that. That's the problem with those style of arguments. As logical as you want them to be, it doesn't remove the trauma burned into the psyche of the people who lived that day. If you deny someone's humanity in your argument, you've lost.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- mat_b 8mo ago
  > Killing is bad... killing because you don't like $group is double-bad. Speeding is bad, speeding without a seatbelt is double-bad. Why would either of those be double-bad? They're the same thing as the original. If you don't want to wear your seatbelt and you like to risk your own life, then that's on you. Just like riding a motorcycle.
  - Brian_K_White 8mo ago
    They said exactly that they do not think these are double bad. They are presenting them as examples of things that a lot of people do say, and many laws are written this way, and many cops, prosecutors, & judges treat them as double bad.
  - Ferret7446 8mo ago
    Speeding without a seatbelt is two separate infractions so it should be double bad. Just like robbing a bank and shooting someone is double bad compared to either individually. And intentional killing is generally considered worse because it means you thought about it and then did it, vs when it's due to acute emotional disorder. Intentional crimes are usually treated more harshly
    - tracker1 8mo ago
      I'm not talking about two crimes together... I'm talking specifically about changing the punishment based on intent or secondary effects. Owning a gun is legal, but if you've ever smoked weed it's illegal for you... murder is bad, but if it's because you hate a protected group it's a much harsher punishment... in some places, you can't be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, but you can be charged with it if you're pulled over for anything else. It's just to attach additional charges for prosecution. I don't like the idea of excessive charges as part of the prosecution process in general. It creates/extends what I consider an unfair asymmetry between the state (prosecution) and the individual. That's not to say there aren't similar examples in the other direction, such as a clerical error resulting in dismissed charges altogether.
- jfengel 8mo ago
  I agree about the guns. The second amendment doesn't say "except felons". It says "shall not be infringed". Possibly, if there are enough armed felons running about, we might be able to get both sides to the table and admit that maybe there should be some limits. Until then it does us no good to exclude some groups just because we don't like them, while still enduring school shootings.
  - blacksmith_tb 8mo ago
    It does mention "a well-regulated militia" though, and oddly legal gun owners don't belong to one of those.
    - SloppyDrive 8mo ago
      The point about militia is a short statement for why the right to bear arms is important, rather than trying to restrict or qualify the right. The ability to form militias is so important, that everyone should have the right to bear arms, in order to enable this. The idea is that it prevents the idea of a "special militia" having some selection criteria, so the government of the day cant make qualifying for its group a requirement to own guns.
      - blacksmith_tb 8mo ago
        I agree, that clause is there to explain why. To my eye, Madison appears to have been thinking mostly about state militias versus a standing (national) army. We obviously don't muster any of those today, I suppose the closest we come is the National Guard.
    - TheScaryOne 8mo ago
      "Well-regulated" in the context of 18th Century American English refers to the object's character, not to a system of regulations. You might say that a farmer runs a "well-regulated farm" because things run smoothly. Or that the windmill was a "well-regulated machine."
    - ahazred8ta 8mo ago
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > I've always been mixed on prohibiting parolees and ex-cons from owning firearms That’s valid. But if we literally can’t keep them from having guns, I’d want longer sentences for violent crimes and a default of life for gun crimes.
ghssds 8mo ago
> 1st Amendment + 2nd Amendment == The Right to 3D Print and Bear Arms I'm surprised this is not a 4th Amendment issue.
- WillAdams 8mo ago
  Arguably it is, see my observation about self-incrimination elsethread --- I just didn't carry things forward on that basis, nor work up a clever way to include that number as well --- anyone have any ideas along those lines?
labcomputer 8mo ago
> Lastly, who creates the list of forbidden parts? How will it be curated? And most importantly, how will it be secured that it isn't a set of blueprints which are then used to make firearms? My conspiracy theory is that these laws (there have been a rash of them lately, and that feels off) are being promoted by some of the cloud-based 3d printer manufacturers. In other words, an attempt at regulatory capture. As you note, determining from gcode whether the print is a gun is effectively impossible, and hiding the blocklist is hard anyway. Thus, the only way that could possibly work technically is with those cloud printers that take a .STL as input, routed through the printer manufacturer's servers. Discriminating between "gun" and "not gun" from the .STL is still hard, but vastly easier than inferring from gcode. The blocklist story becomes at least coherent, if still highly suspect, to anyone who knows anything about computer security.
- WillAdams 8mo ago
  We have a winner: https://blog.adafruit.com/2026/02/08/any-user-who-has-a-3d-printer-would-have-this-software-installed-printgos-plan-to-become-the-drm-of-3d-printing/ https://blog.adafruit.com/2026/02/08/any-user-who-has-a-3d-p...

tracker1 8mo ago

I'll be honest, I've always been mixed on prohibiting parolees and ex-cons from owning firearms in the first place. I think the right itself as part of self-defense is pretty clear and self-evident. I also don't like secondary crimes in general. Killing is bad... killing because you don't like $group is double-bad. Speeding is bad, speeding without a seatbelt is double-bad. etc. If you are such a danger to society that you shouldn't be allowed to be armed in case of defense, then you probably shouldn't be in society and remain locked up. That's just my take on it. I feel similarly on taking away voting rights after prison as well. I may not like how you vote, but I'm just not a fan of taking away people's rights outside prison/jail.

WillAdams 8mo ago
Too expensive/punitive, and note that there is an option to be restored to full citizenship after time served/restitution is made. My take on it is that if your judgement is so twisted that you are able to commit a felony and not be able to successfully petition for rights restoration, then you are not suited to deciding by whom the country should be governed.
- cbdevidal 8mo ago
  It’s political theater. Not intended to actually accomplish much except “See!? We did something! Now vote for us again.” Meanwhile, open source printers can and will just bypass it.
  - WillAdams 8mo ago
    Doesn't the law include that devices which fail to implement such checks are barred from sale? >In addition, knowingly disabling or circumventing the blocking software is a misdemeanor. The inobvious thing is that that aspect of the law cannot be applied to felons or persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, since like failing to pay the tax stamp on a Class-III firearm or accessory, it would require self-incrimination, which thus far, is still illegal.
- tracker1 8mo ago
  Have you actually looked into what it takes to restore full citizenship in many places? In some locations it means having to get the Governor to act on your behalf. Imagine what it would take to even get in contact with the Governor of a largely populated state, let alone trying to convince them that you should have your rights restored. Your judgement is twisted if you think that's a reasonable expectation for anyone who has served their time.
  - WillAdams 8mo ago
    Yes, I have experience of this, having known a person for decades who has done this --- if a person can't manage it, they shouldn't be voting, and they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms as I reasoned/rationalized above. Just to confirm your meaning --- if a person has demonstrated such poor judgement as to be convicted of a felony, and then cannot trouble themselves to then recant this judgement and argue that they are now capable of making responsible decisions, then they should be allowed to vote and own firearms despite not being willing to make an effort to state that their character has changed?
    - 8mo ago
bb88 8mo ago
Here's an interesting story about a non-violent felon becoming violent in my city. Not all felons are this way, but this one was. Oh and yeah, people are allowed to open carry guns in the statehouse here. https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/boise-mall-shooter-died-by-suicide-coroner/277-1e76e130-ad4b-4149-953e-20d4b1728068 https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/boise-mall-shooter-d...
- Brian_K_White 8mo ago
  It's not interesting because it's not representative. Pair this with some stat that shows it happens the same way most of the time and then it's interesting.
  - bb88 8mo ago
    It is representative because people died.
    - Brian_K_White 8mo ago
      People die everywhere, at all times, doing everything. "people died" does not make an event interesting. "People lived" during the same event. In fact even more people lived. Was that interesting?
      - bb88 8mo ago
        If you lost someone, you might feel differently. And the people that lived that day, almost most certainly don't want to die like that. That's the problem with those style of arguments. As logical as you want them to be, it doesn't remove the trauma burned into the psyche of the people who lived that day. If you deny someone's humanity in your argument, you've lost.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
mat_b 8mo ago
> Killing is bad... killing because you don't like $group is double-bad. Speeding is bad, speeding without a seatbelt is double-bad. Why would either of those be double-bad? They're the same thing as the original. If you don't want to wear your seatbelt and you like to risk your own life, then that's on you. Just like riding a motorcycle.
- Brian_K_White 8mo ago
  They said exactly that they do not think these are double bad. They are presenting them as examples of things that a lot of people do say, and many laws are written this way, and many cops, prosecutors, & judges treat them as double bad.
- Ferret7446 8mo ago
  Speeding without a seatbelt is two separate infractions so it should be double bad. Just like robbing a bank and shooting someone is double bad compared to either individually. And intentional killing is generally considered worse because it means you thought about it and then did it, vs when it's due to acute emotional disorder. Intentional crimes are usually treated more harshly
  - tracker1 8mo ago
    I'm not talking about two crimes together... I'm talking specifically about changing the punishment based on intent or secondary effects. Owning a gun is legal, but if you've ever smoked weed it's illegal for you... murder is bad, but if it's because you hate a protected group it's a much harsher punishment... in some places, you can't be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, but you can be charged with it if you're pulled over for anything else. It's just to attach additional charges for prosecution. I don't like the idea of excessive charges as part of the prosecution process in general. It creates/extends what I consider an unfair asymmetry between the state (prosecution) and the individual. That's not to say there aren't similar examples in the other direction, such as a clerical error resulting in dismissed charges altogether.
jfengel 8mo ago
I agree about the guns. The second amendment doesn't say "except felons". It says "shall not be infringed". Possibly, if there are enough armed felons running about, we might be able to get both sides to the table and admit that maybe there should be some limits. Until then it does us no good to exclude some groups just because we don't like them, while still enduring school shootings.
- blacksmith_tb 8mo ago
  It does mention "a well-regulated militia" though, and oddly legal gun owners don't belong to one of those.
  - SloppyDrive 8mo ago
    The point about militia is a short statement for why the right to bear arms is important, rather than trying to restrict or qualify the right. The ability to form militias is so important, that everyone should have the right to bear arms, in order to enable this. The idea is that it prevents the idea of a "special militia" having some selection criteria, so the government of the day cant make qualifying for its group a requirement to own guns.
    - blacksmith_tb 8mo ago
      I agree, that clause is there to explain why. To my eye, Madison appears to have been thinking mostly about state militias versus a standing (national) army. We obviously don't muster any of those today, I suppose the closest we come is the National Guard.
  - TheScaryOne 8mo ago
    "Well-regulated" in the context of 18th Century American English refers to the object's character, not to a system of regulations. You might say that a farmer runs a "well-regulated farm" because things run smoothly. Or that the windmill was a "well-regulated machine."
  - ahazred8ta 8mo ago
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> I've always been mixed on prohibiting parolees and ex-cons from owning firearms That’s valid. But if we literally can’t keep them from having guns, I’d want longer sentences for violent crimes and a default of life for gun crimes.

ghssds 8mo ago

> 1st Amendment + 2nd Amendment == The Right to 3D Print and Bear Arms I'm surprised this is not a 4th Amendment issue.

WillAdams 8mo ago
Arguably it is, see my observation about self-incrimination elsethread --- I just didn't carry things forward on that basis, nor work up a clever way to include that number as well --- anyone have any ideas along those lines?

labcomputer 8mo ago

> Lastly, who creates the list of forbidden parts? How will it be curated? And most importantly, how will it be secured that it isn't a set of blueprints which are then used to make firearms? My conspiracy theory is that these laws (there have been a rash of them lately, and that feels off) are being promoted by some of the cloud-based 3d printer manufacturers. In other words, an attempt at regulatory capture. As you note, determining from gcode whether the print is a gun is effectively impossible, and hiding the blocklist is hard anyway. Thus, the only way that could possibly work technically is with those cloud printers that take a .STL as input, routed through the printer manufacturer's servers. Discriminating between "gun" and "not gun" from the .STL is still hard, but vastly easier than inferring from gcode. The blocklist story becomes at least coherent, if still highly suspect, to anyone who knows anything about computer security.

WillAdams 8mo ago
We have a winner: https://blog.adafruit.com/2026/02/08/any-user-who-has-a-3d-printer-would-have-this-software-installed-printgos-plan-to-become-the-drm-of-3d-printing/ https://blog.adafruit.com/2026/02/08/any-user-who-has-a-3d-p...