4 ms·
Not really. It only applies to machines whos "sole or primary" ability is to manufacture firearms. I'm not sure even one such machine exists. Some companies ma
by xenadu02 8mo ago
Not really. It only applies to machines whos "sole or primary" ability is to manufacture firearms.
I'm not sure even one such machine exists. Some companies market benchtop or small lathes as "gun lathes" but that is marketing fluff not a technical description. Any lathe can be used to make weapons. They have tons of round parts and parts with drilled holes. So does everything else that gets manufactured.
I am not aware of any machine tool company that manufactures lathes, mills, etc explicitly designed just for manufacturing firearms.
So in that sense the law you reference is typical of performative legislation. You have angry idiots pestering you to Do Something(TM). So you pass a do-nothing bill. You get to say you banned a thing that never existed. Meanwhile it doesn't hurt or bother anyone because it applies to no one. That's the best of both worlds! Do nothing while looking busy! Take action without actually hurting anyone.
Is it silly? Yes. But I'd rather they do stuff like that then actually try to regulate 3d printers.
- WillAdams 8mo agoThe law was targeted against Cody Wilson's "Ghostrunner" CNC machine, but c.f., the "Coastrunner" (the same machine painted vivid colours and marketed for general usage so as to get around this law).
- kube-system 8mo ago"primary function of manufacturing firearms" effectively targets that "marketing fluff". As the other person mentioned it was a reaction to the ghostgunner mill.
- xenadu02 8mo agoI stand corrected! It still highlights the performative nature of some legislation. I'm certain everyone involved understood that's exactly what would happen.