3 ms·
The state applying strict scrutiny is an intimidation tactic that infringes legitimate speech. We also know very well that none of these systems will work well
by ottah 8mo ago
The state applying strict scrutiny is an intimidation tactic that infringes legitimate speech. We also know very well that none of these systems will work well and that the DOJ will be happy to apply bans as far as they can get away with. It will be the no fly list for physical objects, and we won't even be told what is explicitly banned. We'll just not be able to print something. It will be very hard to argue to argue to the courts and at that point the harm is done, and there is no real effective remedy. They've already blocked and discouraged a legitimate right.
- kube-system 8mo agoThere are thousands of physical objects for which possession is already controlled.
- ottah 8mo agoWhich physical objects that you make in your home, are actively monitored by the police as you make them? When I bake something in my oven, would it be reasonable for the DEA to have a camera in my kitchen to ensure I do not make weed brownies?
- kube-system 8mo agoI think you are a little confused because the title is a little bit editorialized, but, this law doesn’t monitor anything in anyone’s home. It controls the commercial sales of 3d printers.
- ottah 8mo agoNo, I am not. "This bill would require, on or before July 1, 2028, any business that produces or manufactures 3-dimensional printers for sale or transfer in California to submit to the department an attestation for each make and model of printer they intend to make available for sale or transfer in California, confirming, among other things, that the manufacturer has equipped that make and model with a certified firearm blueprint detection algorithm." This in my opinion is the state monitoring me in my own home. You can split hairs on semantics, but the effect is the same if machine learning or a person does it.