11 ms·

The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

• alterom 6mo ago
  It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. The people proposing the bill must have zero understanding of how a 3D printer works. It makes as much sense as requiring saw manufacturers to implement protections that restrict what can be cut out with a saw. Or pen manufacturers being required to enforce copyright. Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-quite-unintended consequences. And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an unlicensed 3D printer to make unlicensed prints? That's how the industry literally began. (Not to mention: what do they think would happen to the hundreds of millions of existing "dumb" 3D printers? They won't disappear because there's a law). Sigh.
  • annoyingnoob 6mo ago
    > what do they think would happen to the hundreds of millions of existing "dumb" 3D printers? Hey, my printer might be going up in value.
    • fgfarben 6mo ago
      Too bad you wouldn't be allowed to sell it without catching a misdemeanor or a $25,000 fine.
  • dabluecaboose 6mo ago
    > Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-quite-unintended consequences. California gun laws in a nutshell.
    • teaearlgraycold 6mo ago
      California laws in a nutshell.
  • max51 6mo ago
    >And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an unlicensed 3D printer to make unlicensed prints? You really don't have to go that far. A very high quality control board (eg. an original Prusa) is like 90$ and cheap ones go for 25$. You could buy the licensed printer and swap the board. Or maybe even just flash the firmware on the licensed printer
    • alterom 6mo ago
      >Or maybe even just flash the firmware on the licensed printer Yeah, that would also be a crime under this proposal. Which is one of the big reasons it's problematic.
• asdff 6mo ago
  Why don't these bills go after ammo or gunpowder access? Seems as long as you have access to a cylinder, and ammunition, you can make a gun.
  • convolvatron 6mo ago
    I don't know the situation with the actual charge, but if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition.
    • asdff 6mo ago
      I guess you are right, both are pretty easy to make.
    • subhobroto 6mo ago
      > if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition theoretically true but having re-sleeved ammunition, the chances of injury is tremendously different. That said, a lot of people in California are having to resort to re-sleeving ammunition, not out of choice but because for all practical purposes, California has made buying ammunition impossible. While you can crawl and bite your way through getting a horribly castrated gun in California, the real struggle begins buying affordable ammunition. For regular people to own a gun that you can actually use in California, (not LEOs or certain other people), you either needed to have inherited them or bought them from the cartels. Otherwise you own something of limited use that insanely expensive to operate.
      • ahs1 6mo ago
        > For regular people to own a gun that you can actually use in California, (not LEOs or certain other people), you either needed to have inherited them or bought them from the cartels. or, you can just break these stupid, unenforceable laws and buy out of state or just "uncastrate" it yourself. no idea why so many people get their panties in a twist everytime California passes an unenforceable law. they're unenforceable.
        • 6mo ago
• MisterTea 6mo ago
  > The primary goal is clear and simple: to require 3D printer manufacturers to use a state-certified algorithm that checks digital design files for firearm components and blocks print jobs that would produce prohibited parts. "state-certified algorithm" has a really nice tyrannic ring to it. I am sure once this has passed the rich people can finally sleep at night knowing they are safe from roving gangs of armed Mangiones.
  • qurren 6mo ago
    A 3D printer, at least of the Prusa variety, is really just a bunch of stepper motors and a dumb motor driver executing a series of effectively "rotate by X steps" commands, which is what the gcode file is. It doesn't know what it's printing. It doesn't even know that it's a printer. If they wanted a gate on designs it would have to happen in slicing software, not the actual printer.
    • MisterTea 6mo ago
      Indeed. I grew up in a a machine shop than ran both manual and CNC machines and spent my summers in front of mills and lathes running jobs. I now do industrial automation and machine repair. With that being said, yeah, no way will this work. Ever. And software? My Bridgeport and Logan were built before computers were available to the home consumer. Good luck stopping someone like me.
    • xp84 6mo ago
      Yup. Wait till our genius lawmakers figure that out! Then we'll have all software that can be used to do that job require registration and inspection to certify that it "won't print gun parts." Or maybe "all software" for good measure, in case any sneaky so-and-sos try to make an IRC client with a secret "slicing easter-egg." Better yet, all software of any kind has to be sold through an App Store so we can have Google, Microsoft and Apple gatekeep. That'll work. Gun problem solved.
    • Teever 6mo ago
      They'll still need some DRM in the printer so it will only accept signed gcode that came from the the slicer. Otherwise it's pretty trivial for someone to just bypass the slicer and hand write the gcode.
• ginkgotree 6mo ago
  I'm so glad I left California 6 years ago. They are going to regulate and tax their startups and innovators away to other states. This is supremely stupid.
  • nradov 6mo ago
    This is the inevitable result of having a single-party government which is no longer accountable to regular citizens.
    • dlev_pika 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      • ginkgotree 6mo ago
        yep - an armed Florida man paying low taxes
        • dlev_pika 6mo ago
          I’m sorry you feel the need to be armed in the streets - that sucks :(
          • SV_BubbleTime 6mo ago
            Need? Get to. I get to carry and make sure that I’m not a useless decoration if I or my family is ever in trouble because of someone that shouldn’t be in general population. Need :) Ya, I see how you sell it to yourself as a negative.
            • dlev_pika 6mo ago
              I prefer a working police force, fewer rEsPoNsIbLe gUn oWnErs, and not to increase my, or my family’s, chances of dying by firearm, but I guess we all need to feel we are worth it, in one way or another - damned be the costs.
• subhobroto 6mo ago
  I don't understand the problem solving mindset that thinks banning guns would solve the problem of a person intent on causing harm. In the U.K., where I feel guns are only showpieces (do even cops have them?), stabbing is a known problem. In India, where ammo is way more expensive than machetes and knives, people are literally murdered with them. The only argument I can understand, when it comes to banning guns, is that it reduces the blast radius that an evil person can have. So what's next, lock down the air, radio, roads, internet, water, food supply chains because these are all attack vectors? If that's the proposal, what's my plan when coyotes and mountain lions attack my child and I on our regular walks on rural property?
  • cultofmetatron 6mo ago
    guns democratize mass murder. With a gun, I can kill a bunch of people before police can stop me. A knife? At best I can kill one or two in a public place before people run away and eventually a different group is going to stop me pretty quickly.
    • subhobroto 6mo ago
      - can you build bombs to blow up an apartment complex full of 1000s of people? - can you poison the water supply of an apartment complex full of 1000s of people? - can you drop a harmful substance using a $50 drone onto an open area where of 1000s of people have congregated?
      • nemomarx 6mo ago
        We also restrict the components of those pretty heavily, though. Try buying too much fertilizer without a farm and see who shows up. This isn't a judgement on your general point, but I think bombs and bioweapons and etc are very bad examples for you here.
        • cjbgkagh 6mo ago
          While quasi regulated they just raise the bar of expertise required. Poisons, bioweapons, and explosives are pretty easy to make at scale without using suspicious inputs. At the moment the 3D printing crowd are pretty savvy I’m sure many could hook up a new controller or flash their existing one.
• rdtsc 6mo ago
  > California's proposed legislation to put the burden of blocking 3D-printed firearms onto printer manufacturers I can only assume California has solved all its major problems if policing 3D printers is at the top of the agenda. It's like when someone complains their neighbor can afford two yachts and they can only afford one, you know they are doing pretty well if that's their major concern.
• throwatdem12311 6mo ago
  I just laugh whenever I hear “ghost gun”. > On January 13, 2014 a certain State Senator (no reason to name names) held a press conference where he held a modern rifle in his hands and stated, “This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.” Anyone that knows even a little bit about guns knows that this is utter nonsense, and it was appropriately memed into oblivion. Most anti-gun activists and legislators seem to have no more knowledge than this - which is to say, none.
  • subhobroto 6mo ago
    > Anyone that knows even a little bit about guns knows that this is utter nonsense Most people in California who vote on these matters have not held a BB gun, let alone a semi automatic. They have 0 idea that you just cannot buy actual guns from a grocery store in California anymore! They think you can just buy a gun at Walmart like you can buy a can of Coke. I was able to pull up clips made in 2023 and 2025 that were literally claiming that. Hasn't been true since atleast 2009, likely even earlier. A few years ago a local Walmart was clearing our their air gun and rifle selection after there had been a shooting on the east coast that was all over the news. Since ammo have become really expensive, I bought out the whole shelf of air rifles so I could continue to target practice with a focus on my breathing. People called the cops on me. Multiple people verbally abused me as a gun nut and recorded me buying them on their phones. I had air guns - *children* *toys*. They thought it was the real deal! The local sherrif's department received nearly a 100 calls that hour when we spoke. When I asked them why they even bothered to turn up because they know no Walmart in a 300 mile radius have ever sold a rifle in the last 20 years as was described to them over the phone, they just shrugged and said "politics".
  • bitwize 6mo ago
    Hence "assault weapons" which are not a particular type of gun but a list of scary characteristics associated with military weapons—bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and the like—used by legislators to FUD their way into being seen as "doing something" about guns. In the United States we even have a word for an assault weapon on four legs—pitbulls. Most breed-specific legislation, where it exists, targets pitbulls which are not a single breed nor group of related breeds, but basically any large muscular dog with a short snout and blocky head. The American Pit Bull Terrier is one such breed but far from the only one targeted by BSL. I think it was Toyotomi Hideyoshi who said something like, the law is not obligated to logic, but it still must be followed.
• jmyeet 6mo ago
  I'm surprised the EFF didn't address the issue that traditional printer manufacturers already comply with law enforcement, specifically that a fingerprint of yellow tracking dots [1] are printed and printers will often refuse to or fail to copy images of money. My point is there's already precedent for printers cooperating with authorities so one can see this as simply an extension to 3D printer manufacturers. I suspect it's a losing battle for the EFF and 3D printer manufacturers to resist some kind of fingerprinting or even the prohibition of things that are guns. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. That's just what I expect to happen. And if you want to argue against it, you should address the printer tracking dot issue or argue how this is different. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots
  • Aspos 6mo ago
    I believe EFF did address the yellow dots but got nowhere. Yellow dot problem is decades old.
    • FarmerPotato 6mo ago
      That's why real hackers refurbish dot-matrix printers. GDR
  • Cider9986 6mo ago
    Open source is core to 3d printing. I have never heard of an open source traditional printer. That is the difference. This is an attempt to lock down open source.
  • 15155 6mo ago
    > how this is different From purely a technical standpoint: the printer indiscriminately adds tracking dots to all documents, the proposed 3D printer regulation requires the printer to phone home and make some dispositive call on what it's allowed to do.
  • dooglius 6mo ago
    The bottom of that wiki page has links to EFF pages. However you are correct that they view it as a lost battle: (Added 2015) Some of the documents that we previously received through FOIA suggested that all major manufacturers of color laser printers entered a secret agreement with governments to ensure that the output of those printers is forensically traceable. Although we still don't know if this is correct, or how subsequent generations of forensic tracking technologies might work, it is probably safest to assume that all modern color laser printers do include some form of tracking information that associates documents with the printer's serial number. (If any manufacturer wishes to go on record with a statement to the contrary, we'll be happy to publish that here.) (Added 2017) REMINDER: IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT ALL RECENT COMMERCIAL COLOR LASER PRINTERS PRINT SOME KIND OF FORENSIC TRACKING CODES, NOT NECESSARILY USING YELLOW DOTS. THIS IS TRUE WHETHER OR NOT THOSE CODES ARE VISIBLE TO THE EYE AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINTER MODELS ARE LISTED HERE. THIS ALSO INCLUDES THE PRINTERS THAT ARE LISTED HERE AS NOT PRODUCING YELLOW DOTS. This list is no longer being updated.
• simplyluke 6mo ago
  The 3d printer gun legislation has been rearing its head in a bunch of states this year, and generally with very similar patterns. I suspect some of the pro-gun-control groups have been pushing it to lawmakers given most legislation is basically copy-pastes from lobbying groups at both the state and federal level. Colorado, Washington, New York, and now California have all floated legislation attempting to make device-level restrictions around the issue. I only followed Washington's in depth, and they ended up removing all the requirements on manufactures, but did criminalize possession of files which I suspect won't hold up to a first amendment challenge.
  • MisterTea 6mo ago
    I really think all of this is the result of Mangione. Regulating 3D printers has been talked about for years with no action. Then a year after the CEO of a large well known company is killed with a 3D printed gun the states are suddenly pushing highly invasive 3D printing laws. It's no coincidence NY was the first to push for such a law, the state where said CEO was killed.
    • WillPostForFood 6mo ago
      No, this is Everytown USA model legislation. They wrote it, and are lobbying for it. https://everytownsupportfund.org/press/new-everytown-report-highlights-urgent-policy-actions-needed-to-combat-3d-printed-guns/ https://everytownsupportfund.org/press/new-everytown-report-...
      • MisterTea 6mo ago
        Yes, third paragraph: "The shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson ..." who was killed by Mangione with a 3D printed gun. Did you forget who the killer was?
        • hrimfaxi 6mo ago
          This is not the result of Mangione, Mangione is just their excuse for the push.
• dlev_pika 6mo ago
  AFAIK If I try to scan a dollar bill, both the hardware and the software won’t let me be. How is this different? Edit: I appreciate the responses! Thank you
  • Retr0id 6mo ago
    One practical difference is that you can make dollar bill detection relatively robust. Sure, you could cut it into 4 pieces and scan them separately, but you'd still get stuck when it comes time to print them. There are only finitely many dollar bill shapes. But there are infinitely many plausible gun components, and infinitely more ways to divide them into sub-assemblies.
    • EvanAnderson 6mo ago
      It would be interesting to test what the minimum detectable piece of US currency is. (I wouldn't want to do it on a network-connected system, though.)
      • NoMoreNicksLeft 6mo ago
        There is a pattern of yellow dots on the currency. I do not know at what size they tile across the paper, but the piece of currency would have to be smaller than that, most likely. Far easier to dump the firmware and NOOP out that algo.
    • jolmg 6mo ago
      > but you'd still get stuck when it comes time to print them. It also seems a lot harder to DIY an inkjet or laser printer. The parts needed to DIY a 3d printer are a lot simpler.
  • EvanAnderson 6mo ago
    US currency has machine-detectable identifying markings incorporated in the design. "Ghost gun" parts do not.
  • subhobroto 6mo ago
• maininformer 6mo ago
  A. What if some part looks like some other non-gun part? B. What if they can further break down the pieces to avoid detection?
• tracker1 6mo ago
  So, I cannot 3d print a squirt gun or a nerf style gun either? This print looks "scary" you cannot print it.
  • Mashimo 6mo ago
    I don't think anyone really knows. Might be something like the slicer is checking the file hash against a (online) list, slices it, signs it and the printer checks the .gcode file if it's signed by a known slicer. A blacklist of very specific models. Make a small change and it will not be detected any more. Maybe the slicer is also required to upload the 3d file and some kind of "looks similar" algorithm will block your nerf gun from being sliced.
    • tracker1 6mo ago
      The irony, is almost anyone with a machine shop can probably fabricate a more effective weapon than a 3D printer, where you might as a gun get one or two less than accurate shots in.
• horsawlarway 6mo ago
  Personally, I see this as an assault on 3d printing more than any real attempt to regulate guns. I own several 3d printers. If I wanted to make something resembling a firearm I'd go to home depot WAY before I bothered 3d printing parts. You basically just need a metal tube, and well... a pipe from home depot does that much better than trying to 3d print something much less reliable. So given we don't do this regulation for any of the much more reliable ways to create unregistered firearms... what's special about 3d printers? So my assumption is immediately that some relatively large lobbying group feels threatened by 3d printing, and is using this as a driver to try to control access and limit business impact. Either way, this is bad legislation.
  • tempaccount5050 6mo ago
    Not that I support any of these obviously stupid bills but: > what's special about 3d printers? They can make guns made out of plastic and metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people. You are probably right about the lobbying group, I agree. Edit: I'm not saying it makes sense, but this is the angle the congress folks are taking, sheesh.
    • 15155 6mo ago
      > metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people What are bullets and shell casings made out of again?
      • Kirby64 6mo ago
        More importantly, what is the barrel made out of? Yes, I know there’s some fully printed guns… but my understanding is that those are basically 1-time use and even then it’s questionable how reliable that single use actually is… If you want something resembling an actual gun (more than one shot, won’t blow up in your hand, some reasonable chance of accuracy, etc), then you’re going to be using multiple metal components (including the bullets of course) all of which would show up on a metal detector.
      • captaincrisp 6mo ago
• comboy 6mo ago
  We are sorry, but your print resembles random princess from Disney too much (actually, we won't tell you which). Just following the law you know..
• ed_balls 6mo ago
  I could ask LLM to find me "legal" parts that are 1:1 with gun parts or even better find metal parts in craftcloud3d.com or sendcutsend.com. With big enough database it could find right items on Amazon. It's impossible to legislate.
  • deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  • 33MHz-i486 6mo ago
    true but the government will inevitably demand their own stanza of (blocking) system prompts in the major AI services. then they will ban local LLM and foreign ones.
• krunck 6mo ago
  Lets imagine a similar situation but instead of with an additive manufacturing process they try to regulate a subtractive manufacturing process: a traditional CNC machine. There is no way to prevent the CNC system from machining gun parts as along as the machining is done in discrete steps with the same work piece. The software can't know what sitting on the CNC table. In additive manufacturing it is more difficult but not impossible to print a bunch of pieces that look nothing like a gun part but and in the end be assembled into a gun. In both the above cases there would need to be sophisticated surveillance software to even come close to detecting "gun-ness." While I don't have a horse in the gun control race, I do have one in the open-source, running a local OS, running what software I want, and controlling what that software does races.
  • bmurphy1976 6mo ago
    Some of these bills are written in such a way that they would apply to CNC manufacturing, such that they could even make building your own machine from scratch illegal. They are terribly oppressive and short-sighted.
    • themafia 6mo ago
      > oppressive and short-sighted. Which usually means "we're willing to ignore short term damage to get long term results for our political patrons."
    • YurgenJurgensen 6mo ago
      “Short-sighted” implies that those in favour of this would see it as a bad thing, when in fact, that’s likely the real objective. This is just another shot in the war on ownership.
      • doctorwho42 6mo ago
        Well I'd imagine these same people decry the loss of manufacturing in the US. But these types of bills would add undue burden to small businesses as the future of fabrication is CNC based.
• legohead 6mo ago
  waste of time and resources. you aren't going to win a fight against 3d printers. might as well outlaw the printers completely.
• doublerabbit 6mo ago
  Next up flinging rubber bands with your two fingers to be banned.
• codedokode 6mo ago
  Sorry if it is a dumb question, but why in USA people try to regulate 3D printing instead of banning sale of bullets without a firearm owner license? What stops people from buying Chinese printers or components on AliExpress? Or using an open source printer? At the same time, if you cannot buy bullets, your plastic gun is worthless.
  • dmoy 6mo ago
    > but why in USA people try to regulate 3D printing instead of banning sale of bullets without a firearm owner license I mean we're talking about CA, so they kinda already tried to do that https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/ammunition-regulation-in-california/ https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/ammunition-regulat... But, it may not be constitutional: https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/07/gun-law-ammunition-background-check/ https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/07/gun-law-ammunition-ba... So the real reason is that the ultimate law on the books on gun regulation was written by a band of, you know, armed revolutionaries, who were pretty big fans of the whole armed revolution-ing thing. And it still hasn't been amended. I bet if you went with a simple majority vote today, you wouldn't get the 2nd amendment. But amendments are pretty difficult to pass, much higher requirements than a simple majority.
  • mothballed 6mo ago
    US basically has a firearms license but by exclusion. Anyone with felonies or DV violations can't have guns, neither can illegal immigrants, neither can drug users . There are probably fewer Americans that can legally buy ammo and guns than Canadians by %. If you use the ATFs guidelines on what is considered a prohibited person, it likely applies to about half of all US adults that are prohibited from buying ammunition. This when you consider ~30+% of US has used cannabis/fentanyl/etc or misused a prescription drug in the past year, the insane number of people we've made felons, the fact that restraining orders are now practically part and parcel of divorce negotiations as leverage (permanent restraining order bars you from owning guns), and then the fact that DV convictions are incredibly common in USA (police automatically arrest someone if they show up on a domestic complaint), then add the illegal immigrant population on top of that.
• mbf1 6mo ago
  Follow the money here. Who is actually asking for this?
  • ggreer 6mo ago
    This law (along with similar ones in Washington & New York) is probably due to lobbying from Everytown, a gun control organization co-founded & mostly funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg. They've sponsored summits to gather politicians & other influential people to restrict 3d printed firearms.[1] 1. https://everytownsupportfund.org/press/everytown-to-convene-policymakers-law-enforcement-academics-private-sector-leaders-at-summit-to-tackle-dangers-of-3d-printed-firearms-amidst-increase-in-recoveries/ https://everytownsupportfund.org/press/everytown-to-convene-...
    • hnburnsy 6mo ago
      Yup. Everytown and Moms Demand Action which operates under Everytown also provide the white papers, testimony, polling, and public pressure. These bills across multiplenstates are 100% democratic developed, sponsored, and pushed. In fact the NRA denounces Everytown and it seems unlikely they would be in cahoots behind this push.
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• Patrax 6mo ago
  Clearly there are not enough meaningful tasks available in society and all that's left is people in different positions of power trying to look busy.
• xbar 6mo ago
  Ugh. Imagine if HP were the only "legal" 3D printer manufacturer for Californians.
• fooker 6mo ago
  This is why republicans get votes. If you pull nonsense like this in a two party system, there are enough people with blind spots that it tilts the results against you. My favorite example of such a blind spot is a friend being flabbergasted that someone funny could be evil.
• nullc 6mo ago
  Reason #5382 to not live in California.
• tnightengale 6mo ago
  The saddest thing about regulators is often a small payment to the regulated would be more effective and less costly in achieving the same desired result. They should simply pay people to register 3D printed guns, up to a specific amount, at which point: they should investigate them for illegally manufacturing guns. Similarly, they should severely penalize possession of a 3D printed gun which has not been registered. Problem solved. Good luck pretending these people are capable of regulating the compliance of 3D printing software. What a joke.
  • ggreer 6mo ago
    California already requires a license to 3d print firearms.[1] This is the same license needed to mass produce firearms, making legal individual manufacturing incredibly difficult. Also all firearms (even 3d printed ones) in California must have a metal serial number tag embedded in the frame. Given the number and manner of restrictions, I’m not aware of anyone in California who has legally printed a firearm since these laws came into effect. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2156 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
    • fgfarben 6mo ago
      You used to be able to print the CAG19 carbine but now you have to carve it by hand from a block of wood. Doesn't have the same ring to it.
• enahs-sf 6mo ago
  would that someone were inclined to get ahead of such legislation, what are some of the most dangerous 3D printers, just so i know which ones to avoid...
• bob001 6mo ago
  I'd bet money that the gun lobby is behind this. What better way to dilute the anti-gun sentiment then to get useless legislation that targets a group that has traditionally been anti-gun. Even the EFF, which generally doesn't touch second amendment stuff, is speaking up. Massive gun lobby win right there.
  • hnburnsy 6mo ago
    No it is not, see my other comments
• bethekidyouwant 6mo ago
  What happens if I order an upper from send cut send? does a human look at it and say oh no. or does a computer?
  • fgfarben 6mo ago
    Uppers aren't regulated as firearms. Only lowers. In CA SCS might be required to ask for your ID to make sure you're not a felon to comply with AB 1263.
• diego_moita 6mo ago
  I don't know the details but it is a very good idea to restrict people's access to guns. Guns, fireworks, explosives, sulfuric acid, all sorts of bio-hazards, ... every civilized country restricts peoples' access to these things. It is a no brainier, but Americans obsessively wrap it in ideology.
  • fgfarben 6mo ago
    Don't speak here.
• mrsssnake 6mo ago
  Easy way to explain the absurdity of the idea is to picture how could a law be made restricting 2D printers from printing schematics of guns. How the printer could detect it, where the censoring circuit or program would live, how effective it would be and what it means long-term.
  • hnburnsy 6mo ago
    > Easy way to explain the absurdity of the idea is to picture how could a law be made restricting 2D printers from printing schematics of guns. > > How the printer could detect it, where the censoring circuit or program would live, how effective it would be and what it means long-term. Maybe instead of stopping you the printer could add some small almost invisible dots in a pattern to identify which printer printed the schematic.
• c0rruptbytes 6mo ago
  Guns are legal, in fact building your own gun, may be the most legal thing in the history of the 2A - there's an enormous amount of "historical" context to back this It's such a waste of time and resources - you wanna handle gun violence? handle normal violence with proven mechanisms (education, social welfare, etc...)
  • some_random 6mo ago
    Everytown doesn't actually care about gun violence, they want to end civilian firearms ownership entirely.
• Findecanor 6mo ago
  I used to do cosplay. Many costumes from movies, TV-series and anime are of characters that wield guns, often unique or at least quite distinctive guns. Carrying the correct gun is sometimes a thing that identifies the character, and therefore is an integral part of the cosplay. For example, I used to cosplay for charity in the Star Wars costuming club 501'st Legion [0], where for most costumes a blaster gun of high likeness to the original is required. It has hundreds of members in California. These days, it is very common to make cosplay accessories through 3D-printing. A ban on replica guns parts would hit the hobby hard. [0]: https://501st.com/ https://501st.com/
  • master-lincoln 6mo ago
    So that law would also diminish the glorification of weapons in pop culture then. I guess that would be seen as positive side effect for the people supporting this ban.
    • some_random 6mo ago
      I really want to highlight this comment to everyone who's on the fence on gun rights or still believes that compromise is possible. This is the position of hardline anti-gun people, their billionaire funded NGOs, and the politicians they finance. It's not about reducing excess death, it's not about gun violence, it's about abolishing all civilian firearms ownership and removing any positive association of firearms or self defense from the culture. There is no compromise possible because they will never be happy with anything less.
      • nullc 6mo ago
        Thanks for this comment-- I had a similar thought and couldn't have expressed it as elegantly.
      • tekknik 6mo ago
        I firmly believe it’s a disinformation campaign run by Russia to make a potential invasion easier, and anybody peddling “gun control” is really just a useful idiot.
• rpmisms 6mo ago
  As an unabashed American, guns are amazing and an insanely important part of our national culture. Any attempt to diminish this is an attack on the culture of America. We are a nation of dangerous freedoms and matching individual responsibility. In order to maintain a functional country without ruining what makes America special, we need to simply actually enforce laws and I'll take apart in making our national culture one to be proud of again. I have been watching footage from the Apollo programs recently, and while the types of people who made that possible are very much still around, we need to encourage that sort of thinking once again. Dangerous freedoms, radical Liberty, complete responsibility.
  • jocular 6mo ago
    Put down the Kool-aid.
  • leptons 6mo ago
    I wouldn't be proud of having so many guns and the highest rate of gun deaths by far in the developed world (except maybe countries currently at war). "Guns are amazing"? Really? Nevermind, I know someone just like you. He refuses to fly on an airplane because he can't bring his precious guns with him on the plane. So he's really never been anywhere outside of the midwest. He has no idea how other countries are. And I've never felt safer than when I lived in Europe for several months, away from all the gun maniacs. The combination of rampant mental illness and entitled assholes and guns in America is a toxic combination. School shootings and mass shootings are things that happen all too frequently in the US, and not too much anywhere else. But I suppose you'll handwave away all of it, and everything, so you can continue to cherish your "Amazing guns" without ever considering that maybe even more guns is not better for us as a country. That said, I do NOT endorse this ridiculous 3D printer bill that California is trying to pass. And not because it's about guns, but because it isn't necessary.
    • rozal 6mo ago
      [dead]
    • clarionbell 6mo ago
• aussieguy1234 6mo ago
  One thing not mentioned. Forget about printing that copyrighted part for your no longer sold or supported gadget at home. I guess you'll be forced to replace the whole thing.
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• lynx09 6mo ago
  They can just make it illegal to create firearms without a license. They aren’t legislating pens and paper for illegal artwork about children. Same for this.
  • dlcarrier 6mo ago
    They can't, because of federal supremacy. Chances are that their regulations on 3D printers won't be allowed because federal supremacy, but they're hoping they've found a loophole.
• hsuduebc2 6mo ago
  I wish to know if politicians pushing this agenta know that it would be absolutely ineffective and they are doing it solely to appease to their voters or they actually believe this would have any effect on criminals.
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• sharts 6mo ago
  Why not just ban people communicating with one another so bad ideas can’t be exchanged. /s
• hnburnsy 6mo ago
  Why isn't EFF calling out Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for pushing this across the US?
• hnburnsy 6mo ago
  This is the organization behind this... https://everytownresearch.org/report/printing-violence-urgent-policy-actions-are-needed-to-combat-3d-printed-guns/ https://everytownresearch.org/report/printing-violence-urgen... >Lawmakers can take aggressive action to spur change in this area and help prevent the printing of 3DPFs. The most comprehensive solutions would apply nationwide, and Congress should work immediately to pass the innovative laws described here. But even without federal action, state policymakers can take meaningful action to curtail 3DPFs.
  • SV_BubbleTime 6mo ago
    One of Michael Bloomberg’s groups. He has four groups or so and is the single biggest funder of anti-gun propaganda, policy, and advocacy in the world. He does not give 1/2 a shit about the issues that would effect 3D printing industry. I love it because he was trying this before 3D printing and the genie is just so far out of the bottle that it must infuriate him that he didn’t see it earlierZ
• balls187 6mo ago
  I'm a lib, but enough is enough. Let gun owners have their guns. Let 3d Printers have their prints. Neither group is the problem.
• gbibas 6mo ago
  I live here in CA. If it is something that gets attention at all, whether AI or 3d printing or anything else, politicians here feel it is their duty to regulate it. If it should be regulated like politicians spending our money or insider trading, they want nothing to do with it. Less power for us, more power and money for them.
• 21asdffdsa12 6mo ago
  Its a reeling of the lawmakers against reality itself. If you read Jules Verne- you always could find and make dangerous chemicals from natural substances and thus by the power of chemistry - you where suddenly a owner of nitroglycerin and owner of a dangerous "substance". So, the danger is in pre-emptive policing- aka capability reduction. In its extremes it results in what china does- which is producing dangerous objects on mass (every shop has a lathe that can make a gun) - while constantly looking over each other shoulders to see who might ferment revolution or amok. Same with chemistry. Same with software. The panopticon as patchwork counter measure to accumulating dangerous capabilities. But it can not go much further. If you have a psychological normal individual that buckles under stress and hand it a photon torpedo- the spaceship goes boom. You need "unrealistic" humans, the angles of star trek to be able to handle that sort of capability. Its a whole group of problems, which started with nuclear power. Basically, the material science on humans and organizations is lousy - and the stress tests showed that we fall apart under duress. Which is why california tries to limit it, while at the same time idealizing human nature as benevolent and at the same time driving onwards technologies, which wind up the lethal mouse-trap of capabilities with ever more potent dangers. Which as paradox as it is, is a expression of a inability to deal with reality.
• cultofmetatron 6mo ago
  I dont' see similar restrictions on Lathes. probably because lathes cost more (but not by much) and need some skill. unlike a 3d printer you can actually make a proper gun on one of those to much higher specs. The hypocracy is unsettling. This is all at a time when the US desperately needs innovation. China basically owns us on raw manufacturing capability. 3d printers represent an excellent entry point for getting people into hobbyist manufacturing which will be where new ideas ultimately come from. This is just contributing to making is fall behind as a country.
• lrvick 6mo ago
  To any legislators watching, if you successfully pass this I am going to give public workshops teaching people how to make 3D printers from parts found at Home Depot out of pure spite, and separately, how to make a 12 gauge shotgun with almost 0 effort from basic parts also found at Home Depot without even using the 3D printer. Put DRM on plumbing pipes, I dare you.
  • ProllyInfamous 6mo ago
    >Put DRM on plumbing pipes While I generally agree, we've already reached a point where an ID is required to purchase pseudoephidine and/or facemasks. And all the copper is already locked up, requiring an associate to help you while you loiter minutes lazenly under dozens of facial-recognition cameræ. We live in worlds of parallel constructions.
• master-lincoln 6mo ago
  Reminds me of when we built a potato gun from pvc pipes as kids. Another villager noticed us shooting in the fields and when he saw the mechanism he called the local hardware shop and they then required you to be older than 18 to buy pvc pipes.
• shevy-java 6mo ago
  Not long ago, California rushed forward to force age sniffing, aka age verification. See systemd riding along the wave: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954 3D printing is also on a current hype run; I think a lot of this has to do with how cheap it is to print some things. So naturally some companies with overpriced shit, get nervous. So suddenly, California AGAIN, wants to censor and restrict people here. Now - I think this will fail, 3D printing already won (IMO). It is similar to the right to repair movement. Though at an earlier stage. I am getting tired of all those lobbyists being active in California. And this is a problem that happens a LOT in the USA. This kind of lobbyism needs to go. It is time to look at which folks act as lobbyists here, at the least at the surface level. All their communication with other organisations or companies, must be made open, so that people can look whether they are lobbyists or not. (This will not cover all lobbyists, but it will cover about 95% of them, because most lobbyists are stupid - see how EU OLAF caught some stupid EU lobbyists here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th... - so the EU is similar to the USA here, all built by lobbyists. See also how Meta bribed people for age-sniffing and similar spying tools or Jeff Grey from honor your oath point at the problem of non-stop monitoring of everyone in cars at all times)
• joshstrange 6mo ago
  Why would the EFF use a AI generated image of a Dymo label printer when talking about 3D printing?