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

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the organization behind this...

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.

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/

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...)

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.

> 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.

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.

So, I cannot 3d print a squirt gun or a nerf style gun either? This print looks "scary" you cannot print it.

Why isn't EFF calling out Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for pushing this across the US?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Follow the money here. Who is actually asking for this?

waste of time and resources. you aren't going to win a fight against 3d printers. might as well outlaw the printers completely.

Ugh. Imagine if HP were the only "legal" 3D printer manufacturer for Californians.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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..

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Reason #5382 to not live in California.

Next up flinging rubber bands with your two fingers to be banned.

Why not just ban people communicating with one another so bad ideas can’t be exchanged. /s

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

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.