California passes bill declaring death-by-algorithm to 3D-printed ghost guns California has passed a controversial bill requiring 3D printer manufacturers to build in controls that block the production of firearm components - a move drawing sharp pushback from technologists and privacy advocates. Lawmakers approved Assembly Bill 2047 on May 26. The bill requires manufacturers to embed a “firearm …
3d printer companies will no longer sell printers to California mailing addresses..
Either this or printers will be sold in a state with no firmware is installed and the end user must (but probably won't) download firmware from the website to install. Third party open source firmware GitHub sites will start showing up with firmware that bypasses or completely removes the added scanning technology.
This post has been deleted by its author
Just restrict ammo.
Ammo is the bit that goes bang and kills people. A 3d printed "ghost gun" is just a piece of plastic, no more dangerous than a length of metal pipe. Are they going to ban plumbing supplies lest they be turned into zip-guns and pipe-bombs?
Ammo cannot be smuggled past a metal detector or even a sniffer dog. It should be possible to encode a serial number onto bullet casings or even the bullets themselves, and keep a database of who each bullet was sold to, rather than the guns. That would be far more useful in solving gun crimes than requiring serial numbers on guns and gun parts.
And what is the stupid AI classifier supposed to identify as a "gun part" anyway? Does it include things like scope mounts, under-barrel flashlamp attachments, etc., which have perfectly legitimate uses on toy guns such as airsoft or laser-tag? What of toy guns themselves? Will my printer ban me from printing a nerf blaster or water pistol?
No, it won't of course, because my printer's firmware runs on an 8-bit AVR microcontroller that couldn't possibly compute anything as complicated as an AI classifier.
I agree with the article, this seems more like something arms manufacturers have lobbied for, to prevent anyone printing off unauthorised replacement parts and accessories, and more general copyright groups will be waiting to jump on the ban-wagon if this absurdity is allowed to become law.
"Ammo cannot be smuggled past a metal detector or even a sniffer dog. It should be possible to encode a serial number onto bullet casings or even the bullets themselves, and keep a database of who each bullet was sold to, rather than the guns."
Whilst your idea certainly makes a lot of sense, there is just one potential problem - quite a few gun enthusiasts do actually make their own bullets ;)
It is trivial to cast bullets - it's easier than 3D printing, a computer isn't even needed - lead is melted and poured into a cast - or ball bearings, or even scrap metal can be used.
It is also trivial to produce black powder.
To make a firearm, all that is needed is a pipe, a cap, a bullet, a 9V battery or fuse igniter and a correct load of blackpowder (unlike 3D printed plastic garbage, there's a chance that it won't burst open in the users hand too).
As for decent ammunition, cartridges, primers, initiating explosive and smokeless powder is needed as well;
- It's trivial to acquire used cartridges and then use a simple die to eject the used primer and bend it back into shape
- Smokeless powder and primers can easily be purchased off hoarders.
- The production of smokeless powder and primer explosives isn't exceedingly difficult chemistry.
- With basic tools and enough time, brass strips can be shaped into cartilages and primers - although dies and lathes speed up the process a lot.
`yt-dlp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btoUodUvfgk`
…. whilst the US Constitution explicitly allows the bearing 0f arms, there is no explicit right to manufacture ammunition, nor is there an explicit right to carry ammunition for said guns…
Whilst I get “convention” is to implicitly assume the right to possess ammunition is covered by the second amendment, the strike down of the Roe V. Wade decision because of the lack of explicit mention or protection of the right means the current situation with respect to ammunition can not be taken for granted…
Aside: in the UK the possession of a firearm licence gives an explicit right to also possess relevant types of ammunition and the maximum quantities permitted.
Whilst I get “convention” is to implicitly assume the right to possess ammunition is covered by the second amendment, the strike down of the Roe V. Wade decision because of the lack of explicit mention or protection of the right means the current situation with respect to ammunition can not be taken for granted…
Some states are imposing, or attempting to impose restrictions on the sale of ammunition. Or in typical government fashion, just imposing additional taxes.
Aside: in the UK the possession of a firearm licence gives an explicit right to also possess relevant types of ammunition and the maximum quantities permitted.
Yep. Which caused some FUN! So I used to shoot 2-300 rounds of pistol ammunition a week. Each purchase of ammunition had to be entered on my FAC, which means that filled up fast. There were extension sheets for that, but still a bit of a PITA. So I got a variation so I could buy 1,000 rounds of 9mm at a time and hold 1,250. Which might sound like a lot, but wasn't that excessive for a competition shooter. Police also had a right to inspect, so hoarders could be caught, and the penalties for FAC violations could be severe.
But one of the proposals before the Blair Ban was to just restrict ammunition. Pistols could (or should) only be used at approved ranges, so ammunition could have been limited to those. If I was shooting at the Nationals instead of my local range, I could buy the ammunition at Bisley. Competitions had standard course of fire, so how much ammunition was needed. Here's enough bags of Radway Grot 9mm, good luck with the match, and the cleaning afterwards. People could still have snuck rounds home, but I think before and after the ban, possession of ammunition without a licence was a mandatory 5yrs in prison.
But such is politics. We were no longer trusted to own firearms, even the police officers I used to shoot with. The AFOs still got to use theirs for work though. But would be a bit more complicated (and unpopular) to implement in the US. Logging and monitoring ammunition sales could potentially help detect and track ammunition that might be being sold on to criminals though. No idea if US LEAs do that, or attempt to do that.
>” We were no longer trusted to own firearms”
However, albeit with a few restrictions on carrying in public, we can still own and use: long bows, crossbows and swords. The wry laugh is, I doubt the UK has suffiicient timber (yes and ash), blacksmith capacity to arm a nation …
However, albeit with a few restrictions on carrying in public, we can still own and use: long bows, crossbows and swords. The wry laugh is, I doubt the UK has suffiicient timber (yes and ash), blacksmith capacity to arm a nation …
Yep. The UK has a strange attitude to defence. It's funny the number of places with 'Butt' in the name from when archery practice was mandatory. There's still clubs that teach and practice field archery using traditional longbows.. Which is kinda fun. Like realising that using a 'war bow' draw longbow takes a few years of practice and strength to draw fully. There are still a few bow makers and blacksmiths making longbows, traditional recurves and arrows. I think it's also fascinating seeing the signs of our historical defence industry in our 'ancient forests' given that a lot of those (especially Crown forests) were for the military. Needed a lot of ash and geese to keep our soldiers occupied in our traditional past time of using the Frenchies for target practice. Sadly, a lot of European ash got killed off by ash borers and fungus.
I also have a few swords, but the laws on edged weapons changed recently. But carrying a sword in public has been frowned upon for a while. I also have a couple of swordsticks, which were a interesting approach to discrete self-defence, but for some reason now classed as offensive weapons. I'm pretty sure those were also outlawed in Parliament before they were outlawed in public. But could be a fun response to London's knife crime and mugging epidemic with a few ruffians getting kebabed by gentlemen. But those ruffians, anarchists and communists were also why we used to be allowed to conceal carry firearms. Then during the debate around restricting them, one view was having a populace with some firearms familiarity could be a good thing, if we needed to conscript a bunch.
But I think that ship has long sailed, and given all the FUD around firearms, along with the very real dangers, changing the law is probably a bad idea. Much simpler if when the police are called to an incident, the only people waving guns around are the offender.
Your definition of trivial could use some work. Just how fine a tolerance are you willing to risk?
Because sure, "With basic tools and enough time, brass strips can be shaped into cartilages.." but just what do you count as basic? The latter part is possible though, a marriage of poorly made ammunition and a shoddy 3D printed gun could well result in brass entering bits of your cartilage (via other body parts).
Also, I wonder how well 3D printed ammunition with dense molded plastic (or a plastic-jacketed non-ferrous rock) as the bullet would work.
That'll make it past a though a metal detector and the rounds would make it past a sniffer dog if sealed like how illegal drugs are smuggled.
Caveats;
- A really sensitive initiating explosive would need to be used (drop the round -> the round goes off).
- The pin wouldn't last long, due to being subject to the blast.
- The action wouldn't cycle after each shot due to the chamber being full of plastic fragments (but maybe there could be an added mechanism to clear the plastic).
- The expanding gas would likely shred the plastic jacket, leading to low bullet velocity due to blow-past and high barrel wear of rocks scraping the barrel.
"quite a few gun enthusiasts do actually make their own bullets"
While you are quite correct in that many enthusiasts cast their own bullets, I believe the concept you were looking for is many of us handload our own cartridges. The primary reason is because it's cheaper, but also the end results can be far more consistent than a lot of the store-bought variety, which is an aid in accuracy.
Just restrict ammo.
And brass. And gunpowder. And don't forget lead. So you can catch all those deviant reloaders out there. Maybe require an FFL to purchase primers.
Another option that I know won't be considered. How about mental health care. Or maybe limitations on divisive politics whose purpose is to keep the population fighting with various groups of minorities while they plunder the treasury and warmonger.
And I have to point out, I have NEVER used a 'splicer' that was included with ANY of the 3d printers that I have purchased. I have my preferred slicer software that supports all my printers. Maybe I should stock up on BigTreeTech controller boards for the next generation of 3d printers in case this follows the path of age verification legislation.
>” Just restrict ammo.
And brass. And gunpowder.”
Humm… gunpowder, that’s a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate (saltpeter). The easiest way to obtain saltpeter is via fertiliser or distillation of urine via a nitre bed…
Have fun restricting the taking of the piss…
The brass casings have to be manufactured very accurately to function in a gun. They're usually drawn brass. People don't make smokeless powder at home because its way too dangerous. Same with primers. So a DiY load using purchased primers and propellant is possible (and home made bullets if you want them) but anything else just isn't going to work.
People say that its easy to make black powder from easily obtained ingredients. Sure, but its definitely one of those "yes and no" situations. Nitrates have been restricted for some time in the UK because they've been used in home made explosives. Suplhur can be purchased, charcoal made (maybe) and DiY nitrates can even be refined from (enough) urine but the result's going to be quite crude. Blending powder is also a simple way to blow yourself up.
Overall I don't think your neighbors and the local council will be too enamored of your DiY ammo facility. (They might think you're making fireworks which around here is a definite no-no.)
You don't even need to limit all ammunition to have a very good effect; all you have to restrict are primers.
Primers are the bit that goes bang when the firearm's hammer hits it. These components are very, very difficult indeed to manufacture at home; the IRA tried for years to make reliable explosives primers and never did manage to do so, being reduced to stealing from quarries and the like for supplies. Firearms primers are just as difficult to produce.
Limiting access to primers would limit 3D gun makers to flintlock-level firearms and even then, even with decent quality electronic systems this sort of manufacturing is very difficult.
Everything else in a gun can be disguised or made in pre-assembly kit form to defeat these sorts of regulations, but precision chemistry cannot be faked.
It's California. They live in a silly-con-valley fantasyland where they think they could actually secede from the US.
Objectively stupid legislation like this is IMHO a symptom of political polarisation, which is happening all over the world (largely thanks to er, California)
The Democrats will be pushing daft proposals to "stick it" to the NRA-supporting Republicans, in the same way the Republicans are abusing power to punish Democrats e.g. by placing unpopular things like giant detention centres in democrat states.
I just wish politicians would grow up and work together like they used to, trust their subject-matter experts like they used to, but ever since Social Media (and even worse now with AI) anyone can find a reason to hate anyone else, and nobody needs these "experts" anymore cos we've got AI!
Now it's just "Hey ChatGPT, draft me a law that'll really piss off the Republicans" or "Hey Grok, draft me a law that'll really piss off the Democrats".. Meanwhile America implodes in on itself and its enemies don't have to lift a finger.
Please learn to think critically. In your link, it says 220 people in a poll would secede, and you think California's entire 40 million population wants to secede from the USA? Not to mention, no democratic leadership has entertained seceding.
Stupid legislation gets drafted all the times by both sides.
> . In your link, it says 220 people in a poll would secede...
In point of fact, in a link contained *within* his link, it says that 220 out of 500 people polled would secede, which is the 44% that the first link reported.
> Please learn to think critically
Please learn to think about how polls work, what statistics are, how *every* measure of public opinion is garnered, short of running an actual vote on the question and polling everyone (well, everyone eligible, which is fewer people than your quoting the entire population count). Oh, and how to accurately cite your sources.
And remember, this works for *every* claim about public opinion, even those claims you feel you agree with.
> Stupid legislation gets drafted all the times by both sides
Now, that is something I have no argument with. Tick.
>” it says that 220 out of 500 people polled would secede, which is the 44% that the first link reported.”
If you had studied statistic’s you would know this sample size is too small to be a reliable indicator of the 40m population, that’s before we ask what actions were taken to ensure the sample was truely indicative and not just drawn from a self selecting minority.
No, most Californians don't think we could, would or should secede from the Union. Every now and then, folks try to get it on the ballet, but they never get enough signatures for the idea to go anywhere. Texas claims to be the only State that can secede (which in itself is Yet Another Lie from the Texans ... ANY State can secede, if they jump through the right hoops). Most of the rest of us wish Texas would stop babbling about it and get on with it ... but I digress.
The hoops they would have to jump through would make it exceedingly difficult.
See the the U.S. Supreme Court's 1869 ruling in "Texas v. White", which concluded that a State or States could secede by gaining approval of both houses of Congress and then obtaining ratification by three quarters of the nation's State legislatures. (This will never happen with California, because money. If California were to secede, it would become the world's fifth largest economy. The Congress and Senate will never vote to give up the perks involved. Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Alaska ... maybe not so much. Texas? I dunno. I wish they'd try, just to shut them up.)
The other option is Revolution (there is absolutely nothing civil about war) ... and even that might be settled peacefully. The theory goes that If enough people in a given State are so pissed off at the Federal Government that civil unrest becomes inevitable, and probably extreme, the State(s) and the Nation might simply agree to part ways to minimize the damage.
Before you ask, no, I do not want to live to see such a thing come about. Not even in Texas's case. Especially not the second option.
Because you're using a stereotype which has the usual bit of truth but misses most important information about the topic. The US has some of the most open access to firearms nationwide, and it has people who strongly support that and a few who want to expand it even more. Those things are true. The stereotype is to extend that and assume that this is the consensus, which it isn't; lots of people don't like this and would like to restrict them, some a little bit and some all the way to nobody allowed to have any firearms. They debate this, politicians try to enact their preferred restrictions, and those restrictions are challenged in courts, often overturned because there are judicial precedents* that prevent many types of firearm control, but sometimes upheld such that the restrictions on how you can obtain a gun and what you may do with it vary depending on your location. None of that comes across in the blanket assumption.
* There is a rule, the famous second amendment, which is the basis for overturning restrictions on firearms. Unless that is repealed, large restrictions on firearm purchase or ownership are unlikely. However, that amendment is not detailed or clear enough to decide whether certain restrictions count or not, and that's why lots of smaller things are either allowed or struck down based mostly on what another court decided in a similar case.
No, it's not about restricting access to guns.
It's nothing but feel-good legislation in election season. SCotUS will never allow the law to stand, not until the Democrats figure out how to get around Trump's packing of that court. In fact, it might be stopped in a lower court.
EFF’s Cliff Braun and Rory Mir...[said] it would be trivial to alter design files to evade firearm-blocking algos,...But [Mir] warned this could be taken further and used by oppressive regimes to ban the production of symbols deemed extreme or offensive, or the manufacture of devices such as the whistles that have become popular in the US for alerting communities to ICE officers’ presence.
There's a bit of having your cake and eating it here:
If it's "trivial" to evade filters, then "oppressive regimes" aren't going to be able to stop people printing whistles.
OTOH, if the filters can be made reasonably effective, even against workarounds, then it's not going to matter what California does or doesn't do. Oppressive regimes will oppress. The worst you can say is this might result in the development of filters that otherwise wouldn't have happened - or at least wouldn't have been developed as rapidly and as reliably. But when you have oppressive regimes as big and as technological able as China, I'm not sure even that claim stands up.
(Also, I'd be looking a the House of the Mouse ahead of Nintendo.)
Little to no restrictions on that in California, the largest state in the union by population. (~40 million)
Better not try it if you're in a state like Kentucky though: couple of Republican politicians there just introduced a bill to the state legislature which which would give permission to anyone in the state to literally assassinate the pregnant mother if she attempts to have an abortion or anyone else who might attempt to "assist" her in doing so.
Both can be true. It's likely that a model trying to detect copyrighted objects would fail a lot and not that hard to circumvent. That flawed algorithm would still be very annoying to everyone who was falsely flagged even as it failed to accomplish the goal.
The other way this could work is that the first version is extremely ineffective, so the politicians who implemented this step it up until it starts working. This would be even worse. For example, this is one of the reasons why I and some others oppose age verification so much. People who support it have argued that it shouldn't matter much to me since the tech is so easily bypassed; if I want my privacy so much but I can get it by animating an MP's face or sticking a mustache onto an AI-generated picture, why should I care? I do because politicians will realize how ineffective the first method has been and fix it in such a way that my original objections now apply. The same applies to 3D printers, and they're probably even more disastrous for those who rely on them because, unlike age verification, there isn't a way to make this functional. What there is is a way to make this less sensitive, so modifications to the original part are not enough to let it through. That unavoidably comes with a much higher false positive rate, making any attempt to print something gambling with the algorithm which will reject anything sort of cylindrical.
The REAL trouble is that I can make the parts required on my aging Bridgeports, from the same plans, faster, stronger and more reliable than the 3D junk.
As proof, I made a Model 1894 replica in .357 Herrett. Good shooter, my favorite short-medium range varminter and saddle carbine. Good luck building one from scratch without a CNC and a good working knowledge of steel, though. Even if you had the plans.
I am not the only person who owns a CNC. Fortunately, most of us aren't interested in churning out so-called "ghost gun" parts for sale to idiots ...
A pointless bill, way too easy to circumvent, so it becomes bad legislation. Unless the rest of the US adopts similar legislation, even if it 100% worked in California, a quick trip to Reno or somewhere else across the state line would provide access to unencumbered printers. I'm also interested in how long it takes the state to come up with an algorithm that can be implemented within the limits of your average 3D printer. If they do it in the slicer software then the open-source community will definitely have access to versions without restrictions. If all else fails, an "upgrade" of the printer electronics because you accidentally blew up the original board would take out any authentication exchange that attempted to tie the hardware to approved slicers, assuming a low-level flash of the original board couldn't be done.
The 'Additionally, anyone caught trying to “knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent any firearm blocking technology” could face misdemeanor charges' is not going to stop someone printing a ghost gun, given that they've already gone beyond a misdemeanor so it's just penalising the law-abiding with no deterrent effect on those breaking the law.
The 'Additionally, anyone caught trying to “knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent any firearm blocking technology” could face misdemeanor charges' is not going to stop someone printing a ghost gun, given that they've already gone beyond a misdemeanor so it's just penalising the law-abiding with no deterrent effect on those breaking the law.
But Calistan will be able to issue lots of $25,000 fines and fill it's budget deficit. It's made something illegal, therefore criminals won't exploit it. Just as there are no arrests of Calicrims carrying Glocks with illegal 30 round magazines and Glock switches. And it took less than a day for switches that worked with the latest Glock to appear. Not that the redesign had any practical benefit given the number of Glocks in Cali and the US in general.
What might be more useful is if Calistan's DAs and judges actually punished criminals. But also-
Mir, who works in tech community engagement, said if companies like Nintendo get a whiff of these algorithms working as intended, they may wish to enforce similar technology to prevent people from printing their own Pikachu keyrings, for example.
Not Nintendo, but Disney, with a side-order of Games Workshop.
"Not that the redesign had any practical benefit given the number of Glocks in Cali and the US in general."
Cheap plastic POS. The best handgun I ever got to borrow from a friend was a Colt Mark IV Gold Cup. .45 cal and super accurate. The downside was it's heavy. The magazine was 6-7 rounds, but since they went where I aimed, I didn't need dozens. It was also loud, another bonus. BAM, BAM rather than pop, pop. If I ever had the need to use a firearm, stealth wouldn't be a priority. I'd likely want the neighbors to hear and call the cops as I'd be busy.
It has to be implemented in the slicer, otherwise you have to design your printer to "know" what it is printing from a stream of Gcode.
It's even possible to use some older 3D printers by sending single gcode instructions one at a time to a printer, so the printer couldn't "know" what it is printing until a large chunk of it is already complete....
Simple solution. Require all printers sold in the state to be cloud enabled. To print anything you design it, slice it, send the g-code to the printer. The printer then sends it to a cloud service to be verified as legitimate. The cloud service sends back a yes or a no, and the printer then prints or aborts.
With that work, absolutely not. It will annoy legitimate users with false positives. It will be abused by people who want to stop competition or enforce copyrights, or hacked to steal IP for unreleased products. And the people printing ghost guns will do it offline with files traded on the dark web, paid for with crypto currency.
> Simple solution. Require all printers sold in the state to be cloud enabled. To print anything you design it, slice it, send the g-code to the printer. The printer then sends it to a cloud service to be verified as legitimate. The cloud service sends back a yes or a no, and the printer then prints or aborts.
Well for one, nobody would buy such a printer. If it were sold at a loss, someone would work out how to reflash the firmware to not require the cloud, or failing that, one could simply replace the logic board, and the company selling the cloud printers would go bust.
A 3D printer is, at the end of the day, a bunch of stepper motors and a couple of heaters
"With that work, absolutely not. It will annoy legitimate users with false positives. "
Before there were cheap factory built filament printers, there were all sorts of home-brew and cottage industry units. I've got a plastic bin with a disassembled home built 3D printer that I bought for maybe a tenner. Shortly after, I was able to buy something ready to go so I've never done anything with it. It's a nice store of spare parts and I think it's based on an Arduino or other single board computer, I can't recall.
As far as Copyrights go, nobody is going to go after you for making something for you own use. It would be useless for courts to be hearing cases about somebody that's printed a part for their car that they scanned. Much of that stems from home taping of LP's to tape. The issue for a copyright holder is somebody that's running off copies to sell for a profit as it takes potential sales away from the creator in bulk. I'm not worried about somebody taking one of my photos and printing it to hang on their wall. It they put it on a print run of calendars to sell to corner shops, I'd be angry.
There's quite an open trade of printer/CAD files for various firearms. Banning that would just drive it underground. Still free, just a wee bit harder to find (maybe 10-15 minutes).
Unless the rest of the US adopts similar legislation, ...
I give you:
California, Washington, New York, Colorado, Texas
And don't forget the US Congress wants to do 'something'. S.2165 would have restricted distribution of 3d printer files considered to be gun parts.
It may use Open-Source code, but it doesn't reciprocate.
Oh, so that lovely sort of outfit that blatantly violates FOSS software licenses. (Unless the code they are using is the relatively rare sort of FOSS code that doesn't require publishing of one's additions.)
Nice to see that they're a real ethical organization in general.
"A pointless bill, way too easy to circumvent, so it becomes bad legislation."
More like it's way too difficult to implement. CNC machine tools run on G-code, a text file. For the printer to know what a gun component is would take another computer to take the G-code, model it and send it off to a non-existent central database to be compared with firearm parts already know. It's one thing to put a counterfeit detector in a printer to prevent people competing with governments in printing currency since those notes must be perfect. The number of false positives for a firearm component could go off the scale. My 3D printers aren't very smart. Perhaps the resin printer is a tiny bit smarter in that it needs to create an image to send to the LCD screen. There's not much difference in my filament printer compared to a CNC router or mill at a basic level. If I were to mill a lower receiver, it would be several different files to mill each side and maybe a separate roughing and finishing program for each.
People are being sold tanks full of hogwash about traceability. If a criminal buys a gun, they are getting it from somebody that got it from somebody that stole it from somewhere. They aren't going to the local licensed dealer nearest them. If a weapon has a serial number on it, the original legal buyer is on a list, but that's it. It's not a RFID or satellite tracking system. If the weapon is stolen, the accounting fails. If the registered owner dies, the weapon might wind up just about anywhere.
The proper path to reducing gun violence is to drop the hammer (or a safe/piano/redwood tree/etc) on the criminals. No dismissals of that charge for a plea and no reductions in an applicable sentence for used of firearm/weapon in the commission of a crime. I'm sure money can be found for more prisons if that's what it takes.
BTW, black powder isn't used in modern munitions and hasn't been for some time. Smokeless powder/cordite and similar is what's used. Enthusiasts often cast their own bullets and reuse shells as it's much less expensive. The biggest customers for non-reused ammunition are various government agencies. Even NOAA, the weather guys, buy it by the pallet or 12. It's hard to say whether their inventory control is 100% up to scratch. Like petrol and diesel, I expect plenty leaves the building with the employees.
BTW, black powder isn't used in modern munitions and hasn't been for some time. Smokeless powder/cordite and similar is what's used. Enthusiasts often cast their own bullets and reuse shells as it's much less expensive.
But 250yrs ago, a bunch of tea smugglers and street gangs took up arms against the authorities in a violent insurrection against the Crown, and won their independence. Using black powder firearms, some of which were mass produced, some made by skilled blacksmiths, none made by 3D printers or CNC machines. Plus that insurrection paved the way for a Constitution, and an amendment to permit, or even encourage firearms ownership to prevent future tyranny. Like an oppressive, tyrannical government attempting to curtail citizens rights & freedoms. Which is why tyrannical, oppressive governments like to disarm their population so they can impose draconian laws banning plastic straws and ketchup packets.
But black powder firearms are still produced and are still popular. Plus something I'd want to try, if I ever moved to the US. They're plenty lethal, as demonstrated by their history & I'm kinda curious about how much practice it'd take to deal with the delay between pulling the trigger and firing. Hunters managed this, so I guess eventually I could as well. But a class of firearms that were produced with low-tech manufacturing processes by modern standards. So California would have to eventually ban blacksmiths and machine shops, because they could illegally manufacture firearms.
Won't stop Californian criminals shooting at each other and innocent bystanders, even using banned firearms and illegal high capacity magazines. But like you say, banning criminals might be rather more effective than Californian DA's catch & release system.
"But black powder firearms are still produced and are still popular."
Yep and there are photographers that dabble in super old film chemistries and cameras. I came across a video the other day of a very large format panoramic camera that used wind up clockwork to spin the camera and advance the film. A gear was chosen to adjust the exposure time. I don't think the person mentioned the cost of the film, but it would have been a few hundred per pano at the very least. Getting good at making photos that consistently turn out would be thousands and a lot of time.
There are many downsides to using black powder in firearms. Cleaning after each shot is one of them as it's a horribly dirty propellant even though it's cheap and not too difficult to make. They are a kick to have a go with, but the novelty wears off fast. I took some classes in making black powder when I worked in pyrotechnics since that's what's used to loft and burst the shells. I don't think it would be hard to find instructions on making a smokeless powder. I expect it's more complicated, but that's only a matter of practice and having the correct setup to make it.
I wasn’t aware that’s why it was called Gunpowder tea (available over the counter at select establishments, best steeped in boiling water)…
It's an interesting bit of history, and one of those things that's a bit more nuanced than just the 'no taxation without representation' thing. One of my favorite food channels touches on it here-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tudXVzG_fG0
Where Tasting History goes over the events, which are still kinda modern, ie bank bailouts and the UK trying to bail out the good'ol East India Company. Then tariffs, evasion and tea smuggling by America's founding fathers. Oh, and of course the French. Bunch of cheese eating troublemakers.
But the US ended up preferring coffee, and notoriously slow boiling kettles to make that with. Or overpriced one-shot coffee machines with subscription plans that are all but impossible to cancel. Yey, progress! Oh, and of course the 2nd Amendment, which has almost lasted 250yrs, but the lefties are trying to get rid of. Even though those well-armed militias kind of evicted the Crown from the colonies.
>” A pointless bill, way too easy to circumvent…”
Living in the age of internet, cloud and AI, I suggest the solution is for the 3D printers to require an Internet connection to print. Thus they take any file sent to them for printing and upload it to a cloud service which uses “AI” to assess the print files. alternatively, we only permit the sale of cloud 3D printers, so that not only can the submitted file be assessed, but also the final product, obviously, to keep costs down the entire process can be offshored to China…
This would discourage mass market 3D printing, leaving only a relatively small handful of people sufficiently dedicated to building their own 3D printers…
Remember if we treat 3D printing like old school 2D printing on paper, what the government would want to stop is people dropping into their local OfficeWorld et al and simply printing off a gun.
> "a quick trip to Reno or somewhere else across the state line would provide access to unencumbered printers"
Lemme guess... does that end with the Californian getting his 3D printed gun and shooting a man in Reno, just to watch him die whilst regretting that they hadn't outlawed them too?
Secondly, you can't take a 3D printed gun through airport security. A metal barrel is still needed.
Not always, so metal isn't needed for single shot firearms using relatively low pressure ammunition. Or just making a black powder firearm to make it harder to detect metallic cartridge cases. And then criminals might just go back to creating zip guns out of ordinary household items. LEO's seize plenty of those.
"I'll let you make and test the prototype of a 3D printed barrel which is strong enough. :)"
Easy enough, just don't be holding the thing when testing. If you can fire off several test articles without one exploding, job done. Hint: don't waste time trying to make something to fire a .44 magnum round. Leave those to Clint and a really big metal firearm.
"Or just making a black powder firearm to make it harder to detect metallic cartridge cases."
Smokeless powder can be used. Modern cased ammunition was developed for convenience and speed. Muzzle/breach loading takes far too much time in combat. If dinner relies on dropping a nice deer, a second or 4th shot deployed quickly might be useful even if you do get a hit on the first go. Following a deer for miles until they fall over is a lot of work.
"According to an Everytown for Gun Safety research report, police departments across the US saw a 1,000 percent increase in the number of 3D printed ghost guns appearing in crime scenes between 2020 and 2024."
I'm suitable shocked and scared.
And then I remembered that I'm cynical*.
So if there was 1 gun previously used, 2 guns would be a 100% increase, and 11 guns would be a 1000% increase.
Checking the report shows that the data is from just 20 cities, and is actually 32 rising to 325.
Which compares to e.g. assault weapons (data from 17 cities) : 3,776 to 4,797, so roughly +1000 increase, (but not +1000%, so obviously not as scary*)
And from the executive summary:
"Updated analyses now include 349,322 crime guns recovered in US cities representing nearly 30 million people".
So if it weren't for those 325 'Ghost guns', then it would only have been 348,997 crime guns recovered, which obviously would be fine*.
Something must be done, so we must be seen to do something, no matter how ineffectual it actually is...
*also sarcastic.
They do seem to be ubiquitous now. Getting caught for possessing one is rare, and if caught it is just a crime of moral turpitude, most likely outcome is Judicial Diversion (Judicial Diversion is criminal court process whereby the defendant is placed on a probation-like supervision for a period of up to eighteen (18) months. If the defendant successfully completes judicial diversion, then his or her criminal prosecution is “diverted” or circumvented and the defendant’s pending criminal charges are dismissed.)
If it is part of of a more serious crime like robbery, then the the PC 29180(c) part will be viewed an "enhancement" to the core crime, and enhancements are out of favor in CA, and will be typically dropped especially in the most populous jurisdictions.
Given the cheaper cost and lack of oversight, there is no reason for someone who is already considering criminal activity not to purchase and use one.
This mandatory 3d printer mandatory spyware law will not make an iota of difference in the production and criminal usage of ghost guns.
There are several problems with the study, and you don't need to be a cynic for the study to red-flag itself.
The term "ghost gun" originally referred to any firearm manufactured before the October 1968 law that required all guns imported or manufactured to have them -- and still does. While most of the "ghost guns" seized may be 3D-printed garbage that is more hazardous to the one holding it than the person standing downrange, we really don't know the ratio to old/new guns or whether 3D printing was involved at all.
The fact that a gun was recovered as part of a crime investigation does not mean that it had anything to do with the alleged crime - and I say alleged because they count weapons from people who had them legally as well as illegally, from situations where no charges were filed after investigation, as well as from situations where the only crime was a prohibited person being in possession of the firearm without any immediate intent to use it illegally -- all while trying to inflate the numbers of "gun crime".
Readers in the UK who are familiar with their system of filtering spent convictions may be surprised to learn that in the USA, people who were once convicted of a minor felony, even if the crime was nonviolent and occurred decades ago, do not get their records expunged or filtered. Their debt to society is never considered paid in full. Even after their sentence has been served, they are permanently barred from certain civil liberties, including the right to own weapons. However, those people may feel the need to protect themselves and their family from violent criminals, and thus they acquire and possess weapons illegally.
Confiscation from these prohibited persons is a significant contribution to the study numbers. For these prohibited persons, even pepper spray can be considered a banned weapon and carries the same penalty as having a gun, so 3D-printing a weapon at home so that they aren't forced into the black market to buy one is a potent driver. Just to highlight the scope of this issue, recognize that in the United States a full 33% of all adult black males have felony convictions on their records and fall into this class of prohibited persons.
Of course, the so-called study was from Everytown, so you already know it's just a piece of political propaganda. History has shown us that they would rather lie than tell the truth, even when the truth would support their politics.
Your numbers may be correct but your statement about felons and guns is not. If a person was convicted of felony tax evasion, which is a non-violent crime, they are permitted to petition the .gov to get their right to bear arms back. However, if they are convicted of a violent felony, they are not allowed to make that petition (or if they do it will always be a waste of time and money because it will be rejected.)
I don't have 2026 numbers, but its likely that there are 3x as many guns as people in the US. If they stop selling them here, we can just drive to Mexico or Panama and buy them there, on the open market. Maybe we'll end up purchasing all of the guns the FBI 'lost'.
"While most of the "ghost guns" seized may be 3D-printed garbage that is more hazardous to the one holding it than the person standing downrange, we really don't know the ratio to old/new guns or whether 3D printing was involved at all."
Hmmmmmm, the plastic bits are typically "furniture" with the parts that handle the explody bits made from metal. Even with some of the really tough printing materials coming out, you are absolutely right, make it all out of plastic and the shooter is not in a good position.
"Their debt to society is never considered paid in full. Even after their sentence has been served, they are permanently barred from certain civil liberties, including the right to own weapons. However, those people may feel the need to protect themselves and their family from violent criminals, and thus they acquire and possess weapons illegally."
Their debt is paid, but they aren't trusted any longer. Recidivism rates being what they are. In many decades, I have not needed to deprive somebody of a pulse. The operative 3 words are "feel the need". The downside of possessing a firearm illegally is it adds another very serious charge if they get caught. I say "adds" due to it being likely that something brought the weapon to the attention of law enforcement.
There are consequences to being a criminal so if that's a choice in some communities, we may see a higher incidence of felony convictions. When I was growing up, many Vietnamese and other refugees were allowed into the US and the culture in families was much stricter for children. The kids tended to be "greasy grinds" and blow the grading curve. That was a choice in that community. Somewhat opposite of others. They weren't very affluent either as they didn't arrive with much. I grew up lower middle class but had parents that were more mindful than many today. I loved my dad and he taught me quite a lot, but I'd rather face the court system than him so I behaved myself and didn't get into trouble. Even when I was touring with bands before I was 18.
"police departments across the US saw a 1,000 percent increase in the number of 3D printed ghost guns appearing in crime scenes between 2020 and 2024.""
My first question is when they first started taking note. What was the baseline?
Even with what one might consider major crimes, reporting can be spotty. Some large cities have reclassified crimes every year to make stats look good and one city might change a crime from a felony to a misdemeanor to an infraction where other cities and states aren't doing the same. A "ghost gun" and commercially manufactured gun with an obscured s/n might be lumped together with no difference between a weapon where the s/n was filed off or just rubbed off with age/poor stamping.
An "assault weapon" has no official definition. It's often classified by looks rather than function. A semi-automatic rifle with a wood stock and an all metal rifle with sharp angles and an adjustable stock that chamber the same round will often be classified differently.
There is one part of the gun that sees very high pressures when it's fired. This part most be able to withstand the pressures without bursting. The question then is whether the materials this part most be made out of are: 1 readily available; 2 suitable for 3-D printing; 3 need to be heat treated after manufacture; 4 need other treatments before use. Not an expect on these issues but I do have some background in materials to know using the wrong material can lead to deadly results for the user. Also, some of the equipment that may be needed is not something you go to Home Depot and buy.
And? That just means you need a metal lathe in addition to a 3d printer. To temper the barrel, you need a kiln and a couple of gallons of motor oil. Seriously, the instructions have been published repeatedly since the mid-1600's. Unless you think they're going to try banning books as well. Normally its only the damn bible thumpers who try that.
> Unless you think they're going to try banning books as well.
Banning books is a long-standing American Tradition. Mainly restricted now to schools, colleges and similar libraries, of course. Because who can be bothered to read books if they're not being made to!
Find instructions in books? Ha!
And as Google likes to crow, actually reading online information sources is getting to be too much effort for some poor weary souls, so even if They don't figure out how to get proper web searches working again, so They can issue takedowns, soon enough the information won't ever be disturbed again anyway.
Did TFA ever say it thought "these algorithms" would ever be able to detect guns themselves?
One way "these algorithms" might end up looking could very well be "ship the model from the printer to a human for review". Perfectly implementable algorithm, easily coded, you could probably do it yourself. And you can't claim that there isn't precedence for that sort of algorithm when manufacturers can't get the job done in actual code.
There may be drawbacks, especially as the number of printers sold increases, but so what? The printer is one of the few, perhaps even the only, model on the California list and the showroom demoes are going well. Get it home - ha ha, you didn't check the fine-print did you! 48 hours "processing" time to check your 3D model is ok is within the specs. No refunds, what else are you going to buy?
KA-CHING the algorithm is working perfectly (from the shareholders' p.o.v. and they are all that matters) and keeping you safe within the law. You're welcome.
The more left aligned in the United States are, very broadly, generally in favour of more legal restrictions on firearms. Savage himself has spoken out in favour of stronger laws (though he hasn't advocated for a complete ban for the "law abiding).
In this case, given his engineering/tinkering background, it's likely he would speak out against this proposed law and being directly impacted might give him a reason to speak out more loudly. I cannot guarantee he would be against it but it does, in the context of discussion, seem like a reasonable assumption in the absence of a quote.
I can explain further if you're still unclear.
And we will need an online digital id before we can print. Can we use a VPN to circumvent this? Or will printing plastic brackets and widgets with an active VPN incur the 25000$ fine?
Will they also enforce this for lathes, milling machines and CNC machines?which seem like more likely/robust methods for producing gun parts?
It's stupid. I'll be last inline to fire anything that comes off a random consumer printer.
The way the law is written (at least the New york version of it) it absolutely WILL, because the language in the law is overly broad.
It also opens the door for copyright lawyers to use / abuse the same 'verification' system to prevent people from making things like replacement parts for equipment that is no longer supported by the manufacturer, but vigorously enforces the intellectual property on.
thin end of the wedge and all.
1,000 percent increase in the number of 3D printed ghost guns appearing in crime scenes between 2020 and 2024
That's because there weren't any decent 3D printers in 2020 to print any guns.
It's like saying there was a 1,000 percent increase in the number of iphones appearing in crime scenes between 2006 and 2010
The detection algorithm would match gun parts by general shape, so what stops you from making a gun part that has an irrelevant component on the end or the side - something connected by a thin enough piece of metal it would be relatively easy to cut it off and file down any excess left behind.
Yes it adds an additional step but people who are printing guns for nefarious purposes rather than hobbyist type use would not be deterred by a little extra work.
Exactly. Slap an extra thing on that can be milled off with some simple cut. Besides which guns take all kinds of weird forms. It might be possible to recognise some common receivers and bolts but not the general form of a gun because there is no general form.
If you’re good with low pressure cartridge and only a PoC prototype holding together for one or two rounds, you don’t need to use metal. For proofing the trigger and feeding mechanism design you don’t even need to fire, and if it works in FDM printed plastic, it WILL work in metal manufactured to even better precision.
And you don’t even need a VNC mill; you can print a form and cast the parts. They will hold long enough for you to either get a real gun or die trying.
"people who are printing guns for nefarious purposes rather than hobbyist type use would not be deterred by a little extra work"
On the contrary. The people who are printing guns for nefarious purposes are almost universally bone idle. That's why they rob, cheat, and steal instead of working for a living.
The premise was specifically "people printing guns for nefarious purposes", which means the printers in this case are the end-users.
Granted, almost all of the crooks I've seen interviewed after getting busted in possession of so-called "ghost guns" have been about as thick as three short planks, and probably couldn't figure out how to turn on a computer, much less install and use a 3D printer on one.
"and probably couldn't figure out how to turn on a computer, much less install and use a 3D printer on one."
That is just the beginning. Too often I have to troubleshoot prints and make changes to get them to come out correctly. It's taken some time to learn how to compensate for all sorts of issues like holes not being round when on a vertical face. Now I just make a small 1-2mm hole and drill it to the proper size after the print is done. Little things like that take a lot of prints to get to grips with.
Once again, the point remains that you can ban or regulate all the tools you want, but it won't have any significant effect on crime. We already have laws against murder. Does it matter whether someone used a rock or whether they used a gun? At the end of the day it is still a murder.
For those of you living outside of the US: There are at least THREE constitutional issues here.
First, Code is considered free speech. This was fought through the courts and this is why the various levels of US government have no authority to regulate the use of encryption by the public. Nevertheless, it hasn't stopped some states like Utah from trying to wiggle around that ruling. They're going to lose that battle.
Second, is the Well-Known Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This includes everything associated with not just firearms, but knives, swords, crossbows, bear spray, and so on. Yes, many states have many laws against these sorts of things and they have effectively clogged up the legal system, though lately the US Federal Supreme Court has issued some significant rulings prohibiting such behavior. This issue is about to be contested in the State of Virginia with their recent arbitrary and capricious gun laws that are so clearly in violation of recent rulings on the Constitutionality that several Attorneys General and Sheriffs have declared that they are not going to enforce the law because it violates not only the Federal Constitution but also the State's Constitution.
Third is the prohibition of Unreasonable Search and Seizure. Nobody has committed any crimes, so why demand every 3D printer and CNC machine's programs? Here in the US, Government is supposed to be prohibited from spying on whatever it is that you build in your basement or garage.
Also note that several other states such as New York have also got laws like this in legislature. All that said, the Electronic Freedom Foundation has a very good case here.
None of these civil rights violations mean anything to these states. New York has been down this path numerous times. Courts slap them down. They re-write their law and put a new version on the books. Rinse and repeat.
I don't see any movement towards giving them a firm dope slap. Telling them "We said No. We meant it." And then following through with real penalties.
Meanwhile, they can create de facto bans and keep them in place permanently.
There is no way to recognise gun parts. Any means by which they could be detected could be circumvented. Printers receive gcode from a slicer so the printer has no idea what it is printing. And slicers are mostly open source. Any printer that tried to go closed source or sliced in the cloud would have to write an entire slicer stack from scratch and sales would bomb
It's a dumb bill and it won't achieve anything.
This may shock the folks living in civilized countries, but here in 'Murika, Ghost Guns are...legal. I'm allowed to go down to the hardware store, buy a couple steel pipes (1", 1-1/4") a pipe cap, and a nail, and make myself a slam-fire 12ga shotgun. I can get a little fancier in my garage and make a semi-auto pistol, or mill out an AR-15 receiver. I can't make NFA-restricted items (e.g., machine guns), but regular guns are just fine. 3D-printed guns are kind of self-solving issue, anyway--I had the breech of an antique shotgun blow open and do a number on my face; I'm in no hurry to try a 3d printed gun.
So they're banning equipment that allows you to do a...legal...action?
Nah, the real goal is to get this system in place so they can create a DCMA-type thing for 3d objects, and ban "copyrighted" designs. Especially parts that manufacturers charge a 100,000% markup on.
This will obviously be shot down by the Supreme Court as a blatant violation of the first and second amendments. But it actually standing isn't the point, they want to do as much damage as possible while the issue is under legislation to try and scare people off from printing firearm parts - which I will point out is not a crime in most of the country, you only need to serialise a firearm if you plan to *sell* it. If you are just experimenting and only you will use it, you do not need to.
In Britain that is already illegal.
The toy guns we used to run around the streets with as kids are now called "Realistic imitation firearms" and will get you a prison sentence if you are caught with one. That's why you don't see them in toy stops any more. There is a possible concession if they are very small and painted bright orange, because it's impossible for a real gun to be small and painted bright orange.
The lack of gun control in America is crazy, but the gun control in Britain is crazy the other way.
@AC
Though some rues & regs in UK around guns had loopholes for a long time.
Pre 2018 regs you could legally deactivate a gun just by plugging the barrel with lead* (not that difficult to get out without damaging a gun as lead melts at a far lower temperature than the far more heat resistant metals typically used in guns)
So, essentially pre 2018 guns trivial for a bad actor to reactivate (though now you cannot gift hem / sell the on unless they are "properly" deactivated to meet new specs)
* I know about this due to an inheritance** years ago, relative involved, like many people who lived in countryside back then, had a few shotguns guns (illegally as not licenced - vintage pieces) - also some shotgun cartridges (again illegal as he had no shotgun certificate, but lots of friends who did who would sell him some on the QT). I contacted police who ran me through the options / rules - we avoided having to deactivate them as it was possible to sell them via dealers to a collector with a shotgun licence (did need a holding permit until they were sold though ), cops handled the cartridge disposal. So at least with me involved we disposed of them "properly" (unlike if close relatives had done it!)
** I was not too close a relative, but as I was relatively diligent & competent (very diligent in comparison to feckless close relatives!) & he died intestate I ended up dealing with all the "executor type of stuff" that was too much hassle for the close relatives. Sadly all I got was a bit of cash from the estate for my time & mileage in dealing with thins (& a few beers from the relatives). Though guns were a doddle in comparison to getting contractors in to deal with the shed (it had some asbestos roofing and some of it in a sufficiently bad state that it needed proper "asbestos professionals" to deal with it - that cost teh estate a fair few quid!)
A good set of videos on this can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/@3DPrintingNerd/videos
The bill references government departments/resources that don't exist so they'd have to be put in place ($$$,$$$,$$$). There is no software that can do the analysis. No mechanism to competently verify that any such software is in place or works. A short drive to Nevada to buy non-compliant hardware isn't that tough. Kit's can be bought on Amazon and they don't give a toss as one can also buy all sorts of things that are banned in CA and the US as a whole. I just got some electronics parts from China marked as PLC parts thought eBay. A funny way to describe opamps. Just like a firearm is denoted by the lower receiver for a rifle and a frame for a hand gun, everything else is not defined as a firearm by Federal statutes. I expect that the Federal definitions will overrule anything that California decides on its own. Except there will be millions spent on lawyers over the 5-6 years it will take to meander through courts. Where will California come up with this money?
The sentiment I can appreciate, but the way of keeping firearm toting criminals off the street is not by crippling a set of useful tools. Otherwise law abiding citizens that want to make their own firearms are not a problem. There are people in the Philippines that hand file handguns from a lump of metal. It takes loads of skill and time to do that, but it doesn't take a college education or anything more than a few files and a lump of metal. Ban metal next? If I were motivated, I could build a furnace and investment cast handgun parts that could be finished off with basic machine tools. Instead of 80% lowers, I could do 95% lowers. CA instead wants to ban making things out of plastic and take away more manual arts from schools. How will schools be able to afford a specially made 3D printer that's CA compliant?
As are our legislators, it seems.
A 3D printer hasn't a clue what its making. The last piece of software that has any idea of shape is the Slicer and this isn't part of the printer firmware because it often needs to adjust how a model is built up to get optimum quality in the finished product. The printer itself gets simple low level commands of the form "turn this on" and "move print head to this coordinate", usually in what's called "G Code". Its is unlikely that slicers could be mandated not to build gun parts because slicers are traditionally open source so there is no single point where a slicer code supplier and a ghost gun designer could get together and collaborate on preventing the printing of gun parts. This is a very different situation from paper printers where currency designers build markers into their designs that can be identified by rendering firmware in the printer.
As others have remarked its really easy to make a (crude) gun. Making ammunition -- brass cartridges, smokeless powder and percussion primers -- is not at all easy, it can't be done safely at home. Enthusiasts who build their own loads buy and recycle these components. Even black powder isn't easy to mill safely -- the ingredients might be readily obtainable but if you started to make black powder at home you'd get a lot of grief from your neighbors, the local council and likely (in the US) the ATF (plus all sorts of anti-terrorism organizations would start looking at you very closely).
"if you started to make black powder at home you'd get a lot of grief from your neighbors,"
Why would you tell your neighbors? Charcoal, Sulfur and Saltpeter plus some high test IPA. Milling the constituents beforehand and then bringing them together is easy enough depending on the grade one wants or what's going to be easiest to make.
I have a couple of tins of 4F that I bought for my model rockets. I bought two as it's hard to find, I think the company is out of business, and it's easy to use as an ejection charge. Mind you, it leaves behind a greasy mess.
After the lawmakers finish patting themselves on their backs for a job well done, I'm sure they will get to work writing new legislation to require keyboard manufacturers to prevent people from typing hate speech. Then they'll go after screen manufacturers to not display harmful content and then...
Additionally, anyone caught trying to “knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent any firearm blocking technology” could face misdemeanor charges.
Those interested in circumventing such technology are in all likelihood attempting to use it to obtain firearms for illicit purposes. None of these being good. The potential charges for these purposes go well beyond misdemeanors. So, if they are willing to take such risks, a little technology tampering isn't going to mean much.
"Those interested in circumventing such technology are in all likelihood attempting to use it to obtain firearms for illicit purposes."
Or they bought their printer outside of the state, it's an older printer or it's a home brew using open source components and firmware. None of my printers would be compliant and can't be made so. The company that made two of them is gone. The third company is still around, but I highly doubt they are going to produce update kits for something over a year old. I'm not going to bin what I have. It would be a massive waste of perfectly good tools. I wouldn't turn in a nice chef's knife if the politicians passed a law that makes any over 3" long a crime to own without a restaurant or slaughterhouse license. The Wusthof set was major bucks.
"3D printers must be modified so they can't produce gun parts."
OK. What about all of the power-tools out there that can be used to manually create gun parts from chunks of metal, are you going to do something about them too? or is this the usual "won't somebody think of the children" political grandstanding? Sounds goo, but doesn't actually do anything except piss people off.
People who make laws should be required to understand a bare minimum of what they regulate.
Even before considering any ethic implication or the moral ground on which it stands, this ain't gonna fly technically --except perhaps in the most bovine implementation of: giant library of banned files against which the current print should be compared. Which is stupid for copyrighted images and even more catastrophically idiotic when you consider STLs.
But the really poisonous aspect of it all is the will of the government to install policing onto private devices. If you want to do policing, hire agents and send them patrolling the streets and, if you want to take a look into my private stuff, get a fscking warrant and knock at the door. You don't install your snoops warrantless on my stuff. That's what China does, and China ain't no democracy.
Two questions:
1) how will false positives be resolved and how quickly?
2) is there even a chance of this fascist’s wet dream actually working on individual parts for designs not directly derived from the ones included in the algorithm? Firearms are, in principle, just pressure machines or appliances, and only the chamber and feeding mechanism require specific alignment. The rest of the design is mostly arbitrary, and the familiar shape of the assembly is only the result of optimization. And I seriously doubt it will be able to identify an individual part for nonincluded design.
Which I’m pretty sure the legislators are perfectly aware of, judging by that part mentioning “acceptable evasion”. My guess is that means “anything different from M1911 and AR-15”.
This is a token set of laws that will have no meaningful impact on gun violence. The scum shooting up your streets, schools and colleges are using real guns. Real guns not 3d printed pew pews. The amount of effort and misdirected enforcement could be better used trying to police real guns.
"Pistol grip for print is actually a handle for a kitchen pan.
How the fuck are they gonna know that a part is for a gun."
But that grip, even intended for use on a firearm, is not a firearm by definition and can't be banned.
I was watching a video from superfastmatt and discovered printers with dual filaments where one is a filler/support material that can be washed out of the completed parts. I could create a file that's outwardly a solid cube until that filler is taken away, leaving behind a nice complete part that isn't a solid cube. Hmmmmmmm, fascinating.
