This bill is analogous to requiring text editors to verify that a document does not contain defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, child porn, etc., before it saves the file. In first amendment terms that led to the conclusion that prior restraint on publication is incompatible with the amendment. The same doctrine should be extended to the second amendment for the same reasons. The alternative is intolerable surveillance.

now they have to do 80% printers, kits composed of not a printer subunits, to be assembled on site.

then DIY sources must be dealt with:

https://pea3d.com/en/how-to-build-your-own-3d-printer/

it looks like mole whackings, all the way down.

I happened to remember reading about how the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement would have ruined EARN IT Act's implementation had it passed [1]:

> When a private entity conducts a search because the government wants it to, not primarily on its own initiative, then the otherwise-private entity becomes an agent of the government with respect to the search. (This is a simplistic summary of “government agent” jurisprudence; for details, see the Kosseff paper.) And government searches typically require a warrant to be reasonable. Without one, whatever evidence the search turns up can be suppressed in court under the so-called exclusionary rule because it was obtained unconstitutionally. If that evidence led to additional evidence, that’ll be excluded too, because it’s “the fruit of the poisonous tree.”

> Fourth Amendment government agency doctrine is why lawmakers and law enforcement must tread very carefully when it comes to CSAM scanning online. Many online service providers already choose voluntarily to scan all (unencrypted) content uploaded to their services, using tools such as PhotoDNA. But it must be a voluntary choice, not one induced by government pressure. (Hence the disclaimer in the federal law requiring providers to report CSAM on their services that they know about, which makes clear that they do not have to go looking for it.) If the provider counts as a government agent, then its CSAM scans constitute warrantless mass surveillance. Whatever CSAM they find could get thrown out in court should a user thus ensnared raise a Fourth Amendment challenge during a resulting prosecution. But that’s often a key piece of evidence in CSAM prosecutions; without it, it’s harder to convict the accused. In short, government pressure to scan for CSAM risks letting offenders off the hook.

[1] Ignoring EARN IT's Fourth Amendment Problem Won’t Make It Go Away - https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2022/03/ignoring-earn-its...

I'm a long time shooter of all kinds of firearms (bolt actions to full-autos).

What people don't realize is that gun control works, but only when it's very controlled - i.e. full registration, deep checks, mandatory training, strict storage, no handguns, etc.

You need to do it across the whole country, as a real customs border can cut guns significantly, but in the US you can do still do a private party (person to person with no dealer) transfer in many states, making gun running pretty trivial.

None of this will happen anytime soon in the US, and the ghost guns, etc. thing will keep happening.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47066567

Nice sentiments, but totally impractical.

In most place of the world, including where I am, pressure bearing parts such as the barrel, the bolt that locks onto the end of the barrel to seal it as it fires, the firing pin that ignites the cartridge, the live cartridge containing gunpowder, etc etc, rather than the part that merely carries its nameplate, are controlled. It is illegal in such places to buy or possess functionally relevant parts of a gun, at least without a license, and/or prior approvals. This is more like buying a CPU or motherboards would be controlled rather than cases and faceplates. In some places, what is considered a gun in US hardly qualify as such, even almost slipping through customs(allegedly).

You guys gotta fix that broken classification before trying to offload onus onto the global 3D printing community. Or drop it altogether.

I’ve certainly seen projects and models demonstrating the ability to create firearms with the help of a 3D printer, but I’m not aware of anyone using one to commit a crime…

What are the recommendations for printers now? Bucket it by price range, so $0-200, $200-400, $400-800, $800+

Any notable features which can be a big value add? Offline is obviously a requirement given how the winds are blowing.

You see it a lot on crime investigation shows. Pretty sure I've seen it on 24 hours in police custody and at least one other show or documentary.

edit: police acting on a source, a lead or some other un-named entity.

Also, good luck farming off the job to the DOJ right now. The ATF has already mostly shrugged at the prospect of 3D printed guns, and that was before the administration gutted it. I don't think they have any interest/ability to cooperate with tech regulation at this time.

This, like every other bill on the subject that has been attempted from around the country, is bound for a quiet death by committee.

If you tell me that this can make an untracked weapon, I will tell you that probably an untracked weapon can be done with anything, and surprise surprise, even without 3d printed parts.

Imagine the amount of false positives and inquiries on unprovable things. Soon this will also be used for copyright or whatever, and that will be the sole purpose

The Feed was a centralized matter distribution network under strict control of what could be created and by whom. The Seed was a completely self contained system that could bootstrap from raw materials.

"Hey I see your printing a replacement part for you washer. Well that is a patent part and you will need to pay to print that."

WE DO NOT LIVE IN THAT WORLD.

so i don't mind if you downvote me. but if you care to listen to a man rant:

we have an incredibly sycophantic doj which selectively enforces the law according to socioeconomic status, so it boggles the mind that some of us in this thread maintain that this issue is partisan alone ("oh you liberals"). this line of thinking is a trap.

is it really the dems in california? is it really trump's doj? or, taking a step back and looking at fascist trends worldwide in aggregate, don't these policies benefit those groups who operate and lobby above common law? those groups of people who we magically let slide time and time again after committing gross misconduct? those companies whose monopolies fundamentally destroy free trade?

so much tribalism.

conservative or liberal, once the pendulum swings maybe consider what happens when your phantom political 'enemies' on the other side of the aisle can monitor what you create in your home, what queries you toss into your AI assistant, who you talk to on social media, what you are buying, or where your location is on the cell tower map.

then if you have a second brain cell, maybe consider whether those enemies on the other side of the aisle are struggling to feed kids and make shelter just the same as you, whether they are as much the rabble as those goliaths who dictate what the topics of division -are-

who benefits most from your fear of the other but those groups who lobby both sides??

isn't it would be better to have a world of celebrated differences and rules of decorum that instill trust and foster co-operation? isn't that the world that we want, so that we may put the monsters at epstein island, sarajevo, (and so many other places) in prison? maybe it is time to rise up and hold our leaders accountable, on the left and the right!

"oh this is just political posturing, those lawmakers are rewarded merely for doing 'something'" yes-- this is true. but from the outset, whose political posturing is it really? because the end result for every one of these laws that come to pass don't seem to prevent the folks up top from getting away scott-free.

just remember that with all illegal files (violations of copyright law, banned books, etc): it is easy to determine whether you are in possession of them. whether it is enforced against you is a matter of convenience and leverage, your personal value (and optic value as a victim in the political theatre). be value-less.

rant aside. obvious, stupid questions to the topic at hand: - (yes, shooting people is bad). - what is the definitive geometry of a gun? - who arbitrates that? - is it a crime to print a rubber band gun? a toy gun? - what about parts for a gun? how is that known? - who do we register our printers to? - what mechanisms are in place to side channel whether a person purchases tools such that we can detect whether they own an unregistered 3d printer? - how do we deal with false positives? - if I have a novel prototype of a non-gun which I would like to patent in a highly litigious first-to-file country, how can I guarantee that the file in question is submitted only to the government entity or API endpoint in question? - do we ban chinese printers? whose companies form the superset of allowable printers? how do smaller manufacturers join in? - what happens when the printer EOLs and software updates for the device stop (and therefore can't update the API endpoint)? - will open source printers be illegal? - what else should our government forbid us for printing: cock rings and contraceptive devices? emblems associated with religious groups (modernly) associated with hate speech?

i am sorry if you read this much and are from elsewhere. watch that it does not happen to your country. my heart goes out to you.

Some US company specialize in selling CNC mills specifically for firearms.

Ex: https://realghostguns.com/product/gg3-s-cnc-deposit/

    It is sold with the cut codes for the AR-15, AR-.308, 1911, Polymer80 and AK-47 receivers and frames.