> There's no need to treat the legislator like an idiot. She's doing what EVERY legislator does, which is to identify a problem ("printed guns are a loophole in how we manage guns in this state") and saying she wants to find a solution to that problem. One mechanism by which legislators do that is by writing draft bills and then helping it through the legislative process to be improved
One normally researches a topic to become at least somewhat knowledgeable to put forth a somewhat reasonable solution to the identified problem. There is zero nuance in this bill. It essentially requires a background check for every 3d printer. I would find it hard to believe you could find a 3d printer that was not capable of printing a firearm component. I'm sure you could find a way to include those pens.
> sorta like how you'd write a draft essay for a college class and then go back for a second and third pass before submitting it.
I would fail a middle schooler for purposing this as a solution. A bill as simple as this one is simply zero effort or intentionally malicious.
> When you see a "ready to go bill," it's either been through a dozen-step process in this legislative session OR it's been brought up in a dozen different sessions and been improved along the way as legislators have to re-introduce all the bills they are sponsoring in each legislative session.
Any bill I've seen introduced that isn't simply looking for a participation trophy looks like there was some thought into it. This was zero thought or intentionally malicious.
> The legislator is not an expert in the issue, and I doubt she's claiming she is. She's proposing the broad strokes of a solution to a problem she sees. The point is not to pass the bill in its current form – it's to figure out how to solve the problem, using this general idea as the starting point.
Broad strokes? This is not broad strokes. Broad strokes might be only requiring it for metal 3d printers. Or have something to do with printing volume. This is about as full on nuclear as you can get without banning them. Maybe they should talk to some experts beforehand? This solution is basically the same as putting forth that everyone should stop breathing as a solution to global warming. Sure it is a "solution", but it in no way starts a productive conversation. This is nothing more than a useless political stunt and at worst an idiot/malicious legislator. Given that this is New York, I'd lean towards malicious.