New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers • Hacker News Board

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#121

Post by 9x39 » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 5:08 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #34

amelius wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they should look more at how other countries quite successfully banned fire arms. Hint: it wasn't by banning printers.

It's not about banning, it's about taxing. Distilling liquor without paying taxes is illegal.

Their proposal is about getting lines like this ratified:

"No person, firm or corporation shall sell or deliver any three-dimensional printer in the state of New York unless such printer is equipped with blocking technology," https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S9005

They don't like firearms in the hands of the public.

The goal is to be an indirect ban that's hard to challenge. California has had significant success with strategies such as requiring "microstamping technology" (but it could be anything - it's just a limiting mechanism) in conjunction with an approved handgun roster to limit handgun sales in the state. This is almost certain to be a similar strategy.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#122

Post by Retric » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 5:09 PM UTC

ndriscoll wrote: post #110

Retric wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forearms yes, percussion caps no. A large fraction of the harm from firearms comes from their ability to fire rapidly which didn’t exist when the constitution was written. As such it was making a very different balance of risk between the general public and individuals.

The Girardoni repeating air rifle predates the ratification of the constitution by ~11 years and was taken on the Lewis and Clark expedition ~13 years later. Really the whole discussion around 2A is usually nonsense because it ignores the context that the entire Bill of Rights had a completely different meaning prior to the 14th amendment leading to incorporation over the last century (and other expansions of federal…

> Girardoni repeating air rifle

Not a firearm.

I didn’t say we could ban compressed air powered guns, I specifically said percussion caps. The Girardoni was way less dangerous than a modern handgun.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#123

Post by tastyfreeze » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 5:11 PM UTC

dangus wrote: post #46

I really dislike this whole debate because I never wanted to be lumped in with 3D gun printing weirdos. When I first told my very non-technical somewhat new friend about my 3D printer, they looked really concerned and told me they weren’t comfortable with it because of how people make weapons with them. I’ve had to spend a lot of time building trust and showing that I’m not one of those weirdos. Ultimately I don’t th…

A normal country? Like Iran that just slaughters or imprisons anybody that speaks or acts against the government. 2A is to stop that situation from ever happening. Is the government starts shooting we will shoot back. Before then we would prefer to resolve our grievances peacefully in court.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#124

Post by reactordev » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 5:11 PM UTC

mothballed wrote: post #117

hoarseAAPL wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS has ruled before that 2A does not afford freedom to own any kind of weapon. There are limits on explosives for example. They tend to lean on whether it is reasonable that the Founders might have had access to such a weapon with their technology. Machine gun is just a rifle with automatic rechamber. Not an unreasonable upgrade for 1700s technology. Maybe, I dunno; political people don't have to actually care ab…

The only weapon class I know of that's outright illegal to own is anti-aircraft missiles. That carries life imprisonment just for possession, with no violent intent. Because the government never wants to give up its air supremacy. This is why whenever you hear of feds concocting an international weapons conspiracy they always have to add anti-air bazookas to the charges because it's the only thing that actually can u…

Fully automatic assault rifles, anti-aircraft guns (that still operate), anti-aircraft missiles (that still operate), land mines over a certain size, or any Comp B. Those are on the naughty list.

There’s a whole community of folks building semi-automatic auto-return triggers that are “technically” semi automatic, but with just a gentle squeeze, fire off another. If you maintain that grip, the return mechanism engages, returning the trigger to firing position, where your pressure causes it to fire again… it’s called a Forced Reset Trigger.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#125

Post by thatguy0900 » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

krunck wrote: post #92

For hundreds of years people have been making guns without 3D printers and CNC mills. All that is needed is some metal machining skills, a lathe, and some other tools.

If you want to be really simple you can make a slam fire shotgun with two pipes and a nail, no machining skills required

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#126

Post by Retric » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

9x39 wrote: post #115

Retric wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forearms yes, percussion caps no. A large fraction of the harm from firearms comes from their ability to fire rapidly which didn’t exist when the constitution was written. As such it was making a very different balance of risk between the general public and individuals.

The balance of power being considered then was between the state and the people. Fear over a standing army was real.

Crime exited when the constitution was written, suggesting the framers were only concerned with interactions at the state level is to insult their intelligence. Not to mention specific text like people’s rights to a jury trial etc.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#127

Post by silver_silver » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 5:14 PM UTC

bluescrn wrote: post #109

talkinghead wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i personally wouldn't described teenagers killing each other with luminous green hunting knives as a 'weird panic' but perhaps something that needs a lot of attention and a multitude of steps to solve. banning these insane weapons is, would you believe it, one quick step that might help.

Would they really do less stabbing if they had to use a mundane kitchen knife instead of a 'tacticool' knife or 'ninja sword'?

Not necessarily a lot less but I’m sure removing the aesthetic/cool factor reduces how often they’re carried

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#128

Post by pjbk » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 5:17 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #33

This is insanely stupid stuff. Even the UK with our weird panic over Incredibly Specific Knives hasn't tried to do this kind of technical restriction to prevent people printing guns. Why not? Because nobody is printing guns! It's an infeasible solution to a non-problem! Someone should dig into who this is coming from and why. The answers are usually either (a) they got paid to do it by a company selling the tech, whi…

People print guns and gun parts. More than you think. Now even more since metal printing is starting to become affordable. I print grip and grip attachments for my 9mms and my AR15, trigger guards, barrel clamps, etc. I also find it stupid since, as the article suggests, what kind of algorithm can you implement to do smart detection of something that could be potentially dangerous? Will it also detect negative space? I print inserts in elastic filament with my gun outlines instead of foam (or as foam templates) for my carrying cases. Will the "algorithm" prevent me to do that too? What about my plastic disc thrower toy gun, or my PKD Blaster prop? Both look like guns to me. What about a dumb AI algorithm that lacks common sense?

Printing barrels and FCUs -- the fire control unit, which is the only thing tracked and serialized in a gun at least in the US -- is more difficult but not impossible. Actually, building a functional FCU that can strike a bullet primer, or a barrel that can be used once is not difficult at all and if you look around you can find videos of people that have tested that with a mixture of 3d printing and rudimentary metal working skills. The major issues on designing those parts are reliability and safety. In the Philippines there is a full bootleg gunsmith industry dedicated to build illegal guns that match commercial ones in those aspects too.

Sadly, instead of having better laws we get fallacy rhetoric by people who probably have never touched, much less fired a gun in their lives.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#129

Post by acheron » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 5:17 PM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #24

crazygringo wrote: post #7

I don't think they know what Ctrl+Alt+Delete means. They want to restart it? They want to go to the screen where you can switch users or sign out? Do they think it's just a fancier way of saying delete?

Reminds me of people who think penultimate is just super-duper-ultimate.

Or “epicenter”.

All prefixes eventually become intensifiers?

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#130

Post by kube-system » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 5:18 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #55

AustinDev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could attempt it, but the Second Amendment is quite clear that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to ban firearms and ammunition.

Forearms yes, percussion caps no. A large fraction of the harm from firearms comes from their ability to fire rapidly which didn’t exist when the constitution was written. As such it was making a very different balance of risk between the general public and individuals.

1. The second amendment wasn't written because the authors thought guns were inert. It was written precisely because they could impart deadly force.

2. As someone else pointed out, early repeating rifles did exist then.

3. If the meaning of the constitution is only to be evaluated against the technology available at the time -- what does that say about the validity of the 1st or 4th amendments with modern technology?