Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 491 posts

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

#151

Post by throw1234567891 »

MisterTea wrote: post #58
simplyluke wrote: post #19

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 devic…

I really think all of this is the result of Mangione. Regulating 3D printers has been talked about for years with no action. Then a year after the CEO of a large well known company is killed with a 3D printed gun the states are suddenly pushing highly invasive 3D printing laws. It's no coincidence NY was the first to push for such a law, the state where said CEO was killed.

You’d think they’d regulate guns instead.

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

#152

Post by tim-tday »

horsawlarway wrote: post #93
aidenn0 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not on top of the current SOTA in 3d-printed guns, but the way it typically was done in the past is that you don't actually 3d-print all of what you or I would call a complete gun. The barrel will be metal. In designs made for the US market, it will almost certainly be an actual manufactured gun barrel, since gun parts other than the receiver are not closely tracked in the US. In designs for Western Europe, the m…

yeah, but at some point you're just banning "manufacturing". if someone wants to make a gun... they can. It's not complex to manufacturer simple firearms - we managed it as far back as the freaking 10th century. So why freak out over this, for example, and not CNCs? Or Power tools? Or forges (CHF barrels are a thing too!)?

Manufacturing a firearm is already regulated by state law in California. (Be it by cnc, 3d print, or drill press)

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

#153

Post by nitwit005 »

dole wrote: post #69
cultofmetatron wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

guns democratize mass murder. With a gun, I can kill a bunch of people before police can stop me. A knife? At best I can kill one or two in a public place before people run away and eventually a different group is going to stop me pretty quickly.

Killers are going to kill. Guns don't democratize it, just makes it easier. Maybe at best YOU could kill one or two: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/16/china/china-stabbing-yixing-c... (8 stabbed to death) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_Schoo... (1 killed, 24 injured) So they should stop you from 3d-printing knives too.

Successful mass murders with a knife are fairly rare. Killing people that way is physically difficult, and it's relatively easy to just tackle you.

Traditionally, arson was the means of mass killing, as it didn't have either problem. That's gotten much more difficult due to fire safety.

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

#154

Post by max51 »

alterom wrote: post #2

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-qui…

>And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an unlicensed 3D printer to make unlicensed prints?

You really don't have to go that far. A very high quality control board (eg. an original Prusa) is like 90$ and cheap ones go for 25$.

You could buy the licensed printer and swap the board. Or maybe even just flash the firmware on the licensed printer

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

#155

Post by jubilanti »

mothballed wrote: post #104
codedokode wrote: post #82

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.

US basically has a firearms license but by exclusion. Anyone with felonies or DV violations can't have guns, neither can illegal immigrants, neither can drug users . There are probably fewer Americans that can legally buy ammo and guns than Canadians by %. If you use the ATFs guidelines on what is considered a prohibited person, it likely applies to about half of all US adults that are prohibited from buying ammuniti…

> US basically has a firearms license but by exclusion.

The essential quality of a license is that you have to affirmatively apply for it, so it operates by inclusion, not exclusion. You're like saying "We basically have an opt-in system, but it operates by opting out." I get your point that it has a similar effect, but words have meaning.

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

#156

Post by jandrewrogers »

rolph wrote: post #111
15155 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these manufacturing equipment and processes existed more than a century ago. If you have a capable VMC, you can make the die and other equipment necessary to stamp shell casings from commonly-available parts and machinery. From there, with a modern Dillon or Hornady reloading press, you can crank out thousands of rounds per day without issue. Primers are a legitimately difficult thing to manufacture, but (good…

[Primers are a legitimately difficult thing to manufacture] thats a problem that may not endure. if a firearm is reengineered to use an electrode to detonate charge rather than a chemical primer, there is no need for murcury fulminate, just a piezo electric spark generator, and a few square cm of cerebral cortex.

Electronic primers are a thing that already exists commercially. In the early 2000s, Remington sold electronically primed hunting rifles next to their non-electronic equivalent (see: "EtronX").

It is a mature technology. The main issue is cost and simplicity, since it often requires adding electronics to weapons that normally would not require them. The military uses electronically primed cartridges for things like chain guns and autocannons, since those require electronics to fire regardless of how it is primed.

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

#157

Post by Rebelgecko »

codedokode wrote: post #82

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 already has background checks for bullets, you typically can't buy ammo if you haven't bought a gun at your current address.

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

#158

Post by WillPostForFood »

jimbob45 wrote: post #43
nradov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the inevitable result of having a single-party government which is no longer accountable to regular citizens.

No it’s not. Xi has power as absolute as Newsom and manages just fine. When your country has large, but solvable problems, absolute power works great for quelling unrest by fixing problems quickly and efficiently. Newsom is just generationally incompetent.

The argument isn't that authoritarians can't solve problems.. It more about how they do it.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/08/china-still-n...

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

#159

Post by Rebelgecko »

bdcravens wrote: post #32
asdff wrote: post #3

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.

I've always felt that it you want to really impact gun violence, tax the hell out of ammo and gunpowder. Like $20/bullet. For those who believe in self-defense, a handful of bullets is all you need your entire life, and ideally they'll go unused. Could probably create exceptions for bullets used at the gun range, so you can become proficient and safe. Tricky part would be hunting, but restricting such a tax to ammo u…

If you care about self defense, you practice using a gun semi-regularly.

The trick is to just tax murder so people can't afford it anymore.

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

#160

Post by pfannkuchen »

abtinf wrote: post #131
iwontberude wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like everything in the United States, it’s actually gun manufacturers that want to clamp down on this cottage industry which threatens their profits. I don’t buy for a second that this is some gun control attempt.

This is the most likely answer. Just as it was the large grocery chains that have funded all the plastic/paper bag bans. The gun lobby has a long history of trying to ban low cost market entrants.

Is this not like a schizo conspiracy theory? Like why would the grocery chains fund the bag bans? So they can save a tiny amount of money on paying for bags?

But having to bring your own bags limits how much you can buy. If someone has a plan to just use their own bags, they will likely forgo purchases at a higher rate than if the bag is not in the equation for them.

It's not obvious to me that the buying limit effect sales decrease would not outweigh the savings on physical bag purchases. Maybe I'm not following?

Post reply on HN