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

161–170 of 491 posts

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

#161

Post by some_random »

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.

This is a well documented Everytown campaign, you can't blame this one on firearms manufacturers.

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

#162

Post by xp84 »

qurren wrote: post #56
MisterTea wrote: post #5

> The primary goal is clear and simple: to require 3D printer manufacturers to use a state-certified algorithm that checks digital design files for firearm components and blocks print jobs that would produce prohibited parts. "state-certified algorithm" has a really nice tyrannic ring to it. I am sure once this has passed the rich people can finally sleep at night knowing they are safe from roving gangs of armed Mang…

A 3D printer, at least of the Prusa variety, is really just a bunch of stepper motors and a dumb motor driver executing a series of effectively "rotate by X steps" commands, which is what the gcode file is. It doesn't know what it's printing. It doesn't even know that it's a printer. If they wanted a gate on designs it would have to happen in slicing software, not the actual printer.

Yup. Wait till our genius lawmakers figure that out! Then we'll have all software that can be used to do that job require registration and inspection to certify that it "won't print gun parts." Or maybe "all software" for good measure, in case any sneaky so-and-sos try to make an IRC client with a secret "slicing easter-egg." Better yet, all software of any kind has to be sold through an App Store so we can have Google, Microsoft and Apple gatekeep. That'll work. Gun problem solved.

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

#163

Post by some_random »

throw1234567891 wrote: post #151
MisterTea wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Guns are nationally regulated and further regulated by every state pushing this drivel.

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

#164

Post by some_random »

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.

Some states do already and it's not enough, you can manufacture cartridges as well it's just annoying.

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

#165

Post by nine_k »

lq9AJ8yrfs wrote: post #148
horsawlarway wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)?

CNC milling is typically included in the bans being considered in various states. While poetically consistent, it enlarges the crater around these bad laws if they are passed and enforced. Basically all new manufacturing setups will need to stop and reprogram to stop and start according to fluctuating rules designed by committee, and will need to be made brittle to prevent circumvention. It is a debacle.

> need to stop and reprogram to stop and start according to fluctuating rules

Or just move to Texas. Or even Idaho or Dakotas. Which, under a certain angle, is good, it would lessen the wealth and expertise disbalance between states.

I still hope that California comes to senses before they would need to accept the moniker The Footgun State.

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

#166

Post by mvrekic »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #50
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

Personally, I see this as an assault on 3d printing more than any real attempt to regulate guns. I own several 3d printers. If I wanted to make something resembling a firearm I'd go to home depot WAY before I bothered 3d printing parts. You basically just need a metal tube, and well... a pipe from home depot does that much better than trying to 3d print something much less reliable. So given we don't do this regulati…

Not that I support any of these obviously stupid bills but: > what's special about 3d printers? They can make guns made out of plastic and metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people. You are probably right about the lobbying group, I agree. Edit: I'm not saying it makes sense, but this is the angle the congress folks are taking, sheesh.

I don't care how good you are, you cannot 3D print a barrel that will withstand the pressure forces generated by a centerfire round.

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

#167

Post by some_random »

rolph wrote: post #31
convolvatron wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the situation with the actual charge, but if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition.

you need tight tolerances for modern ammo, a shotgun, or muzzle loader is more forgiveing. reloading materials are not federally regulated as firearms, you just dont want to have more than 2lbs at a time, or that could bring trouble. you want to be able to KNOW and SEE the difference between a blackpowder, and a smokeless powder, and what not to put it in. one thing that would add a lot of friction is if the primers…

For maximally effective commercial ammo, yes. If your goal is just to propel a projectile it's super easy.

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

#168

Post by abtinf »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #160
abtinf wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 effec…

The grocery chain campaign is well documented. Just search for it.

The short answer is that bags are a non-trivial cost for the larger chains. Now, they get to charge for them at an astounding markup and no longer have to compete with any grocery store on this point. All grocery stores are affected equally, which means it is disproportionately damaging to mom-and-pop stores and smaller chains.

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

#169

Post by jandrewrogers »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #146
jandrewrogers wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explosives are a weird case because Americans can just buy industrially manufactured high explosives. Attempting to DIY an explosive that is almost certainly inferior to what you can buy commercially is a red flag. Before 9/11 caused them to tighten up the rules, buying high explosives in the US was cash-and-carry. You could walk in and select different kinds of high explosives from a giant menu. If you wanted someth…

>before 9/11 caused them to tighten up the rules, You mean "before the Weather Underground blew up a bunch of random shit with hardware store dynamite in the 1970s". >It still isn't difficult today from my understanding, there is just more paperwork. The paperwork and compliance is enough of an expensive PITA it precludes everyone who isn't a regular commercial user, which is exactly the point. It used to be that far…

It worked how I described in the late 1990s. I know someone who went through the new process and it didn't seem that onerous. As I recall it isn't that different from the process for getting Global Entry on your passport.

Explosives are still heavily used in mining and construction. Many of those operations are just a couple individuals, not any kind of real company.

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

#170

Post by fasterik »

nradov wrote: post #15
ginkgotree wrote: post #7

I'm so glad I left California 6 years ago. They are going to regulate and tax their startups and innovators away to other states. This is supremely stupid.

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

What you describe as "single-party government" is in fact a democracy where one party is more popular than the others. Or are you trying to imply that California's elections are not free and fair? If voters want to hold politicians accountable, they can vote out the incumbent.

I see it as a problem primarily with education and public opinion. Regular citizens routinely support bad policies across the ideological spectrum. Often we have to live with the fact that bad policies are popular; that's democracy in action.

It's also a problem of having no good alternatives. There are historical reasons, going back to the 1960s, why the Democratic party is perceived as the lesser of two evils when it comes to civil liberties.

Post reply on HN