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

231–240 of 491 posts

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

#231

Post by dghlsakjg »

15155 wrote: post #76
trollbridge wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'd argue that shell casings are probably harder to manufacture than a fully working firearm. The equipment needed to manufacture working ammunition end-to-end is pretty serious.

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…

Imagine a flintlock 3d printed gun with hand cast lead balls: watch out redcoats!

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

#232

Post by fortran77 »

abtinf wrote: post #168
pfannkuchen wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Grocery stores _absolutely_ supported the bag bans, though they weren't the initial groups asking for them. Similar to how the cigarette companies liked the TV ad bans--if nobody could advertise on TV than the playing field would be level and their profits all went up from decreased costs.

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

#233

Post by remarkEon »

sheikhnbake wrote: post #199
BoneShard wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they don't give a shit about 3D printing, especially in CA. It's not like you're competing with a glock19 type hand gun and cornering this market.

3D gun printing has come a long way in a short amount of time. 3D printed lower receivers can weather several hundred rounds of 7.62 at this point

That makes it useful for a hobbyist, but it is by no means a replacement for a properly manufactured lower.

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

#235

Post by remarkEon »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #138
mcmcmc wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t Luigi Mangione 3D print his gun? There’s definitely an appeal for criminals

He 3d printed the frame, but you need dozens of parts, milled or stamped from steel to complete it and have a working gun. Even the 3d printed frame needs steel inserts. It is like 3d printing a case, then buying a motherboard, CPU and RAM at Best Buy, and claiming your built a 3d printed computer. There is some appeal to criminals, because the frame is the part that gets the serial number and is regulated. But if yo…

Yes. For those unfamiliar with firearms, the above analogy is correct. One addition: in this hypothetical your “computer” is heavily regulated, but for the agency that does the regulating the only thing they consider the “computer” is the frame/case.

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

#237

Post by remarkEon »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #186
WillPostForFood wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He 3d printed the frame, but you need dozens of parts, milled or stamped from steel to complete it and have a working gun. Even the 3d printed frame needs steel inserts. It is like 3d printing a case, then buying a motherboard, CPU and RAM at Best Buy, and claiming your built a 3d printed computer. There is some appeal to criminals, because the frame is the part that gets the serial number and is regulated. But if yo…

Especially with "80%" gun frames out there, which aren't too hard to get, and don't require any sort of background check in many jurisdictions, since its technically not a firearm, just a block of polymer you dremel down to spec.

While this is technically possible, it is not that easy. In other words, someone who is technical and experienced enough to manually create a lower like that is very likely to have extensive experience with firearms anyway (and likely owns many).

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

#238

Post by remarkEon »

simplyluke wrote: post #193
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!)?

Washington's legislation that just passed includes a vague ban on possession of any files/instructions on 3d printing and CNC/milling/basically any manufacturing. As far as I can tell it's potentially illegal to own a book on gun manufacturing processes in the state of Washington now if you're not a federally licensed firearms manufacture.

The law is vague enough that a states attorney trying to make a name for themselves could interpret it that way, yes. However, the law is very likely to be challenged on constitutional grounds. I would not be at all shocked if a proper 1A challenge effectively nullifies it.

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

#239

Post by fasterik »

hunterpayne wrote: post #221
fasterik wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spec…

You don't follow politics in CA very closely if you think that. The way it works in CA is that the party makes sure that only 1 candidate runs in the Dem primary. Then they gerrymander the districts to make sure that they know which party will win in which district. The result of this is that the party insiders choose the politicians, not the voters. PS Nobody in their right mind thinks the Dems support civil liberti…

According to the Princeton Gerrymandering project, California's districts are better than average, with some bias. You can see a map of the entire U.S. on their front page.

https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/

Before the recent wave of gerrymandering started by Texas, California had an independent, non-partisan redistricting committee.

Could you provide a source for the claim that before 2025, there was significant gerrymandering in California?

As I said about civil liberties, there is a perception that Democrats are the lesser of two evils, given the realignment of the parties around segregation and civil rights in the 1960s. The Dixiecrats who were in favor of segregation left the Democratic party, while Republicans who favored racial integration joined the Democratic party. Then the Republican presidential campaigns of Goldwater, Nixon, and Regan shifted the party line to appeal more to the former Dixiecrats in the South. I'm agnostic about which party is better on civil liberties in 2025; I'd be interested in any research on the topic.

Post reply on HN