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

251–260 of 491 posts

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

#251

Post by dooglius »

schoen wrote: post #196
dooglius wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bottom of that wiki page has links to EFF pages. However you are correct that they view it as a lost battle: (Added 2015) Some of the documents that we previously received through FOIA suggested that all major manufacturers of color laser printers entered a secret agreement with governments to ensure that the output of those printers is forensically traceable. Although we still don't know if this is correct, or h…

I wrote that text when I worked for EFF! Anyway, two things about this: * EFF definitely did not think that the regular printer tracking dots mechanism was appropriate. * You could probably argue this either as a modus ponens or a modus tollens -- that is, in either direction -- but one criticism that we made of the tracking dots was that they were (mostly) secret voluntary cooperation between industry and government…

Thanks for trying to maintain the list as long as you could!

I think you are assuming that the government does not _also_ have secret agreements with big 3D printer manufacturers (to which the state of CA may not be privy)

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

#252

Post by dghlsakjg »

rolph wrote: post #97
horsawlarway wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool - you mean like the CNC I have sitting next to the printers? Which this legislation doesn't cover? So no - not buying it. Hell, there's not even a real price difference. I can get a Nomad3 from Carbide 3D for the same approximate cost as an H2D from bambu labs. And I can get super cheap temu versions of either for under 500.

i mean speed and consistency, compared to manually CnC [crank n curse] cutting, or printing. if you set up your job so that you print a block of, lets say 4 lower receivers for a stoner style firearm. and you ran a number of printers, you start an arsenal, for a fire team, not just a lonewolf, and that scares people.

You know what’s even faster and cheaper than building a 3d printing gun factory?

Just buying a bunch of lower receivers. There are plenty available for less than $50. Hell, there are companies that sell them in 3 packs. If you are trying to build an arsenal you can just go to a gun store, there’s no limit on how many you can buy at once. If you don’t want the purchase to be background checked go to one of the many states that allow unrestricted private gun sales and go nuts.

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

#253

Post by ggreer »

bdcravens wrote: post #95
akersten wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could probably create exceptions for bullets used at the gun range, so you can become proficient and safe. Amusing to imagine the red diesel of sport shooting - better hope the tax authority doesn't find any combustion-proof dye on the self-defense shell casings!

To be honest I was thinking more along the lines of you either store ammo at the range, with a checkin/checkout process, or you can receive a tax receipt for number of spent casings.

It's legal to go target shooting on most public lands, and on private property in rural areas (assuming you own it or have the owner's permission). People can easily burn through 1,000 rounds in a weekend in such places. Are they going to get a $20k loan and collect every casing for a refund? Of course people should pick up their brass on public lands, but if you have a private range, there's no need to keep it pristine constantly.

Also brass is often ejected forward of the firing line, meaning cease fire must be called frequently for individuals to collect their brass. And if multiple people are shooting at once, how do they determine who shot which casing? Considering the financial incentives, I could see frequent disagreements over brass ownership.

Then there's the issue of implementation. A proposed law and its implementation are often quite different. For example, California requires a background check when purchasing ammunition. Only California residents can buy ammunition in the state (which creates a problem for out-of-state hunters). This system is plagued with false positives. When I lived in California, I purchased multiple firearms but was unable to buy ammunition due to being incorrectly denied. This happens to 10-16% of legal firearm owners in the state. My assumption is that any sort of ammo tax/refund scheme would be similarly fraught with issues.

Honestly, I think such restrictions are a fool's errand. Both smokeless powder and automatic actions have existed for over a century. Given current US culture, effectively restricting such simple technology would require draconian laws & enforcement of those laws. This is actually a more difficult problem than previous failed attempts to restrict alcohol and other drugs, as the government needs a constant supply of firearms and ammunition.

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

#254

Post by Polizeiposaune »

ancientorange wrote: post #227
Teever wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll still need some DRM in the printer so it will only accept signed gcode that came from the the slicer. Otherwise it's pretty trivial for someone to just bypass the slicer and hand write the gcode.

Unable to find the article quickly, but, I read a compelling perspective recently: DoD vendors seeking to restrict use of 3d printed replacement parts that they would normally supply. There was some speculative tie-in with the recent wave of consumer level regulation.

Meanwhile, the US Army has delegated authority to 3d-print replacement parts to commanders in the field:

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/09/army-allowing-commanders...

“We’re basically saying, ‘Hey colonel, hey general, you have to make the decision. If a door handle is broken on an ISV, you need to get it into the field. If you think that replacement door handle is sufficient, send it out.’

“A lot of howitzers are down right now for very simple pieces that we could 3D print and have known how to 3D print, and actually have the design files to 3D print, but we haven’t done it,” Driscoll said. “So we, the Army, have kicked off a very aggressive approach to that.”

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

#255

Post by jocular »

rpmisms wrote: post #215

As an unabashed American, guns are amazing and an insanely important part of our national culture. Any attempt to diminish this is an attack on the culture of America. We are a nation of dangerous freedoms and matching individual responsibility. In order to maintain a functional country without ruining what makes America special, we need to simply actually enforce laws and I'll take apart in making our national cultu…

Put down the Kool-aid.

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

#256

Post by duxup »

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…

I remember the hysterical "ban algorithms" type legislation that kept showing up in states for a while.

But like all humans we're often ok as long as it is "our guy" or "our algorithm".

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

#257

Post by rolph »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #252
rolph wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i mean speed and consistency, compared to manually CnC [crank n curse] cutting, or printing. if you set up your job so that you print a block of, lets say 4 lower receivers for a stoner style firearm. and you ran a number of printers, you start an arsenal, for a fire team, not just a lonewolf, and that scares people.

You know what’s even faster and cheaper than building a 3d printing gun factory? Just buying a bunch of lower receivers. There are plenty available for less than $50. Hell, there are companies that sell them in 3 packs. If you are trying to build an arsenal you can just go to a gun store, there’s no limit on how many you can buy at once. If you don’t want the purchase to be background checked go to one of the many st…

the crux of fear is that "the enemy" may enter the country, hunkerdown, and anonymously construct the chattels of an assault.

in that threat model, appearances on camera buying anything related to a "mission" are going to be avoided.

no one, not even an FFL will see your face, if its all made from scratch.

this fear of takeover by a "hostile aliens" is quite alive, despite the promises of the GunControlAct

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

#258

Post by linksnapzz »

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.

AFAIK, nobody uses fulminate of mercury in primers anymore.

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

#259

Post by linksnapzz »

nine_k wrote: post #174
hypeatei wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any real attempt to regulate guns Any real attempt would need to be at the national level, not that I would advocate for it, but it's simply a pipe dream to create a "gun free zone" in a country with 100s of millions of firearms. There are plenty of gun enthusiasts in California, they just don't flaunt it or talk about it.

A gun-free zone is not such a good idea, much like an encryption-free zone would be, or an alcohol-free zone (the latter has been tried). I would rather go for Swiss-stye mandatory gun training, and keeping a gun in (almost) every home. But, like the Swiss, I would require not just storing the gun in a certified safe box, but also providing an ID + a proof of mental sanity, and registering the gun. That would raise a…

I'm fascinated by the concept of "proof of sanity". I suppose that when dealing with the Swiss, this might be an easier task than in the US.
Post reply on HN