The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by esseph » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 1:56 AM UTC

tim-tday wrote: post #152

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!)?

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

It is also regulated by federal law and enforced by a whole ass branch of the federal government called the ATF. :P

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

#272

Post by mothballed » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 1:58 AM UTC

jubilanti wrote: post #155

mothballed wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes of course. My point is we've gotten around the contentious aspects of calling it a 'license' by basically doing a similar thing but evading challenge by disqualifying anyone that wouldn't qualify for the 'license.' If you exclude everyone that wouldn't qualify for the 'inclusion' you can emulate a license with pretty good approximation.

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

#273

Post by robot-wrangler » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 1:59 AM UTC

favorited wrote: post #99

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…

> 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. Why would you buy a pipe at Home Depot? A gun barrel is not a firearm, and is not required to be registered or serialized. You can drive to Arizona or Nevada and buy an actual barrel, with rifling, manufactured to meet well-known specifications, without showing an ID.…

I'd guess the bring-back-DRM lobbyists are all automotive interests, whether it's OEM or the existing after-market people. Replacing mirror housings and stuff even for cheap cars has got to be one of the highest margin businesses out there, and lux cars? Insane

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

#274

Post by esseph » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 2:00 AM UTC

15155 wrote: post #51

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people What are bullets and shell casings made out of again?

> What are bullets and shell casings made out of again?

Usually non-ferrous metals like brass, lead, and copper unless you live closer to Russia, then you may end up with steel-case.

That's besides the point though, the barrel of the gun will be steel.

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

#275

Post by lynndotpy » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 2:01 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #266

lynndotpy wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a proof of mental sanity A "proof of mental sanity" would be a far more concerning overreach than 3D printer bans or gun bans, especially as we see things which are mandatory in a society become something tantamount to personhood. I don't really know how one would even envision implementing such a thing.

Can you get a driver's license if you're visibly insane? The same standard should apply to getting a gun. A gun is comparably lethal.

That is different than the proposed test for sanity.

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

#276

Post by nine_k » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 2:05 AM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #217

nine_k wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 have never lived in a country where people are allowed to keep guns. That scares the crap out of me. Not just because of random strangers. I went through a mental health crisis, and there was a dark time where if I had had a gun I would be dead now. No amount of lockers or safe boxes or mental health tests would have saved me from that gun. And wtf do you need a gun for anyway? I have never, not once, been in a sit…

> And wtf do you need a gun for anyway?

One of the reasons that Switzerland, a country te size of Bay Area, with 9M current population, has not been overrun by the many wars in Europe for last 200 years is that every citizen is expected to fight back, without formally joining a military force for that. All men have to serve in the military for a couple of months to get the basic training, obtain and master a small arms weapon, and keep it where they live. (The ammo is not provided though.) Every few years the citizens should show up for several weeks of refresher training.

This is very close to the idea that an armed population is a backstop against tyranny, but much better implemented.

Per-capita firearm-related deaths in Switzerland are 7 times lower than in the US, and firearm-related homicide rate, 20 times lower. Truth be told, firearm ownership per capita is still about 4 times lower in Switzerland.

Maybe they also are doing something more right with mentally ill people, who in the US often receive little help.

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

#277

Post by Ferret7446 » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 2:06 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #165

lq9AJ8yrfs wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think California already has a suitable moniker: the (fool's) gold state.

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

#278

Post by rolph » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 2:06 AM UTC

linksnapzz wrote: post #265

rolph wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

blackpowder is just barely chemistry, more like engineering. carbon, sulphur, and potassium nitrate, in a particular ratio. potassium nitrate is watched, and reported in large quantities, or particular form, but can be manufactured by most people that can follow a recipe. regulating the propellant cant stop it from being made. also someone really didnt think it through by regulating "receivers" they regulated what is…

Sigh. None of the ammunition used in modern (i.e. made in the past 125 years) uses black powder propellant.

black powder is cheap and easy to make, its also dirty, slow expanding, very smokey. but when there is no powder available, blackpowder is the most expedient thing.

its also low gas pressure so if you are manufacturing from tentative material, you really should load with black powder, and use enough that it wont squib.

there are a few videos still around, where people load with smokeless powder in a musket, or muzzle loader, instead of blackpowder.

this will blow your barrel open.

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

#279

Post by marcus_holmes » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 2:06 AM UTC

engineer_22 wrote: post #242

marcus_holmes wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never lived in a country where people are allowed to keep guns. That scares the crap out of me. Not just because of random strangers. I went through a mental health crisis, and there was a dark time where if I had had a gun I would be dead now. No amount of lockers or safe boxes or mental health tests would have saved me from that gun. And wtf do you need a gun for anyway? I have never, not once, been in a sit…

I'm sorry you went through a difficult time of your life, I can relate. I would like to point out a gun doesn't make destroying oneself any easier. They are heavy and cold and they have a particular smell, they taste like metal, and the hole in the end of the barrel so strongly implies destruction that even pointing it at oneself carries incredible gravity. Many people that purchase a gun for this purpose abandon the…

I joined the cadets at school. I've shot pistols, rifles, even a Bren machine gun, which was fun. I'm under no illusions that guns in movies are realistic ;)

edit: and the statistics on gun suicide contradict your point, which I missed earlier [0]

Which partly drives my curiousity around this (and I realise that my tone on the original question was harsher than I meant - this is genuine curiosity). I just cannot envisage a situation where a gun would improve matters. I've been in a few fights, have some scars. Even in those situations, having a gun would not have improved the situation, and might very well have killed me. So, yeah, I'm really curious about why you think making guns more widely available would be good?

[0] https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2...

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

#280

Post by jasonlotito » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 2:09 AM UTC

elephanlemon wrote: post #263

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.

Any gun company caught funding anything remotely anti-2A would be met with an unbelievably negative reaction from the firearms community and face boycotts and massive reputational damage. It absolutely would not be worth it for them to do this. I can maybe see the arguments that perhaps it’s really a proxy for the anti right to repair groups, but absolutely not the firearms manufacturers.

> Any gun company caught funding anything remotely anti-2A would be met with an unbelievably negative reaction from the firearms community and face boycotts and massive reputational damage.

This is not true. They currently fund people and policies that are 100% anti-2A without any pushback. It's just a matter of fooling the people into accepting the anti-2A stuff you do support.