3D Printing is a hobby of mine and the article is from Adafruit, and I'm approaching this discussion from the perspective of a hobbiest and would like to discuss it with other hobbiests, so I put...
3D Printing is a hobby of mine and the article is from Adafruit, and I'm approaching this discussion from the perspective of a hobbiest and would like to discuss it with other hobbiests, so I put it in ~hobbies, but if it's a bit too much on the "Current event", "US news", or "US Politics" spectrum then feel free to move it where it best fits.
Also I am not entirely intending this to be a political discussion, but I guess politics are intrinsically involved when discussing the passing of bills and whatnot that relate to your hobby.
I have a few questions I'd like to posit that can hopefully spark some conversation and help me understand why this is such a big deal right now of all times.
How big of a problem are ghost guns ACTUALLY that these bills and the infrastructure we'd have to invest in for this are necessary? Like where are the statistics of ghost guns, and specifically ghost guns with 3D Printed parts, being used in crimes? I feel like it's very niche and the average criminal isn't using them, but that's an uninformed feeling based on how I don't see any kind of articles about it other than Luigi Mangioni.
With all that being said, I do recognize an issue with gun violence, but I'm just asking how much does 3D Printing truly work into that to justify these bills.
(Disclaimer for the following: I am not intending this to devolve into an argument of politics, I'm just calling out the logical discrepancies between what the supporters of these bills are saying and what they are doing/supporting as it's very frustrating to watch play out in real time.) Politically, the states and representatives that are putting these bills out are predominantly left wing, but at the same time they are criticizing the right wing federal government of illegal activities, over-reach, corruption, and fascism/authoritarianism, yet they also somehow trust the right wing DOJ they've been screaming from the rooftops is corrupt, enough to collaborate with them on an approved list of 3D Printers that send data to and track exactly what people are 3D Printing from inside their own homes?
Not to mention the logic of openly and publicly calling the federal government fascist and authoritarian at the same time as openly supporting bills and that contribute to the disarmament of their state citizens?
How is it that not a single person seems to have explained to any of these people how 3D Printing or CNC works? None of these bills address functionally how it will work and are based on unrealistic premises that the machines themselves are somehow smart enough to know what they're printing. Printers and CNC machines have no brains, they are essentially motorized Etch-A-Sketch's, the files are essentially just instructions for motors along an axis on where to move and at what speed. That's it.
On that note, How would they even detect gun parts? 3D printable weapon files aren't just gun shaped at all. How will they know the difference between a 3D Printable hot glue gun comfort grip, a rubber band gun, and an actual gun part? What about cosplay weapons? Not to mention most actual 3D Printable weapons are just a lot of obscure parts that are not inherently gun shaped or identifiable as gun parts, and there are literally thousands of different 3D Printable gun designs out there with parts that can be remixed by anyone with access to CAD software.
How do they expect to even enforce this when people can literally source their own parts to create 3D Printers from scratch? How many taxpayer resources are they expecting to put into enforcement? Is there going to be a 3D Printer registry? Permit system?
This is a foolish solution to a problem that only exists because of the way federal and state gun laws are written. The issue with “ghost guns” is that the part of a gun that is legally considered...
Exemplary
This is a foolish solution to a problem that only exists because of the way federal and state gun laws are written.
The issue with “ghost guns” is that the part of a gun that is legally considered a firearm (and therefore is what you need a background check to buy) is generally the receiver. Receivers do not (typically) have to withstand the sorts of pressures and stress that, say, a barrel would, so they can be 3d printed fairly easily. The barrel and other parts can be bought online or in a store with no check, since they aren’t legally firearms.
As you note, it has always been broadly legal to make firearms at home (regulations differ by state), but historically that would require access to mills, lathes, etc. and the skills to run such equipment, neither of which most people have - so homemade guns were sort of a novelty/oddity.
3d printers have lowered the barrier to entry, so it’s now fairly trivial for a mildly technical capable person to start printing whatever they want - including firearm receivers.
A more elegant and effective solution (which other countries do, by the way) would be to change the regulated component to something like the barrel, where the barrier to entry for manufacture is quite high.
This wouldn’t solve every scenario - slamfire Home Depot shotguns will always be easy to make and impossible to control, and there are some 3d printed designs that would slip through. It would, however, better address the likelihood of a random person buying a cheap 3d printer and building a fully functional AR15 or Glock clone with off the shelf parts.
What's a "war gun"? Barrels aren't just a metal tube with a hole through the middle, they have rifling to spin the projectile and a chamber that is meant to hold specific cartridge. Comparatively,...
What's a "war gun"?
Barrels aren't just a metal tube with a hole through the middle, they have rifling to spin the projectile and a chamber that is meant to hold specific cartridge. Comparatively, a paintball barrel is just a tube with a specific sized hole through the middle.
I mean... it depends on the barrel. In their most basic form, they really are just a tube with a hole through a middle. You can happily fire shotgun shells out of most 3/4" ID metal pipe, and a...
I mean... it depends on the barrel. In their most basic form, they really are just a tube with a hole through a middle. You can happily fire shotgun shells out of most 3/4" ID metal pipe, and a lot of them won't even explode, and it will definitely kill someone looking through the other end. Firearms aren't fundamentally that complicated.
I can kill someone with a bit of pipe, a ball bearing, and my air compressor. Doesn't make it a gun. All barrels are tubes, not all tubes are barrels. An actual barrel is chambered for a specific...
I can kill someone with a bit of pipe, a ball bearing, and my air compressor. Doesn't make it a gun. All barrels are tubes, not all tubes are barrels. An actual barrel is chambered for a specific cartridge and has rifling (most shotguns notwithstanding, but people also aren't printing shotguns) and is the item that is most often purchased third party when 3D printing a firearm. It is possible to DIY through various means, but isn't as easy as download file+print, which is the main point.
I have a Bridgeport milling machine, I can make something like an entire Beretta M9 or AR15 from scratch, but the entire point of anti-3D-printed-gun legislation is the fact that it takes the skill out of being able to create one. You'll never be able to stop a skilled individual from creating something, but you can put in barriers to stop the lowest common denominator from doing so.
Not to say this legislation would work, because it wouldn't, but that is (pun intended) the aim of it. Legislating the gun isn't even the way to go about it, legislating the ammunition is. No one is out there making ammo from scratch.
You sure about that? Feel free to enlighten me as I have no expertise or interest whatsoever in this area, but I've had someone who's been shooting as a hobby tell me that they've made their own...
No one is out there making ammo from scratch.
You sure about that? Feel free to enlighten me as I have no expertise or interest whatsoever in this area, but I've had someone who's been shooting as a hobby tell me that they've made their own ammunition because they deemed purchasing new one all the time to expensive. I suppose that's only possible for certain types of ammunition, but I've honestly got no idea about specifics.
Correct. They are purchasing new primers and smokeless powder and reloading previously fired brass casing. Actually making new powder and primer is difficult and dangerous.
Correct. They are purchasing new primers and smokeless powder and reloading previously fired brass casing. Actually making new powder and primer is difficult and dangerous.
@AndreasChris, nukeman is correct. Reloaders don't make anything from scratch. They might cast lead bullets, but that's the closest they get to doing so. They aren't making powder, they aren't...
@AndreasChris, nukeman is correct. Reloaders don't make anything from scratch. They might cast lead bullets, but that's the closest they get to doing so. They aren't making powder, they aren't making primers, they aren't jacketing bullets (most bullets are lead core with a copper jacket), they aren't stamping brass into casings.
Reloaders are the equivalent of following the instructions on a package of ramen.
I mean, it'd make it an airgun. If you added a way to hold a cartridge and a firing pin, you'd have a firearm. Zip guns are still guns. It wouldn't be a good or accurate or reliable or safe gun,...
I can kill someone with a bit of pipe, a ball bearing, and my air compressor. Doesn't make it a gun.
I mean, it'd make it an airgun. If you added a way to hold a cartridge and a firing pin, you'd have a firearm. Zip guns are still guns.
It wouldn't be a good or accurate or reliable or safe gun, but it would be a gun. The metallurgy in the iron hand cannons used by the ming dynasty was far inferior to modern steel plumbing pipes, and they definitely weren't rifles, but they were still used effectively to kill thousands of people in warfare.
I don't think we're anywhere close to the danger of unskilled laymen being able to produce reliable, high performing modern firearms with cheap off the shelf 3d printers. You can produce something pretty decent, it still takes a good amount of skill though.
The conversation is about barrels of modern firearms and 3D printed versions of them. I have no interest in continuing a reddit-esque technically correct for every iteration of the definition of...
The conversation is about barrels of modern firearms and 3D printed versions of them. I have no interest in continuing a reddit-esque technically correct for every iteration of the definition of any word debate.
I'm not bringing it up to have a technically correct gotcha, I'm bringing it up because that's exactly the use cases that regulation the post addresses is attempting to target. A career criminal...
I'm not bringing it up to have a technically correct gotcha, I'm bringing it up because that's exactly the use cases that regulation the post addresses is attempting to target.
A career criminal isn't going to 3d print a gun. They're going to get a stolen hi point off the street for a hundred bucks that will reliably cycle thousands of rounds.
A normal citizen who wants a gun isn't going to 3d print one either. They'll just go buy one at a gun store.
The only type of person that would 3d print a gun for use in a crime is someone doing an extremely hi profile assassination, where a lot of effort will be put into finding the source of the gun to make a positive ID, or who can't otherwise get their hands on one because they're a felon and also don't have criminal connections.
Those types of use cases don't need a high performing firearm that will reliably fire hundreds of rounds. It only needs to work once or twice and get the bullet into someone's body from a few feet away.
So it's relevant when we talk about how hard it is to machine and harden a barrel. A barrel doesn't need to be properly machined and hardened to be deadly. It just needs to contain the pressures of a round firing one time.
I thought that barrels were fairly easy to manufacture these days via some form of electrochemical machining with a 3D printed rig? Disclaimer: I don't actually do any of this myself so I might be...
I thought that barrels were fairly easy to manufacture these days via some form of electrochemical machining with a 3D printed rig? Disclaimer: I don't actually do any of this myself so I might be totally wrong, but have some knowledge of it due to being fairly involved in 3D printing.
That has been around a few years, but it is rifling a barrel only, Not machining the chamber. Which is why I specified that a barrel is not just a tube. This is the chamber dimensions of a 9mm...
That has been around a few years, but it is rifling a barrel only, Not machining the chamber. Which is why I specified that a barrel is not just a tube. This is the chamber dimensions of a 9mm firearm. This is the chamber dimensions for an AR15, not including the actual barrel features or extension necessary to work in an AR15. This isn't being done (or even understood) by the unskilled and isn't being 3D printed.
Literally covered in the sentence after your quoted response. The conversation is about barrels of modern firearms and 3D printed versions of them. I have no interest in continuing a reddit-esque...
Literally covered in the sentence after your quoted response. The conversation is about barrels of modern firearms and 3D printed versions of them. I have no interest in continuing a reddit-esque technically correct for every iteration of the definition of any word debate.
A barrel can be rifled and shaped with just a 3d printer through a process called ECM. Basically you print a mandrel, put some copper wire into the places where you want to cut the rifling, and...
A barrel can be rifled and shaped with just a 3d printer through a process called ECM. Basically you print a mandrel, put some copper wire into the places where you want to cut the rifling, and then put it in a bucket of salt water and connect it to a power supply.
You could restrict hydraulic piping, but that has a ton of legal applications and I expect it would be difficult.
I'm thinking of the FGC-9. The ECM tool not just 3d printed, but you file down a stainless rod to the right shape for the chamber by hand, then glue it into a 3-d printed jig to machine the...
I'm thinking of the FGC-9. The ECM tool not just 3d printed, but you file down a stainless rod to the right shape for the chamber by hand, then glue it into a 3-d printed jig to machine the chamber. I haven't personally done it, yet at least. I got as far as making the ECM tools including the barrel cutter then got bored of the project.
Like they reference with Home Depot, a chain-link fence post with some screws in front of some explosive at the end is a single use firearm. Most of any firearm can be wood or plastic or epoxy...
Like they reference with Home Depot, a chain-link fence post with some screws in front of some explosive at the end is a single use firearm. Most of any firearm can be wood or plastic or epoxy filled blue jeans.
The chamber of a firearm has to withstand some relatively intense pressures to function so it has to be some form of hardened metal. That would be the barrel, the breach face, and the firing pin and that's most of it. You probably want the parts around that to be metal too, partly because they're moving metal parts interfacing with other moving metal parts. But if longevity isn't necessary that's less necessary too. Manufacturing all that to a precision that produces a working firearm is a non-trivial issue, and it's metalworking, not 3D printing.
A paintball gun doesn't need to be hardened metal, it just has to be a tube.
That then runs into other issues, you can harden metal at home, but it's at least looking at the core of the problem. Banning unregistered 3D printing / CNC is like trying to control automobile deaths by banning aftermarket car parts. You would maybe approach single digit gains in safety figures, but you aren't looking at the actual problem. You're playing for votes by saying you're doing something.
I didn’t understand the Home Depot reference, so I guess I forgot about it. Presumably we’ll eventually reach the point where 3d printers can replicate themselves. If that happens, legislation...
I didn’t understand the Home Depot reference, so I guess I forgot about it.
Banning unregistered 3D printing / CNC is like trying to control automobile deaths by banning aftermarket car parts. You would maybe approach single digit gains in safety figures, but you aren't looking at the actual problem. You're playing for votes by saying you're doing something.
Presumably we’ll eventually reach the point where 3d printers can replicate themselves. If that happens, legislation won’t be able to do much about it.
Oh we're past that. There's usually some wiggle room in that claim, you need a processor and motors of some kind, but those are about the only off the shelf parts needed. There's plenty of open...
Oh we're past that.
There's usually some wiggle room in that claim, you need a processor and motors of some kind, but those are about the only off the shelf parts needed. There's plenty of open source printer OSs.
As far as I know, it comes down to metal and silicon parts not being included. I went to a talk that Vernor Vinge gave several years ago, he described self replicating 3d printers as a singularity...
As far as I know, it comes down to metal and silicon parts not being included.
I went to a talk that Vernor Vinge gave several years ago, he described self replicating 3d printers as a singularity event. I don’t think we’re there quite yet but I suppose that’s drifting pretty off topic for this discussion.
Hobbyist 3D printers originated from the RepRap project, the goal of which was to enable full replication of a 3D printer with minimal "vitamins." That goal has sort of gone to the wayside, as...
Hobbyist 3D printers originated from the RepRap project, the goal of which was to enable full replication of a 3D printer with minimal "vitamins." That goal has sort of gone to the wayside, as people tend to care about printing more than printers at this point, and the quality of the machine heavily correlates to frame rigidity and various things that are better solved with parts that are not plastic.
The physics/benefits of a rifled barrel apply to just about any type of projectile, not just bullets. Paintball guns, pellet guns, and even BB guns with rifled barrels are ubiquitous.
The physics/benefits of a rifled barrel apply to just about any type of projectile, not just bullets. Paintball guns, pellet guns, and even BB guns with rifled barrels are ubiquitous.
Rifled barrels exist for paintball guns, they’re just pretty useless. Regardless, it’s not the rifling that would be the determining factor in my post - it’s the ability to withstand and contain...
Rifled barrels exist for paintball guns, they’re just pretty useless.
Regardless, it’s not the rifling that would be the determining factor in my post - it’s the ability to withstand and contain repeated high pressure detonations, which is what meaningfully distinguishes the barrel of a pellet gun from one for a hunting rifle.
I think the major takeaway here is how quickly the idea of "3D printers reporting themselves" falls apart under almost any scrutiny. From the scant statistics that are out there, it's pretty minor...
I think the major takeaway here is how quickly the idea of "3D printers reporting themselves" falls apart under almost any scrutiny.
How big of a problem are ghost guns ACTUALLY... ?
From the scant statistics that are out there, it's pretty minor in terms of crimes committed with a firearm. There's been a lot more seized 3d printed guns as of late, but given the accessibility of firearms in the US, it's kind of a moot point. There's absolutely an argument to be made about how one could say... flood the zone with cheap and accessible firearms, or could arm a militia with them, but that's beyond the point.
So it's a minuscule problem that could absolutely become a bigger one, if say... political violence and instability becomes more widespread.
Politically, [this is a left wing movement that is currently in opposition to a right wing administration frequently criticized for authoritarian tendencies]
I mean, yeah. I think the California Democrats are putting forth legislation that assumes that the Federal Government will act lawfully and without overreach. I agree that legislation that increases surveillance in an environment where there are concerns about increased surveillance is, at minimum, contradictory to the political messaging of the California Democrats.
It's pretty strange to see this legislation be put forward at this moment. I could see an argument that "this is for when things go back to normal" being made. Or there could be some sort of theory of harm reduction being important regardless of political climate, but it's a pretty tone deaf argument to this moment, not even getting into the variety of other issues.
How is it that not a single person seems to have explained to any of these people how 3D Printing or CNC works?
I agree, this legislation seems to entirely misunderstand how a 3D printer works on a variety of different levels.
I don't want to suggest that the bill was put forward deliberately misunderstanding 3d printers, or that the politicians who created this bill are incompetent. Unfortunately, I find myself struggling to make an argument otherwise.
How do they expect to even enforce this when people can literally source their own parts to create 3D Printers from scratch?
Again, agreed. I would assume that the Bill would essentially make 'non-reporting' 3D printers illegal in California. Presumably, "California Legal" 3D printers would have to have a component that can send logs of 3D printed components to the government via wifi. (I'm not even going to pretend that a 3D printer could be given a component to know it's printing gun parts.)
Even with that though, people can still assemble 3D printers of their own volition, and I'm sure that it would just mean that people would find a way to prevent monitoring, if they were actually doing anything nefarious.
Additional Thoughts
This sort of legislature is so blatantly unconstitutional under the 2nd, and 4th Amendments, and almost certainly the Commerce Clause as well. I genuinely only seeing it getting immediately voided by the Supreme Court, outside of any political shenanigans.
I also think there's a risk of the Streisand Effect coming into play here. Seriously, most people don't use 3D printers, and those who do aren't mass producing firearms. As of now "3D printed gun" is more of a punchline than an actual threat. I actually think there is a much bigger risk of people realizing how easy it is to make 3D printed weapons and wanting to try it themselves.
I think there's a separate issue here about 3D printing high capacity magazines, and then using them with a legal weapon.
Is this just some sort of industry ploy to make 3D printing less accessible / attractive, forcing people to buy non 3D printed goods? It's a really dumb conspiracy theory, so I don't want to get too into it, but yeah.
This kind of reminds me of something that went on a few years with my hobby, FPV Drones. A few years ago, the FAA passed a regulation where drones above a certain size (250g, extremely light; most...
This kind of reminds me of something that went on a few years with my hobby, FPV Drones. A few years ago, the FAA passed a regulation where drones above a certain size (250g, extremely light; most FPV freestyle drones are around 700g) needed to have a remote ID module. This module hooks into your flight controller's telemetry and constantly announces the drone's position, altitude, speed, the position of the operator, and an ID number that could be read to find who the operator is. These things are broadcast cleartext and can be picked up by phones over wifi.
There's a big fine if you don't fly with the module, but the module adds weight, is expensive, and most crucially, announces your presence to people who have no idea about UAV laws, safety, and what you are and are not allowed to do with a drone, but they just don't like the idea of drones so that information gets used to harass you.
Predictably, virtually no one in the hobby uses them. The FAA is spread far too thin to enforce this regulation on hundreds of thousands of people that mostly aren't causing any problems. Local police don't even know about that regulation, and regulating airspace is out of their jurisdiction anyway. If you buy a prebuilt drone from a big company like DJI, they have them built in, but a lot of the hobby is building your own drones, and no one ever includes a remoteID module in their parts list.
I doubt this will ever change, unless something dramatic like terrorist attacks with FPV drones ever become common.
I see this proposed legislation being the exact same thing if it passes. If I buy a Bambu printer and then jailbreak its nanny gun reporting software, who is going to know that? If I build a printer and don't include the gun reporting module, how would anyone know? Are the police going to go door-to-door searching for illegal 3d printers? Probably not. This is just another law without even an inkling of a realistic enforcement mechanism that gets passed so that a legislator can pat himself on the back. It goes into the endless corpus of state law that no one pays attention to or cares about until it gets used to make some political point one day, but realistically it's just a waste of everyone's time.
I personally think there should be a bar that needs to be passed for legislation; if it's not realistically enforceable, it shouldn't be constitutional. Otherwise it just gets used to selectively persecute people you don't like.
My theory is that this bill will be designed to do just this. It will be impossible to actually enforce, so it will selectively be applied where useful to the law enforcement. Want to search that...
Otherwise it just gets used to selectively persecute people you don't like.
My theory is that this bill will be designed to do just this. It will be impossible to actually enforce, so it will selectively be applied where useful to the law enforcement.
Want to search that house but don't have a reason? Having "Person having 3D Printer means you can get a free warrant" is another tool in the box to skirt that pesky 4th Amendment.
Hopefully the bill will be dead on Arrival, or sued into oblivion, but it's still an ominous trend in my opinion.
I'm less of a conspiracy person than that, but it doesn't actually matter, since you're right, that's how laws like this end up getting used either way. I think the mechanism is more like...
My theory is that this bill will be designed to do just this. It will be impossible to actually enforce, so it will selectively be applied where useful to the law enforcement.
I'm less of a conspiracy person than that, but it doesn't actually matter, since you're right, that's how laws like this end up getting used either way. I think the mechanism is more like politician A needs some landmark legislation that doesn't actually do anything but sounds good, and later on, police chief B or president C uses that overly broad legislation to trample on people's rights. Even if there's no collusion or grand conspiracy with ulterior motives at first, the rights get trampled just the same.
Imma be honest, that FAA rule seems pretty reasonable and warranted to me. I doubt the number of custom FPV drone makers is anywhere close to the number of hobbyists who buy from DJI and Insta360...
Imma be honest, that FAA rule seems pretty reasonable and warranted to me. I doubt the number of custom FPV drone makers is anywhere close to the number of hobbyists who buy from DJI and Insta360 and whatnot.
Drones can be seriously problematic in a number of ways and having the FAA regulate them in this way is perfectly reasonable.
Regardless if if you think it's reasonable or not, it's impossible to enforce. Yes, you can force big manufacturers to build the technology into their consumer drones, but you can't force smaller...
Regardless if if you think it's reasonable or not, it's impossible to enforce. Yes, you can force big manufacturers to build the technology into their consumer drones, but you can't force smaller ones to, especially ones based outside of the US, and you can't force independent builders to, which a huge percentage of hobbyist drone pilots are. Same goes for people into 3d printing as a hobby.
So I made a relevant comment relating to the political stances and how at least from my point of view left wing voters seems to be warming up to the 2nd Amendment here, but I definitely agree with...
I mean, yeah. I think the California Democrats are putting forth legislation that assumes that the Federal Government will act lawfully and without overreach. I agree that legislation that increases surveillance in an environment where there are concerns about increased surveillance is, at minimum, contradictory to the political messaging of the California Democrats.
It's pretty strange to see this legislation be put forward at this moment. I could see an argument that "this is for when things go back to normal" being made. Or there could be some sort of theory of harm reduction being important regardless of political climate, but it's a pretty tone deaf argument to this moment, not even getting into the variety of other issues.
So I made a relevant comment relating to the political stances and how at least from my point of view left wing voters seems to be warming up to the 2nd Amendment here, but I definitely agree with the strangeness of the timing.
As I said in that comment, the more paranoid pattern recognition part of my brain almost thinks the timing is very suspicious for democratic leaders to be going this hard into this kind of niche gun control at this particular moment in time considering we've had gun violence issues for at least 30 years, including when left wing/democrats were in power and had more governmental power and influence, and these bills and potential solutions weren't as accelerated as they seem to be now. But now that the left wing of the US are all collectively afraid of authoritarian power grabs and fascist influence and government supported masked secret police kidnapping people out of the streets and their homes with no oversight or due process, suddenly we can successfully draft bills targeting gun violence and accelerate them through state legislatures? Where was this energy 10 years ago?
And to me, someone who has a great interest in history, particularly WWII, it does not any make sense to have someone compare those in power to fascists or authoritarians, and actively promote that narrative, at the same time as calling for gun control. Either they're just using "fascism" as a political buzzword to maintain their status as controlled opposition, or they truly have no insight into the destructive and oppressive nature of fascism and it's historical context.
I hate to say it, but to me the optics doesn't look great.
Again, agreed. I would assume that the Bill would essentially make 'non-reporting' 3D printers illegal in California. Presumably, "California Legal" 3D printers would have to have a component that can send logs of 3D printed components to the government via wifi. (I'm not even going to pretend that a 3D printer could be given a component to know it's printing gun parts.)
Even with that though, people can still assemble 3D printers of their own volition, and I'm sure that it would just mean that people would find a way to prevent monitoring, if they were actually doing anything nefarious.
Not to mention the fact that if you get one of these 3D printers, is it illegal for you to turn off your wifi? Will these need to be always connected to the internet to print? Some prints take days to print, you're telling me these printers will have to maintain a 100% stable internet connection the entire time and if it goes out, or if there's a server disconnect, you're entire screwed? That hobbyists will have to add "internet connection" to their already long list of things that can cause a print to fail?
To avoid dancing around the issue more than I already have, I'm just going to say it. This bill stinks of Something. I could come up with at least a dozen theories as to why the California...
To avoid dancing around the issue more than I already have, I'm just going to say it. This bill stinks of Something.
I could come up with at least a dozen theories as to why the California Democrats think this is legislation is worth bringing, but essentially they all boil down to incompetence, political theater, or some sort of ulterior motive.
I don't know who this bill is for, but it's absolutely not in the interests of the people of California.
Sorry, I have a bad habbit of re-reading my comments then adding to them in edits, but I did add this as you were responding, as it does relate to that: I've seen some people speculate that...
Sorry, I have a bad habbit of re-reading my comments then adding to them in edits, but I did add this as you were responding, as it does relate to that:
Is this just some sort of industry ploy to make 3D printing less accessible / attractive, forcing people to buy non 3D printed goods? It's a really dumb conspiracy theory, so I don't want to get too into it, but yeah.
I've seen some people speculate that lobbyists that oppose "right to repair" legislation are behind this sudden popularization, as in many cases 3D Printers threaten part of their business.
I've seen some more speculative theories suggest that the same billionaires pushing for internet ID registration and FaceID laws are also funding these initiatives as part of the wider effort to destroy anonymity. Also maybe Luigi Mangioni gave the billionaire class the fear of god when it comes to what a modern day guillotine looks like.
Nah, the California Dems just hate guns that much; and don’t understand how 3D-printing works, or that it wouldn’t substantially reduce gun crimes. Remember that while some Glock switches were...
Nah, the California Dems just hate guns that much; and don’t understand how 3D-printing works, or that it wouldn’t substantially reduce gun crimes. Remember that while some Glock switches were 3D-printed, many more were imported from China.
In this political era, I'm a little hesitant to rule out incompetence, but it being an example of Hanlon's Razor honestly wouldn't surprise me. I've said this elsewhere, but until we acknowledge...
In this political era, I'm a little hesitant to rule out incompetence, but it being an example of Hanlon's Razor honestly wouldn't surprise me.
I've said this elsewhere, but until we acknowledge the rest of the issues immediately surrounding gun violence in America, we're not really tackling the problem. I say that as a Leftist who's very pro 2nd Amendment.
Oh they are incompetent morons on the subject as well, don’t get me wrong. But many of them genuinely dislike firearms and don’t understand those who enjoy or use them (which contributes to their...
Oh they are incompetent morons on the subject as well, don’t get me wrong. But many of them genuinely dislike firearms and don’t understand those who enjoy or use them (which contributes to their outdated notions of “gun owners like bolt-actions and shotguns and revolvers, and they most hunt and shoot paper.” Newsflash, that hasn’t been true in decades. More gun owners these days are into self-defense and dynamic shooting, and use semi-auto rifles and pistols. Hell, most hunters these days use semi-auto, and ARs are popular among them too).
Definitely agree on needing to get to the root issue of culture/economics (even if we probably disagree on specifics). For mass shootings in particular, they were very rare in an era when firearms were arguably more culturally accepted, you could buy guns at J.C. Penney and Sears, and kids would have guns in their locker for hunting after school.
The thing is, this does absolutely nothing to stop ghost guns. 3d printed guns are still wildly impractical. They're weak, they're unreliable, and they break after a few shots. The most practical...
The thing is, this does absolutely nothing to stop ghost guns. 3d printed guns are still wildly impractical. They're weak, they're unreliable, and they break after a few shots. The most practical and reliable ghost guns are those produced from 80% lowers. They require extremely minimal tools and skill to assemble, and there are some states that regulate them, but lots of states where they don't, and they're extremely easy to get on the internet.
The fundamental problem is that guns really are not very complex. They're tubes that have a mechanism to hold a round in place while the primer is struck. You can build one out of a pipe, an end cap, a rubber band, and a nail. We're not talking about regulating nuclear weapons here.
There's literally nothing the government can do that can effectively stop sufficiently motivated people from building unregistered firearms in their garages. Screwing over everyone else who has no interest in doing that sort of thing makes absolutely no sense, and until there's widespread violence as the result of 3d printers, which we haven't even seen a shred of, the whole thing is a pointless, silly idea.
Especially when you consider that this is the fucking united states we're talking about. Virtually any adult in the country can drive 10 minutes to their nearest Walmart, and walk out 10 minutes later with their choice of firearm and ammunition for a hell of a lot cheaper and with way less effort than all but the most barebones 3d printers. Why are we worried about 3d printing?
Gun builders have been making firearms with 3D printers and hardware store parts, that remain operational after firing thousands of rounds, for years now. No receivers, no pre-made parts, DIY...
3d printed guns are still wildly impractical. They're weak, they're unreliable, and they break after a few shots.
Gun builders have been making firearms with 3D printers and hardware store parts, that remain operational after firing thousands of rounds, for years now. No receivers, no pre-made parts, DIY everything, fully automatic conversions, etc... thousands of rounds.
You can make reliable guns with 3d printed parts, but you can't print an entire gun that lasts more than a few rounds with a 3d printer yet. At least not without some extremely expensive, advanced...
You can make reliable guns with 3d printed parts, but you can't print an entire gun that lasts more than a few rounds with a 3d printer yet. At least not without some extremely expensive, advanced metal sintering printers that are way outside the range of non professionals.
Building a decent gun out of mostly 3d printed parts is still way harder and more expensive than just buying an 80% lower kit as well.
People have been tweaking the design of the Liberator to shoot dozens of rounds since 2013. That gun is completely 3D printed plastic except for the firing pin (that the OG Liberator used a nail...
but you can't print an entire gun that lasts more than a few rounds with a 3d printer yet. At least not without some extremely expensive, advanced metal sintering printers that are way outside the range of non professionals.
People have been tweaking the design of the Liberator to shoot dozens of rounds since 2013. That gun is completely 3D printed plastic except for the firing pin (that the OG Liberator used a nail for lmao).
I'm gonna be real with you: your notions of the capabilities of 3D printed guns are outdated by several years. That's not surprising, because the "3D gun building scene" moves really fast, and mostly exists as Discord servers and private forums. It's hard to keep up with and easy to lose track of. There are some public blogs/news sites you can read, and videos, mostly on Odysee not YouTube, you can watch that give an idea of what people have come up with. Most of the "envelope pushing" things aren't public though, you'll have to dig for those yourself.
For now, here's a video on Odysee where a guy shows off his 3D printed AK that he's put over 4,000 rounds through:
Good to know, I didn't realize how far the liberator has come. I will say that this still takes a considerable amount of skill and experience to do though. Until someone can go to Walmart, buy a...
Good to know, I didn't realize how far the liberator has come.
I will say that this still takes a considerable amount of skill and experience to do though. Until someone can go to Walmart, buy a Bambu printer, download an STL and have a functioning gun the next day, this really isn't a big concern of mine.
For it to matter, you'd have to make it harder to just skip all those steps and buy the gun from Walmart instead.
And even then, I've seen the tutorials on building these guns and how precisely tuned you need your printer to be. So even then it still requires a relatively niche skillset to build 3D printable...
And even then, I've seen the tutorials on building these guns and how precisely tuned you need your printer to be.
So even then it still requires a relatively niche skillset to build 3D printable guns, and a vague understanding of guns to begin with, you're not just going to have the average 3D printing hobbyist be able to build a gun on a whim.
And if you have someone making a business out of building 3d printed ghost guns for criminals, I doubt they'll be slowed by restrictions on consumer level 3D Printers.
Some thoughts from someone who does not have a 3D printer but is somewhat familiar with how they operate. (1) See California AB 1263 as an example of where this could go. Lots of commentary on...
Some thoughts from someone who does not have a 3D printer but is somewhat familiar with how they operate.
(1) See California AB 1263 as an example of where this could go. Lots of commentary on that, but here's an interesting summary from CRPA, emphasis mine: "the part or parts must still be “clearly designed and intended” for use in manufacturing firearms. What this means exactly is not entirely clear from the language of the bill. As a result, when in doubt or otherwise unclear, it is again best to assume the product falls within the definition to avoid any liability concerns unless confirmed otherwise." This can give a lot of leeway in what to prosecute.
(2) In case anyone is interested in ghost gun statistics, there is a summary at https://worldmetrics.org/ghost-guns-statistics. Summary of that is it's anywhere from 6% of homicides (ATF 2021) or 8% of shootings (NYC 2022), to 35% of recovered crime guns (Philadelphia 2022).
(3) Politically, sometimes it's easier for someone to present something that could be promoted as dealing with a problem, even though it may only help with some symptoms in a small population at best, and doesn't really deal with the underlying issues.
It could be a quick and easy fix that can make some people feel good ("I'm making a difference!") while also making them not feel bad about ignoring the true problem which is much more difficult to solve.
(4) Economically, some rules like this end up increasing costs and / directing revenue in a specific direction.
Some vendors now have to deal with the headaches of additional rules, so they pass on costs to customers.
Maybe only certain, preferred vendors can now operate in that space. "Good" vendors might be the ones that can afford lobbyists, and they end up picking up the slack from other vendors who can no longer be competitive.
Overall, this doesn't seem like a great idea, whether you agree with the idea of "printing guns" or not.
I'll point out that ghost guns != 3d printed guns. The vast majority of ghost guns are built from 80% kits and have no 3d printed parts at all. Besides that, the US is a country that's absolutely...
I'll point out that ghost guns != 3d printed guns. The vast majority of ghost guns are built from 80% kits and have no 3d printed parts at all.
Besides that, the US is a country that's absolutely inundated with guns. Guns are more accessible here than anywhere else in the world. Professionally manufactured guns are cheaper, more reliable, and safer (for the operator). If I were doing virtually any kind of crime, it would be a much better option to just go to a gun store or gun show to get one.
It seems a lot better use of our effort to make that part harder before we start instituting authoritarian mandates on people who have no interest in guns at all.
Otherwise it seems like we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I wish it was easier to look at the sources of their datapoints, because their "Sources" list is just links to the homepages of government and organization websites, and not to any real studies or...
(2) In case anyone is interested in ghost gun statistics, there is a summary at https://worldmetrics.org/ghost-guns-statistics. Summary of that is it's anywhere from 6% of homicides (ATF 2021) or 8% of shootings (NYC 2022), to 35% of recovered crime guns (Philadelphia 2022).
I wish it was easier to look at the sources of their datapoints, because their "Sources" list is just links to the homepages of government and organization websites, and not to any real studies or papers. So I genuinely have no idea where specifically they got that data. Maybe I'm missing something as I'm not familiar with worldmetrics.org.
Mainly because I see datapoints like this:
3D printer sales for guns up 300% since 2020.
And I'm wondering how they got the data that people were getting 3D printers specifically for gun manufacturing, if that's self reported, from a survey, or what. Also what actual numbers are we looking at are.
Typically when large percentages are used in unsourced datapoints like this it's usually to lead people into a certain conclusion.
But another datapoint I would like to bring up is this, because the point you brought up is actually is about ghost guns in general, but not specifically 3D printed ghost guns.
95% of ghost guns are assembled from kits, not fully 3D printed.
Then I also see a datapoint like this:
3D-printed ghost guns increased 1,700% in recoveries 2017-2021.
And my first thought is that first, what are the hard numbers? Going from 1 ghost gun to 18 is a 1700% increase. My second thought is that 2017 is around when consumer 3D printers became a lot more accessible to consumers, so it's natural that number would increase as access increased, but again that's like saying that the amount of homemade ghost guns increases as access to home depot and raw parts increases.
Frankly a lot of these "statistics" are very leading and lack context, specifically around 3D printing.
(3) Politically, sometimes it's easier for someone to present something that could be promoted as dealing with a problem, even though it may only help with some symptoms in a small population at best, and doesn't really deal with the underlying issues.
It could be a quick and easy fix that can make some people feel good ("I'm making a difference!") while also making them not feel bad about ignoring the true problem which is much more difficult to solve.
The problem is, is that in my progressive and left-leaning circles, and the varied left wing spaces that I keep tabs on, recently there's been a huge shift towards being pro-gun in response to feeling unsafe in the current political environment. I'm starting to see more left leaning pro-2A gun organizations pop up, popularity with the Liberal Gun Club and Socialist Rifle Association, as well as educational content aimed at the left on arming yourself. I've even seen several female and trans content creators start doing "fit checks" with concealed handguns and showing how you can keep a concealed handgun while wearing skirts or cute outfits. I've seen subscriber counts for /r/liberalgunowners skyrocket recently, as well as anti-fascist veteran organizations start offering gun information.
Not to mention Luigi Mangione's popularity with left leaning people as well.
I just think a lot of these politicians are a bit out of touch right now and that's what draws such a stark contrast with what they're supporting. Because it seems that a lot of left are looking at the impunity that organizations like ICE are operating under and are starting to think that self defense is a good idea.
The more paranoid pattern recognition part of my brain almost thinks the timing is very suspicious for democratic leaders to be going this hard into gun control at this particular moment in time considering we've had gun violence issues for at least 30 years, including when left wing/democrats were in power and had more governmental control, and these bills and potential solutions weren't as accelerated as they seem to be now. But now that the left wing of the US are all collectively afraid of authoritarian power grabs and fascist influence and government supported secret police kidnapping innocent people out of their homes suddenly we can successfully draft bills targeting gun violence and accelerate them through state legislatures??? Where was this energy 10 years ago?
(4) Economically, some rules like this end up increasing costs and / directing revenue in a specific direction.
Some vendors now have to deal with the headaches of additional rules, so they pass on costs to customers.
Maybe only certain, preferred vendors can now operate in that space. "Good" vendors might be the ones that can afford lobbyists, and they end up picking up the slack from other vendors who can no longer be competitive.
I've seen some people speculate that lobbyists that oppose "right to repair" legislation are behind this sudden popularization, as in many cases 3D Printers threaten part of their business.
And the other problem is that 3D Printing is largely open source. Sure, you've got some closed source vendors, but even most of those are at least based off of open source designs. And that includes the software too.
You've got spaces like the Voron community who literally build 3D printers from scratch. There are kits, sure, but you can completely source every individual part yourself if you want to.
One point that, I think, no one else has said ... 3d-printed ghost guns are not a complete red herring. People do make them, and people do use them in crimes. But it's not common, and it's not...
One point that, I think, no one else has said ... 3d-printed ghost guns are not a complete red herring. People do make them, and people do use them in crimes. But it's not common, and it's not nearly as easy as people (politicians?) seem to think.
What is common, and easy, is any of a dozen other ways people get their hands on guns to commit crimes.
Ghost guns are not "the low-hanging fruit" in this situation.
Is this an issue in other countries? If so, how do they manage? If not, seems worth figuring out why and bringing that here than trying to do whatever this hopes to.
Is this an issue in other countries? If so, how do they manage? If not, seems worth figuring out why and bringing that here than trying to do whatever this hopes to.
Countries which don't have the rest of the gun supply chain legal would make it more difficult surely. I imagine it's a lot harder to 3d print gunpowder or bullets than a single use gun barrel.
Countries which don't have the rest of the gun supply chain legal would make it more difficult surely. I imagine it's a lot harder to 3d print gunpowder or bullets than a single use gun barrel.
That's what I'm thinking. Seems like we need to look at the gunpowder part more than the 3d printers if we aren't going to change much on the gun supply chain side of things, it seems like the...
That's what I'm thinking. Seems like we need to look at the gunpowder part more than the 3d printers if we aren't going to change much on the gun supply chain side of things, it seems like the more obvious solution to me? I'm not a gun guy though so maybe there's something I'm missing, like it being a more obvious 2nd amendment infringement.
Just to give you a bit of non-US perspective - if I want to buy a gun, parts for a gun, ammunition or gunpowder in the UK I need a firearms license. To get one of those I have to explain why I...
Just to give you a bit of non-US perspective - if I want to buy a gun, parts for a gun, ammunition or gunpowder in the UK I need a firearms license. To get one of those I have to explain why I need one to the satisfaction of the police, prove my mental health is in suitable shape, I need to prove I know how to handle things physically, have safe storage for all the stuff, have several character referees vouch for me and some other bits and pieces. I need to renew that licence every five years. I still can't own some types of gun or buy some kinds of ammo even if I have a license (full or semi-autos, all handguns, some of the nastier bullet types, some other niche things too like rocket launchers and so on).
I believe most of the world's countries have similar requirements, although I think the UK leans a little on the side of being more restrictive compared to many places. Personally I would prefer even stronger regulation here than we already have.
Maybe also jurisdiction dependent? Both major hardware stores here only sell electric models. There’s an online builder supplier that sells a PAT model with implies you might be able to get the...
Maybe also jurisdiction dependent? Both major hardware stores here only sell electric models. There’s an online builder supplier that sells a PAT model with implies you might be able to get the powder somewhere, but notably they don’t sell any themselves. Seems you might have to go through the same channels as for getting it for guns here.
Fair enough! I personally thought it was kinda crazy the first time I found it there. And that just anybody could buy it, as at the time there was no procedure in place to age-restrict anything we...
Fair enough! I personally thought it was kinda crazy the first time I found it there. And that just anybody could buy it, as at the time there was no procedure in place to age-restrict anything we sold.
I looked up the public testimony times and information for when my state(Washington) Senate would hear public comments. Unfortunately I was denied for the most recent one where they opened up...
I looked up the public testimony times and information for when my state(Washington) Senate would hear public comments.
Unfortunately I was denied for the most recent one where they opened up comments about these bills in particular.
I wish that 3d Printer communities would organize better to find out when these public comment things are and pool resources to show up or create ELI5 type PowerPoint presentations going over why this is a bad or stupid idea.
Also around finding angles to use that questions the foundation of these laws and bills.
Like trying to do research into industries that use additive and subtractive manufacturing, and how a bill like this would affect them financially. Either by having to upgrade the infrastructure to allow monitoring or the permitting and licensing and enforcement processes they'd have to follow. And tie that into how much it'd affect their bottom lines and manufacturing capabilities.
And then hope that these industries don't just push for consumer phrasing in the bill, and just kind of say "fuck any kind of regulation that comes near our manufacturing capabilities."
Why isn't this sort of monitoring software considered a constitutional rights violation under the fourth amendment? It took me a few minutes of thinking about it to realize, but I can't possibly...
Why isn't this sort of monitoring software considered a constitutional rights violation under the fourth amendment? It took me a few minutes of thinking about it to realize, but I can't possibly see how this isn't unreasonable search. Also, preventing distribution of Klipper, Marlin, or RFF (all 3D printer control firmware) would be a first amendment violation due to "code as speech," so at least that wouldn't be able to be restricted in a future bill?
3D Printing is a hobby of mine and the article is from Adafruit, and I'm approaching this discussion from the perspective of a hobbiest and would like to discuss it with other hobbiests, so I put it in ~hobbies, but if it's a bit too much on the "Current event", "US news", or "US Politics" spectrum then feel free to move it where it best fits.
Also I am not entirely intending this to be a political discussion, but I guess politics are intrinsically involved when discussing the passing of bills and whatnot that relate to your hobby.
I have a few questions I'd like to posit that can hopefully spark some conversation and help me understand why this is such a big deal right now of all times.
This is a foolish solution to a problem that only exists because of the way federal and state gun laws are written.
The issue with “ghost guns” is that the part of a gun that is legally considered a firearm (and therefore is what you need a background check to buy) is generally the receiver. Receivers do not (typically) have to withstand the sorts of pressures and stress that, say, a barrel would, so they can be 3d printed fairly easily. The barrel and other parts can be bought online or in a store with no check, since they aren’t legally firearms.
As you note, it has always been broadly legal to make firearms at home (regulations differ by state), but historically that would require access to mills, lathes, etc. and the skills to run such equipment, neither of which most people have - so homemade guns were sort of a novelty/oddity.
3d printers have lowered the barrier to entry, so it’s now fairly trivial for a mildly technical capable person to start printing whatever they want - including firearm receivers.
A more elegant and effective solution (which other countries do, by the way) would be to change the regulated component to something like the barrel, where the barrier to entry for manufacture is quite high.
This wouldn’t solve every scenario - slamfire Home Depot shotguns will always be easy to make and impossible to control, and there are some 3d printed designs that would slip through. It would, however, better address the likelihood of a random person buying a cheap 3d printer and building a fully functional AR15 or Glock clone with off the shelf parts.
When you say barrel, is this a general shape thing? Would it cover a paintball or
warwater gun?What's a "war gun"?
Barrels aren't just a metal tube with a hole through the middle, they have rifling to spin the projectile and a chamber that is meant to hold specific cartridge. Comparatively, a paintball barrel is just a tube with a specific sized hole through the middle.
I mean... it depends on the barrel. In their most basic form, they really are just a tube with a hole through a middle. You can happily fire shotgun shells out of most 3/4" ID metal pipe, and a lot of them won't even explode, and it will definitely kill someone looking through the other end. Firearms aren't fundamentally that complicated.
I can kill someone with a bit of pipe, a ball bearing, and my air compressor. Doesn't make it a gun. All barrels are tubes, not all tubes are barrels. An actual barrel is chambered for a specific cartridge and has rifling (most shotguns notwithstanding, but people also aren't printing shotguns) and is the item that is most often purchased third party when 3D printing a firearm. It is possible to DIY through various means, but isn't as easy as download file+print, which is the main point.
I have a Bridgeport milling machine, I can make something like an entire Beretta M9 or AR15 from scratch, but the entire point of anti-3D-printed-gun legislation is the fact that it takes the skill out of being able to create one. You'll never be able to stop a skilled individual from creating something, but you can put in barriers to stop the lowest common denominator from doing so.
Not to say this legislation would work, because it wouldn't, but that is (pun intended) the aim of it. Legislating the gun isn't even the way to go about it, legislating the ammunition is. No one is out there making ammo from scratch.
You sure about that? Feel free to enlighten me as I have no expertise or interest whatsoever in this area, but I've had someone who's been shooting as a hobby tell me that they've made their own ammunition because they deemed purchasing new one all the time to expensive. I suppose that's only possible for certain types of ammunition, but I've honestly got no idea about specifics.
I think you may be thinking of reloading, not manufacturing new?
Correct. They are purchasing new primers and smokeless powder and reloading previously fired brass casing. Actually making new powder and primer is difficult and dangerous.
@AndreasChris, nukeman is correct. Reloaders don't make anything from scratch. They might cast lead bullets, but that's the closest they get to doing so. They aren't making powder, they aren't making primers, they aren't jacketing bullets (most bullets are lead core with a copper jacket), they aren't stamping brass into casings.
Reloaders are the equivalent of following the instructions on a package of ramen.
I see. That's probably what I was thinking of then.
I mean, it'd make it an airgun. If you added a way to hold a cartridge and a firing pin, you'd have a firearm. Zip guns are still guns.
It wouldn't be a good or accurate or reliable or safe gun, but it would be a gun. The metallurgy in the iron hand cannons used by the ming dynasty was far inferior to modern steel plumbing pipes, and they definitely weren't rifles, but they were still used effectively to kill thousands of people in warfare.
I don't think we're anywhere close to the danger of unskilled laymen being able to produce reliable, high performing modern firearms with cheap off the shelf 3d printers. You can produce something pretty decent, it still takes a good amount of skill though.
The conversation is about barrels of modern firearms and 3D printed versions of them. I have no interest in continuing a reddit-esque technically correct for every iteration of the definition of any word debate.
I'm not bringing it up to have a technically correct gotcha, I'm bringing it up because that's exactly the use cases that regulation the post addresses is attempting to target.
A career criminal isn't going to 3d print a gun. They're going to get a stolen hi point off the street for a hundred bucks that will reliably cycle thousands of rounds.
A normal citizen who wants a gun isn't going to 3d print one either. They'll just go buy one at a gun store.
The only type of person that would 3d print a gun for use in a crime is someone doing an extremely hi profile assassination, where a lot of effort will be put into finding the source of the gun to make a positive ID, or who can't otherwise get their hands on one because they're a felon and also don't have criminal connections.
Those types of use cases don't need a high performing firearm that will reliably fire hundreds of rounds. It only needs to work once or twice and get the bullet into someone's body from a few feet away.
So it's relevant when we talk about how hard it is to machine and harden a barrel. A barrel doesn't need to be properly machined and hardened to be deadly. It just needs to contain the pressures of a round firing one time.
I thought that barrels were fairly easy to manufacture these days via some form of electrochemical machining with a 3D printed rig? Disclaimer: I don't actually do any of this myself so I might be totally wrong, but have some knowledge of it due to being fairly involved in 3D printing.
That has been around a few years, but it is rifling a barrel only, Not machining the chamber. Which is why I specified that a barrel is not just a tube. This is the chamber dimensions of a 9mm firearm. This is the chamber dimensions for an AR15, not including the actual barrel features or extension necessary to work in an AR15. This isn't being done (or even understood) by the unskilled and isn't being 3D printed.
Not all guns are rifles, rifling is not an essential component of something being a "gun".
Literally covered in the sentence after your quoted response. The conversation is about barrels of modern firearms and 3D printed versions of them. I have no interest in continuing a reddit-esque technically correct for every iteration of the definition of any word debate.
sure, my apologies for the pedantry and for any frustration.
I meant that to be water gun.
A barrel can be rifled and shaped with just a 3d printer through a process called ECM. Basically you print a mandrel, put some copper wire into the places where you want to cut the rifling, and then put it in a bucket of salt water and connect it to a power supply.
You could restrict hydraulic piping, but that has a ton of legal applications and I expect it would be difficult.
A barrel is not just a tube with rifling, as covered by the last few words of the sentence you're arguing against:
The same principle is used to create the chamber in the barrel.
If you've got proof of someone making the chamber of a barrel via 3D printed ECM I'd love to see it.
I'm thinking of the FGC-9. The ECM tool not just 3d printed, but you file down a stainless rod to the right shape for the chamber by hand, then glue it into a 3-d printed jig to machine the chamber. I haven't personally done it, yet at least. I got as far as making the ECM tools including the barrel cutter then got bored of the project.
Like they reference with Home Depot, a chain-link fence post with some screws in front of some explosive at the end is a single use firearm. Most of any firearm can be wood or plastic or epoxy filled blue jeans.
The chamber of a firearm has to withstand some relatively intense pressures to function so it has to be some form of hardened metal. That would be the barrel, the breach face, and the firing pin and that's most of it. You probably want the parts around that to be metal too, partly because they're moving metal parts interfacing with other moving metal parts. But if longevity isn't necessary that's less necessary too. Manufacturing all that to a precision that produces a working firearm is a non-trivial issue, and it's metalworking, not 3D printing.
A paintball gun doesn't need to be hardened metal, it just has to be a tube.
That then runs into other issues, you can harden metal at home, but it's at least looking at the core of the problem. Banning unregistered 3D printing / CNC is like trying to control automobile deaths by banning aftermarket car parts. You would maybe approach single digit gains in safety figures, but you aren't looking at the actual problem. You're playing for votes by saying you're doing something.
I didn’t understand the Home Depot reference, so I guess I forgot about it.
Presumably we’ll eventually reach the point where 3d printers can replicate themselves. If that happens, legislation won’t be able to do much about it.
Oh we're past that.
There's usually some wiggle room in that claim, you need a processor and motors of some kind, but those are about the only off the shelf parts needed. There's plenty of open source printer OSs.
As far as I know, it comes down to metal and silicon parts not being included.
I went to a talk that Vernor Vinge gave several years ago, he described self replicating 3d printers as a singularity event. I don’t think we’re there quite yet but I suppose that’s drifting pretty off topic for this discussion.
Hobbyist 3D printers originated from the RepRap project, the goal of which was to enable full replication of a 3D printer with minimal "vitamins." That goal has sort of gone to the wayside, as people tend to care about printing more than printers at this point, and the quality of the machine heavily correlates to frame rigidity and various things that are better solved with parts that are not plastic.
I believe rifled barrels are very specific to firearms. Paintball guns don't need rifling and precision engineered barrels.
The physics/benefits of a rifled barrel apply to just about any type of projectile, not just bullets. Paintball guns, pellet guns, and even BB guns with rifled barrels are ubiquitous.
Rifled barrels exist for paintball guns, they’re just pretty useless.
Regardless, it’s not the rifling that would be the determining factor in my post - it’s the ability to withstand and contain repeated high pressure detonations, which is what meaningfully distinguishes the barrel of a pellet gun from one for a hunting rifle.
I think the major takeaway here is how quickly the idea of "3D printers reporting themselves" falls apart under almost any scrutiny.
From the scant statistics that are out there, it's pretty minor in terms of crimes committed with a firearm. There's been a lot more seized 3d printed guns as of late, but given the accessibility of firearms in the US, it's kind of a moot point. There's absolutely an argument to be made about how one could say... flood the zone with cheap and accessible firearms, or could arm a militia with them, but that's beyond the point.
So it's a minuscule problem that could absolutely become a bigger one, if say... political violence and instability becomes more widespread.
I mean, yeah. I think the California Democrats are putting forth legislation that assumes that the Federal Government will act lawfully and without overreach. I agree that legislation that increases surveillance in an environment where there are concerns about increased surveillance is, at minimum, contradictory to the political messaging of the California Democrats.
It's pretty strange to see this legislation be put forward at this moment. I could see an argument that "this is for when things go back to normal" being made. Or there could be some sort of theory of harm reduction being important regardless of political climate, but it's a pretty tone deaf argument to this moment, not even getting into the variety of other issues.
I agree, this legislation seems to entirely misunderstand how a 3D printer works on a variety of different levels.
I don't want to suggest that the bill was put forward deliberately misunderstanding 3d printers, or that the politicians who created this bill are incompetent. Unfortunately, I find myself struggling to make an argument otherwise.
Again, agreed. I would assume that the Bill would essentially make 'non-reporting' 3D printers illegal in California. Presumably, "California Legal" 3D printers would have to have a component that can send logs of 3D printed components to the government via wifi. (I'm not even going to pretend that a 3D printer could be given a component to know it's printing gun parts.)
Even with that though, people can still assemble 3D printers of their own volition, and I'm sure that it would just mean that people would find a way to prevent monitoring, if they were actually doing anything nefarious.
Additional Thoughts
This sort of legislature is so blatantly unconstitutional under the 2nd, and 4th Amendments, and almost certainly the Commerce Clause as well. I genuinely only seeing it getting immediately voided by the Supreme Court, outside of any political shenanigans.
I also think there's a risk of the Streisand Effect coming into play here. Seriously, most people don't use 3D printers, and those who do aren't mass producing firearms. As of now "3D printed gun" is more of a punchline than an actual threat. I actually think there is a much bigger risk of people realizing how easy it is to make 3D printed weapons and wanting to try it themselves.
I think there's a separate issue here about 3D printing high capacity magazines, and then using them with a legal weapon.
Is this just some sort of industry ploy to make 3D printing less accessible / attractive, forcing people to buy non 3D printed goods? It's a really dumb conspiracy theory, so I don't want to get too into it, but yeah.
This kind of reminds me of something that went on a few years with my hobby, FPV Drones. A few years ago, the FAA passed a regulation where drones above a certain size (250g, extremely light; most FPV freestyle drones are around 700g) needed to have a remote ID module. This module hooks into your flight controller's telemetry and constantly announces the drone's position, altitude, speed, the position of the operator, and an ID number that could be read to find who the operator is. These things are broadcast cleartext and can be picked up by phones over wifi.
There's a big fine if you don't fly with the module, but the module adds weight, is expensive, and most crucially, announces your presence to people who have no idea about UAV laws, safety, and what you are and are not allowed to do with a drone, but they just don't like the idea of drones so that information gets used to harass you.
Predictably, virtually no one in the hobby uses them. The FAA is spread far too thin to enforce this regulation on hundreds of thousands of people that mostly aren't causing any problems. Local police don't even know about that regulation, and regulating airspace is out of their jurisdiction anyway. If you buy a prebuilt drone from a big company like DJI, they have them built in, but a lot of the hobby is building your own drones, and no one ever includes a remoteID module in their parts list.
I doubt this will ever change, unless something dramatic like terrorist attacks with FPV drones ever become common.
I see this proposed legislation being the exact same thing if it passes. If I buy a Bambu printer and then jailbreak its nanny gun reporting software, who is going to know that? If I build a printer and don't include the gun reporting module, how would anyone know? Are the police going to go door-to-door searching for illegal 3d printers? Probably not. This is just another law without even an inkling of a realistic enforcement mechanism that gets passed so that a legislator can pat himself on the back. It goes into the endless corpus of state law that no one pays attention to or cares about until it gets used to make some political point one day, but realistically it's just a waste of everyone's time.
I personally think there should be a bar that needs to be passed for legislation; if it's not realistically enforceable, it shouldn't be constitutional. Otherwise it just gets used to selectively persecute people you don't like.
My theory is that this bill will be designed to do just this. It will be impossible to actually enforce, so it will selectively be applied where useful to the law enforcement.
Want to search that house but don't have a reason? Having "Person having 3D Printer means you can get a free warrant" is another tool in the box to skirt that pesky 4th Amendment.
Hopefully the bill will be dead on Arrival, or sued into oblivion, but it's still an ominous trend in my opinion.
I'm less of a conspiracy person than that, but it doesn't actually matter, since you're right, that's how laws like this end up getting used either way. I think the mechanism is more like politician A needs some landmark legislation that doesn't actually do anything but sounds good, and later on, police chief B or president C uses that overly broad legislation to trample on people's rights. Even if there's no collusion or grand conspiracy with ulterior motives at first, the rights get trampled just the same.
Imma be honest, that FAA rule seems pretty reasonable and warranted to me. I doubt the number of custom FPV drone makers is anywhere close to the number of hobbyists who buy from DJI and Insta360 and whatnot.
Drones can be seriously problematic in a number of ways and having the FAA regulate them in this way is perfectly reasonable.
Regardless if if you think it's reasonable or not, it's impossible to enforce. Yes, you can force big manufacturers to build the technology into their consumer drones, but you can't force smaller ones to, especially ones based outside of the US, and you can't force independent builders to, which a huge percentage of hobbyist drone pilots are. Same goes for people into 3d printing as a hobby.
So I made a relevant comment relating to the political stances and how at least from my point of view left wing voters seems to be warming up to the 2nd Amendment here, but I definitely agree with the strangeness of the timing.
As I said in that comment, the more paranoid pattern recognition part of my brain almost thinks the timing is very suspicious for democratic leaders to be going this hard into this kind of niche gun control at this particular moment in time considering we've had gun violence issues for at least 30 years, including when left wing/democrats were in power and had more governmental power and influence, and these bills and potential solutions weren't as accelerated as they seem to be now. But now that the left wing of the US are all collectively afraid of authoritarian power grabs and fascist influence and government supported masked secret police kidnapping people out of the streets and their homes with no oversight or due process, suddenly we can successfully draft bills targeting gun violence and accelerate them through state legislatures? Where was this energy 10 years ago?
And to me, someone who has a great interest in history, particularly WWII, it does not any make sense to have someone compare those in power to fascists or authoritarians, and actively promote that narrative, at the same time as calling for gun control. Either they're just using "fascism" as a political buzzword to maintain their status as controlled opposition, or they truly have no insight into the destructive and oppressive nature of fascism and it's historical context.
I hate to say it, but to me the optics doesn't look great.
Not to mention the fact that if you get one of these 3D printers, is it illegal for you to turn off your wifi? Will these need to be always connected to the internet to print? Some prints take days to print, you're telling me these printers will have to maintain a 100% stable internet connection the entire time and if it goes out, or if there's a server disconnect, you're entire screwed? That hobbyists will have to add "internet connection" to their already long list of things that can cause a print to fail?
To avoid dancing around the issue more than I already have, I'm just going to say it. This bill stinks of Something.
I could come up with at least a dozen theories as to why the California Democrats think this is legislation is worth bringing, but essentially they all boil down to incompetence, political theater, or some sort of ulterior motive.
I don't know who this bill is for, but it's absolutely not in the interests of the people of California.
Sorry, I have a bad habbit of re-reading my comments then adding to them in edits, but I did add this as you were responding, as it does relate to that:
I've seen some people speculate that lobbyists that oppose "right to repair" legislation are behind this sudden popularization, as in many cases 3D Printers threaten part of their business.
I've seen some more speculative theories suggest that the same billionaires pushing for internet ID registration and FaceID laws are also funding these initiatives as part of the wider effort to destroy anonymity. Also maybe Luigi Mangioni gave the billionaire class the fear of god when it comes to what a modern day guillotine looks like.
Nah, the California Dems just hate guns that much; and don’t understand how 3D-printing works, or that it wouldn’t substantially reduce gun crimes. Remember that while some Glock switches were 3D-printed, many more were imported from China.
t. South Carolina Dem who makes the NRA blush.
In this political era, I'm a little hesitant to rule out incompetence, but it being an example of Hanlon's Razor honestly wouldn't surprise me.
I've said this elsewhere, but until we acknowledge the rest of the issues immediately surrounding gun violence in America, we're not really tackling the problem. I say that as a Leftist who's very pro 2nd Amendment.
Oh they are incompetent morons on the subject as well, don’t get me wrong. But many of them genuinely dislike firearms and don’t understand those who enjoy or use them (which contributes to their outdated notions of “gun owners like bolt-actions and shotguns and revolvers, and they most hunt and shoot paper.” Newsflash, that hasn’t been true in decades. More gun owners these days are into self-defense and dynamic shooting, and use semi-auto rifles and pistols. Hell, most hunters these days use semi-auto, and ARs are popular among them too).
Definitely agree on needing to get to the root issue of culture/economics (even if we probably disagree on specifics). For mass shootings in particular, they were very rare in an era when firearms were arguably more culturally accepted, you could buy guns at J.C. Penney and Sears, and kids would have guns in their locker for hunting after school.
The thing is, this does absolutely nothing to stop ghost guns. 3d printed guns are still wildly impractical. They're weak, they're unreliable, and they break after a few shots. The most practical and reliable ghost guns are those produced from 80% lowers. They require extremely minimal tools and skill to assemble, and there are some states that regulate them, but lots of states where they don't, and they're extremely easy to get on the internet.
The fundamental problem is that guns really are not very complex. They're tubes that have a mechanism to hold a round in place while the primer is struck. You can build one out of a pipe, an end cap, a rubber band, and a nail. We're not talking about regulating nuclear weapons here.
There's literally nothing the government can do that can effectively stop sufficiently motivated people from building unregistered firearms in their garages. Screwing over everyone else who has no interest in doing that sort of thing makes absolutely no sense, and until there's widespread violence as the result of 3d printers, which we haven't even seen a shred of, the whole thing is a pointless, silly idea.
Especially when you consider that this is the fucking united states we're talking about. Virtually any adult in the country can drive 10 minutes to their nearest Walmart, and walk out 10 minutes later with their choice of firearm and ammunition for a hell of a lot cheaper and with way less effort than all but the most barebones 3d printers. Why are we worried about 3d printing?
Gun builders have been making firearms with 3D printers and hardware store parts, that remain operational after firing thousands of rounds, for years now. No receivers, no pre-made parts, DIY everything, fully automatic conversions, etc... thousands of rounds.
You can make reliable guns with 3d printed parts, but you can't print an entire gun that lasts more than a few rounds with a 3d printer yet. At least not without some extremely expensive, advanced metal sintering printers that are way outside the range of non professionals.
Building a decent gun out of mostly 3d printed parts is still way harder and more expensive than just buying an 80% lower kit as well.
People have been tweaking the design of the Liberator to shoot dozens of rounds since 2013. That gun is completely 3D printed plastic except for the firing pin (that the OG Liberator used a nail for lmao).
I'm gonna be real with you: your notions of the capabilities of 3D printed guns are outdated by several years. That's not surprising, because the "3D gun building scene" moves really fast, and mostly exists as Discord servers and private forums. It's hard to keep up with and easy to lose track of. There are some public blogs/news sites you can read, and videos, mostly on Odysee not YouTube, you can watch that give an idea of what people have come up with. Most of the "envelope pushing" things aren't public though, you'll have to dig for those yourself.
For now, here's a video on Odysee where a guy shows off his 3D printed AK that he's put over 4,000 rounds through:
https://odysee.com/@IvanPrintsGuns:1/3d-printed-firearm-longevity-the:2
The glass-filled nylon he used to print that gun can be printed by consumer-grade printers.
Having built both, I agree that an 80% lower is the easier option, though not nearly as fun :)
Good to know, I didn't realize how far the liberator has come.
I will say that this still takes a considerable amount of skill and experience to do though. Until someone can go to Walmart, buy a Bambu printer, download an STL and have a functioning gun the next day, this really isn't a big concern of mine.
For it to matter, you'd have to make it harder to just skip all those steps and buy the gun from Walmart instead.
And even then, I've seen the tutorials on building these guns and how precisely tuned you need your printer to be.
So even then it still requires a relatively niche skillset to build 3D printable guns, and a vague understanding of guns to begin with, you're not just going to have the average 3D printing hobbyist be able to build a gun on a whim.
And if you have someone making a business out of building 3d printed ghost guns for criminals, I doubt they'll be slowed by restrictions on consumer level 3D Printers.
Some thoughts from someone who does not have a 3D printer but is somewhat familiar with how they operate.
(1) See California AB 1263 as an example of where this could go. Lots of commentary on that, but here's an interesting summary from CRPA, emphasis mine: "the part or parts must still be “clearly designed and intended” for use in manufacturing firearms. What this means exactly is not entirely clear from the language of the bill. As a result, when in doubt or otherwise unclear, it is again best to assume the product falls within the definition to avoid any liability concerns unless confirmed otherwise." This can give a lot of leeway in what to prosecute.
From https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Info-Bulletin-AB-1263-Guide2341821.pdf
(2) In case anyone is interested in ghost gun statistics, there is a summary at https://worldmetrics.org/ghost-guns-statistics. Summary of that is it's anywhere from 6% of homicides (ATF 2021) or 8% of shootings (NYC 2022), to 35% of recovered crime guns (Philadelphia 2022).
(3) Politically, sometimes it's easier for someone to present something that could be promoted as dealing with a problem, even though it may only help with some symptoms in a small population at best, and doesn't really deal with the underlying issues.
It could be a quick and easy fix that can make some people feel good ("I'm making a difference!") while also making them not feel bad about ignoring the true problem which is much more difficult to solve.
(4) Economically, some rules like this end up increasing costs and / directing revenue in a specific direction.
Some vendors now have to deal with the headaches of additional rules, so they pass on costs to customers.
Maybe only certain, preferred vendors can now operate in that space. "Good" vendors might be the ones that can afford lobbyists, and they end up picking up the slack from other vendors who can no longer be competitive.
Overall, this doesn't seem like a great idea, whether you agree with the idea of "printing guns" or not.
I'll point out that ghost guns != 3d printed guns. The vast majority of ghost guns are built from 80% kits and have no 3d printed parts at all.
Besides that, the US is a country that's absolutely inundated with guns. Guns are more accessible here than anywhere else in the world. Professionally manufactured guns are cheaper, more reliable, and safer (for the operator). If I were doing virtually any kind of crime, it would be a much better option to just go to a gun store or gun show to get one.
It seems a lot better use of our effort to make that part harder before we start instituting authoritarian mandates on people who have no interest in guns at all.
Otherwise it seems like we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I wish it was easier to look at the sources of their datapoints, because their "Sources" list is just links to the homepages of government and organization websites, and not to any real studies or papers. So I genuinely have no idea where specifically they got that data. Maybe I'm missing something as I'm not familiar with worldmetrics.org.
Mainly because I see datapoints like this:
And I'm wondering how they got the data that people were getting 3D printers specifically for gun manufacturing, if that's self reported, from a survey, or what. Also what actual numbers are we looking at are.
Typically when large percentages are used in unsourced datapoints like this it's usually to lead people into a certain conclusion.
But another datapoint I would like to bring up is this, because the point you brought up is actually is about ghost guns in general, but not specifically 3D printed ghost guns.
Then I also see a datapoint like this:
And my first thought is that first, what are the hard numbers? Going from 1 ghost gun to 18 is a 1700% increase. My second thought is that 2017 is around when consumer 3D printers became a lot more accessible to consumers, so it's natural that number would increase as access increased, but again that's like saying that the amount of homemade ghost guns increases as access to home depot and raw parts increases.
Frankly a lot of these "statistics" are very leading and lack context, specifically around 3D printing.
The problem is, is that in my progressive and left-leaning circles, and the varied left wing spaces that I keep tabs on, recently there's been a huge shift towards being pro-gun in response to feeling unsafe in the current political environment. I'm starting to see more left leaning pro-2A gun organizations pop up, popularity with the Liberal Gun Club and Socialist Rifle Association, as well as educational content aimed at the left on arming yourself. I've even seen several female and trans content creators start doing "fit checks" with concealed handguns and showing how you can keep a concealed handgun while wearing skirts or cute outfits. I've seen subscriber counts for /r/liberalgunowners skyrocket recently, as well as anti-fascist veteran organizations start offering gun information.
Not to mention Luigi Mangione's popularity with left leaning people as well.
I just think a lot of these politicians are a bit out of touch right now and that's what draws such a stark contrast with what they're supporting. Because it seems that a lot of left are looking at the impunity that organizations like ICE are operating under and are starting to think that self defense is a good idea.
The more paranoid pattern recognition part of my brain almost thinks the timing is very suspicious for democratic leaders to be going this hard into gun control at this particular moment in time considering we've had gun violence issues for at least 30 years, including when left wing/democrats were in power and had more governmental control, and these bills and potential solutions weren't as accelerated as they seem to be now. But now that the left wing of the US are all collectively afraid of authoritarian power grabs and fascist influence and government supported secret police kidnapping innocent people out of their homes suddenly we can successfully draft bills targeting gun violence and accelerate them through state legislatures??? Where was this energy 10 years ago?
I've seen some people speculate that lobbyists that oppose "right to repair" legislation are behind this sudden popularization, as in many cases 3D Printers threaten part of their business.
And the other problem is that 3D Printing is largely open source. Sure, you've got some closed source vendors, but even most of those are at least based off of open source designs. And that includes the software too.
You've got spaces like the Voron community who literally build 3D printers from scratch. There are kits, sure, but you can completely source every individual part yourself if you want to.
One point that, I think, no one else has said ... 3d-printed ghost guns are not a complete red herring. People do make them, and people do use them in crimes. But it's not common, and it's not nearly as easy as people (politicians?) seem to think.
What is common, and easy, is any of a dozen other ways people get their hands on guns to commit crimes.
Ghost guns are not "the low-hanging fruit" in this situation.
Is this an issue in other countries? If so, how do they manage? If not, seems worth figuring out why and bringing that here than trying to do whatever this hopes to.
Countries which don't have the rest of the gun supply chain legal would make it more difficult surely. I imagine it's a lot harder to 3d print gunpowder or bullets than a single use gun barrel.
That's what I'm thinking. Seems like we need to look at the gunpowder part more than the 3d printers if we aren't going to change much on the gun supply chain side of things, it seems like the more obvious solution to me? I'm not a gun guy though so maybe there's something I'm missing, like it being a more obvious 2nd amendment infringement.
Just to give you a bit of non-US perspective - if I want to buy a gun, parts for a gun, ammunition or gunpowder in the UK I need a firearms license. To get one of those I have to explain why I need one to the satisfaction of the police, prove my mental health is in suitable shape, I need to prove I know how to handle things physically, have safe storage for all the stuff, have several character referees vouch for me and some other bits and pieces. I need to renew that licence every five years. I still can't own some types of gun or buy some kinds of ammo even if I have a license (full or semi-autos, all handguns, some of the nastier bullet types, some other niche things too like rocket launchers and so on).
I believe most of the world's countries have similar requirements, although I think the UK leans a little on the side of being more restrictive compared to many places. Personally I would prefer even stronger regulation here than we already have.
Gunpowder is available at most hardware/home improvement stores for use in concrete nailers, though.
Maybe also jurisdiction dependent? Both major hardware stores here only sell electric models. There’s an online builder supplier that sells a PAT model with implies you might be able to get the powder somewhere, but notably they don’t sell any themselves. Seems you might have to go through the same channels as for getting it for guns here.
Fair enough! I personally thought it was kinda crazy the first time I found it there. And that just anybody could buy it, as at the time there was no procedure in place to age-restrict anything we sold.
I wrote a message to my state senator explaining why this law is problematic. I recommend other Tildes Californians do the same.
I looked up the public testimony times and information for when my state(Washington) Senate would hear public comments.
Unfortunately I was denied for the most recent one where they opened up comments about these bills in particular.
I wish that 3d Printer communities would organize better to find out when these public comment things are and pool resources to show up or create ELI5 type PowerPoint presentations going over why this is a bad or stupid idea.
Also around finding angles to use that questions the foundation of these laws and bills.
Like trying to do research into industries that use additive and subtractive manufacturing, and how a bill like this would affect them financially. Either by having to upgrade the infrastructure to allow monitoring or the permitting and licensing and enforcement processes they'd have to follow. And tie that into how much it'd affect their bottom lines and manufacturing capabilities.
And then hope that these industries don't just push for consumer phrasing in the bill, and just kind of say "fuck any kind of regulation that comes near our manufacturing capabilities."
I don't know.
Why isn't this sort of monitoring software considered a constitutional rights violation under the fourth amendment? It took me a few minutes of thinking about it to realize, but I can't possibly see how this isn't unreasonable search. Also, preventing distribution of Klipper, Marlin, or RFF (all 3D printer control firmware) would be a first amendment violation due to "code as speech," so at least that wouldn't be able to be restricted in a future bill?
They already do this with 2D printers to stop you from printing USD. I think they naively assume this is as simple.