Personally, I see this as an assault on 3d printing more than any real attempt to regulate guns.<p>I own several 3d printers. If I wanted to make something resembling a firearm I'd go to home depot WAY before I bothered 3d printing parts. You basically just need a metal tube, and well... a pipe from home depot does that much better than trying to 3d print something much less reliable.<p>So given we don't do this regulation for any of the much more reliable ways to create unregistered firearms... what's special about 3d printers?<p>So my assumption is immediately that some relatively large lobbying group feels threatened by 3d printing, and is using this as a driver to try to control access and limit business impact.<p>Either way, this is bad legislation.
> You basically just need a metal tube, and well... a pipe from home depot does that much better than trying to 3d print something much less reliable.<p>Why would you buy a pipe at Home Depot? A gun barrel is not a firearm, and is not required to be registered or serialized. You can drive to Arizona or Nevada and buy an <i>actual</i> barrel, with rifling, manufactured to meet well-known specifications, without showing an ID. Until this year, you could have a barrel shipped to your California residence without an ID. There's no need to build the Shinzo Abe contraption.<p>> So my assumption is immediately that some relatively large lobbying group feels threatened by 3d printing, and is using this as a driver to try to control access and limit business impact.<p>Occam's razor. This isn't a shadowy manufacturing cabal, threatened by 3D printing. Gun control lobbyists are trying to prevent the printing of handgun frames and Glock switches, because they're the easiest parts to print.<p>> Either way, this is bad legislation.<p>California legislators haven't met a bad gun law that they don't like.
The device the parent is describing has a long history, and they're known as 'zip guns'. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm</a>
For the adventurous, there may be a desire for all-plastic construction. Print a cylinder in high-temp filament, wrap it in CF tow, ream to size.
Like everything in the United States, it’s actually gun manufacturers that want to clamp down on this cottage industry which threatens their profits. I don’t buy for a second that this is some gun control attempt.
I think they don't give a shit about 3D printing, especially in CA. It's not like you're competing with a glock19 type hand gun and cornering this market.
This is the most likely answer. Just as it was the large grocery chains that have funded all the plastic/paper bag bans.<p>The gun lobby has a long history of trying to ban low cost market entrants.
This is a well documented Everytown campaign, you can't blame this one on firearms manufacturers.
Is this not like a schizo conspiracy theory? Like why would the grocery chains fund the bag bans? So they can save a tiny amount of money on paying for bags?<p>But having to bring your own bags limits how much you can buy. If someone has a plan to just use their own bags, they will likely forgo purchases at a higher rate than if the bag is not in the equation for them.<p>It's not obvious to me that the buying limit effect sales decrease would not outweigh the savings on physical bag purchases. Maybe I'm not following?
The grocery chain campaign is well documented. Just search for it.<p>The short answer is that bags are a non-trivial cost for the larger chains. Now, they get to charge for them at an astounding markup and no longer have to compete with any grocery store on this point. All grocery stores are affected equally, which means it is disproportionately damaging to mom-and-pop stores and smaller chains.
Reminds me of the sUAS legislation crushing the R/C flying hobby. Vague allusions to "safety" are constantly being thrown around, but in fact it seems that big companies are lobbying to claim the airspace for drone delivery and similar autonomous BVLOS operations.
The only thing you need to make is the "lower" or whichever part the ATF constitutes as "the firearm" I've seen someone take a shovel and turn it into an AK. Once you have the "firearm" part of whatever gun you're building, the rest of the parts can be shipped to you in most of the country (idk about CA, and NY though) and you can easily assemble the rest of the gun.<p>Like you say, you just need to build a key metal piece, and voila, the rest is buying parts that can be delivered to you, in some cases fully assembled.<p>You could also just buy black powder guns directly to your home (idk about in CA or NY though) which are not treated as "firearms" by the ATF.<p>The only people shooting 3D printed guns are enthusiasts usually, who have other guns.
I'm not on top of the current SOTA in 3d-printed guns, but the way it typically was done in the past is that you don't actually 3d-print all of what you or I would call a complete gun.<p>The barrel will be metal. In designs made for the US market, it will almost certainly be an actual manufactured gun barrel, since gun parts other than the receiver are not closely tracked in the US. In designs for Western Europe, the metal parts will be either milled or things you can buy at the hardware store[1].<p>The barrel and chamber being made of something tougher than you can get from an FDM machine is basically a requirement for making a gun that doesn't explode in your face when you shoot.<p>1: Here's an image of all of the parts going into a gun designed to be made in the EU. Per the wikipedia article, the barrel rifling can be added with electrochemical machining <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9#/media/File:FGC-9_Components.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9#/media/File:FGC-9_Compon...</a>
yeah, but at some point you're just banning "manufacturing".<p>if someone wants to make a gun... they can. It's not complex to manufacturer simple firearms - we managed it as far back as the freaking 10th century.<p>So why freak out over this, for example, and not CNCs? Or Power tools? Or forges (CHF barrels are a thing too!)?
CNC milling is typically included in the bans being considered in various states.<p>While poetically consistent, it enlarges the crater around these bad laws if they are passed and enforced. Basically all new manufacturing setups will need to stop and reprogram to stop and start according to fluctuating rules designed by committee, and will need to be made brittle to prevent circumvention.<p>It is a debacle.
> <i>need to stop and reprogram to stop and start according to fluctuating rules</i><p>Or just move to Texas. Or even Idaho or Dakotas. Which, under a certain angle, is good, it would lessen the wealth and expertise disbalance between states.<p>I still hope that California comes to senses before they would need to accept the moniker The Footgun State.
Manufacturing a firearm is already regulated by state law in California. (Be it by cnc, 3d print, or drill press)
Because those aren't as trendy right now. This is similar to banning nunchucks and throwing stars in the 80's (yes, that was a thing).
>yeah, but at some point you're just banning "manufacturing".<p>That's kind of the point. Look at the way industry is regulated in any "high touch" state. Beyond the most basic of home businesses just about everything industrial is "illegal without a license".<p>Like I can't just park a tub grinder on my property and start taking tree waste from tree services and landscapers and selling truck loads of chips to the local pulp mill. I need to bend over and spread 'em for a state license.<p>They would be overjoyed for all manufacturing to be like that. They would love to ban your CNC plasma table or laser cutter and then sell you back the right to use it so long as you shell out $$$ to some compliance industry (that invariably is owned by a bunch of people well connected to the legislature, if environmental and weed are anything to go by).
Not that I support any of these obviously stupid bills but:<p>> what's special about 3d printers?<p>They can make guns made out of plastic and metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people.<p>You are probably right about the lobbying group, I agree.<p>Edit: I'm not saying it makes sense, but this is the angle the congress folks are taking, sheesh.
There was a panic about plastic guns back in the 80s too when the Glock came out, and Congress passed the Undetectable Firearms Act.<p>But it was just as misinformed as it is today -- practically speaking, only metal is suitable for the high pressure components of a gun. A common 9mm cartridge produces upwards of 35,000 psi.
I don't care how good you are, you cannot 3D print a barrel that will withstand the pressure forces generated by a centerfire round.
> metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people<p>What are bullets and shell casings made out of again?
More importantly, what is the barrel made out of? Yes, I know there’s some fully printed guns… but my understanding is that those are basically 1-time use and even then it’s questionable how reliable that single use actually is…<p>If you want something resembling an actual gun (more than one shot, won’t blow up in your hand, some reasonable chance of accuracy, etc), then you’re going to be using multiple metal components (including the bullets of course) all of which would show up on a metal detector.
And I'd argue that shell casings are probably harder to manufacture than a fully working firearm. The equipment needed to manufacture working ammunition end-to-end is pretty serious.
All of these manufacturing equipment and processes existed more than a century ago.<p>If you have a capable VMC, you can make the die and other equipment necessary to stamp shell casings from commonly-available parts and machinery.<p>From there, with a modern Dillon or Hornady reloading press, you can crank out thousands of rounds per day without issue.<p>Primers are a legitimately difficult thing to manufacture, but (good-enough) bullets, casings, etc. are completely doable.
[Primers are a legitimately difficult thing to manufacture]<p>thats a problem that may not endure. if a firearm is reengineered to use an electrode to detonate charge rather than a chemical primer, there is no need for murcury fulminate, just a piezo electric spark generator, and a few square cm of cerebral cortex.
Electronic primers are a thing that already exists commercially. In the early 2000s, Remington sold electronically primed hunting rifles next to their non-electronic equivalent (see: "EtronX").<p>It is a mature technology. The main issue is cost and simplicity, since it often requires adding electronics to weapons that normally would not require them. The military uses electronically primed cartridges for things like chain guns and autocannons, since those require electronics to fire regardless of how it is primed.
yes ive seen them they are called exotic by most people around me.<p>yes the very nature of a chain cannon, makes electronic priming,the easier way to go.<p>so far we can still go to the store with 20$ and come back with a 200pk of 209s,
someday that might be not so easy, and electronic is the better/only way.
What advantage do they have over chemical primers?
I have no ability to make primers specifically, and wouldn’t even know where to start.
In the movies, you hide the bullets in a pen or something, and it bypasses the metal detector along with the keys, phones and watches.
And importantly the barrel. Plastic cannot contain the pressure required to fire a bullet.
> They can make guns made out of plastic<p>So can many, many other things. Hell - something like this will do SO MUCH BETTER than anything I can print:<p><a href="https://www.mcmaster.com/products/pipe/carbon-fiber-1~/?s=plastic+pipe" rel="nofollow">https://www.mcmaster.com/products/pipe/carbon-fiber-1~/?s=pl...</a><p>It's weird because 3d printed plastic is WAY down the list of things I'd prefer to trust handling the explosion from ammunition.<p>Frankly - even the hobbyist CNC I have is a MUCH better method of creating a plastic gun. FDM printing is not something I'd want to trust in this case, neither is SLA printing in most materials (some of the very high end ones like nylon in a formlabs printer... maybe?).<p>But my point stands - guns aren't that hard to make, and we aren't trying this legislation with any of the other myriad manufacturing methods. Hell - compare to a potato cannon... (also a plastic gun, btw...)<p>So what's different about 3d printers?<p>My hunch is this has fuck-all to do with guns, and a lot to do with something else, because 3d printers ARE different in that they let me manufacturer all sorts of other, much more complex, goods much more easily and cheaply at home.
[dead]
square tubes is the solution
> any real attempt to regulate guns<p>Any real attempt would need to be at the national level, not that I would advocate for it, but it's simply a pipe dream to create a "gun free zone" in a country with 100s of millions of firearms. There are plenty of gun enthusiasts in California, they just don't flaunt it or talk about it.
A gun-free zone is not such a good idea, much like an encryption-free zone would be, or an alcohol-free zone (the latter has been tried).<p>I would rather go for Swiss-stye mandatory gun training, and keeping a gun in (almost) every home. But, like the Swiss, I would require not just storing the gun in a certified safe box, but also providing an ID + a proof of mental sanity, and registering the gun. <i>That</i> would raise a much larger wave of protest though, both from the "left" and the "right". Even though, IMHO, it's the only sane way.
I used to work in this industry and can confirm. California was by far the biggest cohort of consumers we had.
"regulate guns" does not equate to "gun free."
> So my assumption is immediately that some relatively large lobbying group feels threatened by 3d printing...<p>I'd say the real groups behind this are the anti-gun ideologues, the "do whatever it takes to stop my panic attacks over Bad Things maybe happening" left-wing control freaks, and the old-fashioned "big state" authoritarian crowd.<p>And the only reason they're paying attention to 3d printers is that some pro-gun ideologues and provocative makers have been talking up the concept of 3d printing guns.
whats special is speed and consistency.<p>when you manufacture a personal firearm, it is supposed to be yours, for your use.
the 3d printer aspect, makes it possible for a group to print large quantities of receivers, under the radar, to be combined with "accesory parts" close to "drop-in" assembly style.
Cool - you mean like the CNC I have sitting next to the printers? Which this legislation doesn't cover?<p>So no - not buying it. Hell, there's not even a real price difference. I can get a Nomad3 from Carbide 3D for the same approximate cost as an H2D from bambu labs.<p>And I can get super cheap temu versions of either for under 500.
> Cool - you mean like the CNC I have sitting next to the printers? Which this legislation doesn't cover?<p>Other states like Colorado have similar bills that define a "3d printer" as a computer aided machine that uses additive or subtractive manufacturing processes so CNC machines likely aren't safe either.<p><a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb26-1144" rel="nofollow">https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb26-1144</a>
i mean speed and consistency, compared to manually CnC [crank n curse] cutting, or printing.<p>if you set up your job so that you print a block of, lets say 4 lower receivers for a stoner style firearm. and you ran a number of printers, you start an arsenal, for a fire team, not just a lonewolf, and that scares people.
At issue here is that anyone can build a 3D printer. There's one in my basement a hobbyist built entirely from easily-sourced parts, and the controller is entirely open source. It never phones home and isn't really connected directly to the Internet at all.
> The primary goal is clear and simple: to require 3D printer manufacturers to use a state-certified algorithm that checks digital design files for firearm components and blocks print jobs that would produce prohibited parts.<p>"state-certified algorithm" has a really nice tyrannic ring to it. I am sure once this has passed the rich people can finally sleep at night knowing they are safe from roving gangs of armed Mangiones.
A 3D printer, at least of the Prusa variety, is really just a bunch of stepper motors and a dumb motor driver executing a series of effectively "rotate by X steps" commands, which is what the gcode file is. It doesn't know what it's printing. It doesn't even know that it's a printer.<p>If they wanted a gate on designs it would have to happen in slicing software, not the actual printer.
Yup. Wait till our genius lawmakers figure that out! Then we'll have all software that can be used to do that job require registration and inspection to certify that it "won't print gun parts." Or maybe "all software" for good measure, in case any sneaky so-and-sos try to make an IRC client with a secret "slicing easter-egg." Better yet, all software of any kind has to be sold through an App Store so we can have Google, Microsoft and Apple gatekeep. That'll work. Gun problem solved.
Indeed. I grew up in a a machine shop than ran both manual and CNC machines and spent my summers in front of mills and lathes running jobs. I now do industrial automation and machine repair. With that being said, yeah, no way will this work. Ever.<p>And software? My Bridgeport and Logan were built before computers were available to the home consumer. Good luck stopping someone like me.
The 3d printer gun legislation has been rearing its head in a bunch of states this year, and generally with very similar patterns. I suspect some of the pro-gun-control groups have been pushing it to lawmakers given most legislation is basically copy-pastes from lobbying groups at both the state and federal level. Colorado, Washington, New York, and now California have all floated legislation attempting to make device-level restrictions around the issue. I only followed Washington's in depth, and they ended up removing all the requirements on manufactures, but did criminalize possession of files which I suspect won't hold up to a first amendment challenge.
I really think all of this is the result of Mangione. Regulating 3D printers has been talked about for years with no action. Then a year after the CEO of a large well known company is killed with a 3D printed gun the states are suddenly pushing highly invasive 3D printing laws. It's no coincidence NY was the first to push for such a law, the state where said CEO was killed.
No, this is Everytown USA model legislation. They wrote it, and are lobbying for it.<p><a href="https://everytownsupportfund.org/press/new-everytown-report-highlights-urgent-policy-actions-needed-to-combat-3d-printed-guns/" rel="nofollow">https://everytownsupportfund.org/press/new-everytown-report-...</a>
You’d think they’d regulate guns instead.
LM has a whole series of videos that touches on this (as well as some related topics): <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@LoyalMoses/videos" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/@LoyalMoses/videos</a><p>Louis Rossman also touched on the topic: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS-9ISzMhBM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS-9ISzMhBM</a><p>I've seen more by others but can't recall them all. Without going too far down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole, the momentum for this seems to be coming from a variety of sources:<p><pre><code> * New York being New York and trying to make thinking about guns a thought crime
* There's European company (forget the name) that makes specialized software that can do this. They're lobbying so they can inject themselves for some tasty rent seeking.
* A variety of companies that see right-to-repair (and thus home 3D printers, CNC-milling, etc.) a threat to their bottom lines.
* General ignorance by our law makers
</code></pre>
Edit: And I personally think instead of doing stupid bullshit like this, we should be giving EVERY kid who wants one a free 3D Printer so they can learn to tinker, be creative, and build things. That's how we create that spark that leads to the next generation of makers. Without that our country will continue to be the country that can no longer build things.
>I suspect some of the pro-gun-control groups have been pushing it to lawmakers given most legislation is basically copy-pastes from lobbying groups at both the state and federal level.<p>You would be correct.<p><a href="https://xcancel.com/2Aupdates/status/2036437116456940001#m" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/2Aupdates/status/2036437116456940001#m</a>
Lets imagine a similar situation but instead of with an additive manufacturing process they try to regulate a subtractive manufacturing process: a traditional CNC machine. There is no way to prevent the CNC system from machining gun parts as along as the machining is done in discrete steps with the same work piece. The software can't know what sitting on the CNC table.<p>In additive manufacturing it is more difficult but not impossible to print a bunch of pieces that look nothing like a gun part but and in the end be assembled into a gun.<p>In both the above cases there would need to be sophisticated surveillance software to even come close to detecting "gun-ness."<p>While I don't have a horse in the gun control race, I do have one in the open-source, running a local OS, running what software I want, and controlling what that software does races.
Some of these bills are written in such a way that they would apply to CNC manufacturing, such that they could even make building your own machine from scratch illegal. They are terribly oppressive and short-sighted.
“Short-sighted” implies that those in favour of this would see it as a bad thing, when in fact, that’s likely the real objective. This is just another shot in the war on ownership.
> oppressive and short-sighted.<p>Which usually means "we're willing to ignore short term damage to get long term results for our political patrons."
WA state's legislation includes subtractive methods, CA's omits it so that they don't have to deal with the wrath of Haas.
Omitting subtractive methods makes it rather toothless, since there have been places you can go to push a button to start a mill making you a receiver (which is the part that is considered "the gun" to address ship-of-theseus questions aboug guns), then you can add the other parts yourself.
I believe these events/places where folks were pressing a button to go from billet to receiver were shut down by BATFE some years ago (see ATF Ruling 2015-1 - <a href="https://www.atf.gov/media/19161/download" rel="nofollow">https://www.atf.gov/media/19161/download</a>)<p>> An FFL or unlicensed machine shop may also desire to make available its machinery (e.g., a computer numeric control or "CNC" machine), tools, or equipment to individuals who bring in raw materials, blanks, unfinished frames or receivers and/or other firearm parts for the purpose of creating operable firearms. Under the instruction or supervision of the FFL or unlicensed machine shop, the customers would initiate and/or manipulate the machinery, tools, or equipment to complete the frame or receiver, or entire weapon. The FFL or unlicensed machine shop would typically charge a fee for such activity, or receive some other form of compensation or benefit. This activity may occur either at a fixed premises, such as a machine shop, or a temporary location, such as a gun show or event.<p>> A business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements under the GCA simply by allowing individuals to initiate or manipulate a CNC machine, or to use machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion or control to perform manufacturing processes on blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or incomplete weapons. In these cases, the business controls access to, and use of, its machinery, tools, and equipment. Following manufacture, the business "distributes" a firearm when it returns or otherwise disposes a finished frame or receiver, or complete weapon to its customer. Such individuals or entities are, therefore, "engaged in the business" of manufacturing firearms even though unlicensed individuals may have assisted them in the manufacturing process.
Sorry if it is a dumb question, but why in USA people try to regulate 3D printing instead of banning sale of bullets without a firearm owner license? What stops people from buying Chinese printers or components on AliExpress? Or using an open source printer? At the same time, if you cannot buy bullets, your plastic gun is worthless.
California already has background checks for bullets, you typically can't buy ammo if you haven't bought a gun at your current address.
Some states do already and it's not enough, you can manufacture cartridges as well it's just annoying.
You can make bullets yourself just like you can make the gun.
You may remember the assassination of Shinzo Abe.<p>In the US low powerd black powder is super easy to get you don't even have to take fireworks apart or do home lab chemicals stuff.
> but why in USA people try to regulate 3D printing instead of banning sale of bullets without a firearm owner license<p>I mean we're talking about CA, so they kinda already tried to do that<p><a href="https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/ammunition-regulation-in-california/" rel="nofollow">https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/ammunition-regulat...</a><p>But, it may not be constitutional:<p><a href="https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/07/gun-law-ammunition-background-check/" rel="nofollow">https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/07/gun-law-ammunition-ba...</a><p>So the real reason is that the ultimate law on the books on gun regulation was written by a band of, you know, armed revolutionaries, who were pretty big fans of the whole armed revolution-ing thing. And it still hasn't been amended.<p>I bet if you went with a simple majority vote today, you wouldn't get the 2nd amendment. But amendments are pretty difficult to pass, much higher requirements than a simple majority.
US basically has a firearms license but by exclusion. Anyone with felonies or DV violations can't have guns, neither can illegal immigrants, neither can drug users . There are probably fewer Americans that can legally buy ammo and guns than Canadians by %.<p>If you use the ATFs guidelines on what is considered a prohibited person, it likely applies to about half of all US adults that are prohibited from buying ammunition. This when you consider ~30+% of US has used cannabis/fentanyl/etc or misused a prescription drug in the past year, the insane number of people we've made felons, the fact that restraining orders are now practically part and parcel of divorce negotiations as leverage (permanent restraining order bars you from owning guns), and then the fact that DV convictions are incredibly common in USA (police automatically arrest someone if they show up on a domestic complaint), then add the illegal immigrant population on top of that.
So, I cannot 3d print a squirt gun or a nerf style gun either? This print looks "scary" you cannot print it.
I'm so glad I left California 6 years ago. They are going to regulate and tax their startups and innovators away to other states. This is supremely stupid.
A. What if some part looks like some other non-gun part?
B. What if they can further break down the pieces to avoid detection?
Why don't these bills go after ammo or gunpowder access? Seems as long as you have access to a cylinder, and ammunition, you can make a gun.
blackpowder is just barely chemistry, more like engineering.<p>carbon, sulphur, and potassium nitrate, in a particular ratio.<p>potassium nitrate is watched, and reported in large quantities, or particular form, but can be manufactured by most people that can follow a recipe.<p>regulating the propellant cant stop it from being made.<p>also someone really didnt think it through by regulating "receivers"<p>they regulated what is most often the easiest part to manufacture.
the core parts [barrel, bolt, chamber] are difficult to build, require tech to build from stock, and are sold off the shelf, while receiver needs 4473 as if it was a fully functional firearm, and that is the part that can be built, from a 2x4 or a billet of material, depending how long you want it to last.
Making a bullet is definitely more difficult than printing a plastic gun handle (you need the bullet itself, and the cartridge fit it perfectly), and you have a non-zero chance to lose some parts of the body if you make a mistake.
Lead melting is not difficult. The brass case you can just collect used ones.
The primer would be harder to make (you can buy them online ofc) but with access to fireworks it is possible with no knowledge of chemistry and no realistic risk of losing body parts.<p>The guy who killed Shinzo Abe didn't need any of these things and still shot him.
I invite you to examine the construction of a shotgun shell.<p>Good luck banning that in any meaningful form.
Black powder guns, at least ones of antique design (but modern production), are federally ~unregulated already anyways. A 6 year old in North Dakota could order one mailed right now to his house, no background checks, right off the internet -- legally.<p>There is also the "felon carry" as its called late 19th century black powder percussion pistols, you can also order off the internet, regardless of criminal history and with no scrutiny of the chain of custody.
because gun control isn't about guns, it's about control
That was tried in Lexington and Concord circa 1775, it didn't end well for the guys trying to seize the powder.<p>Happy Patriot's Day this weekend (April 19th)!
Because the 2A and related jurisprudence exists and so that will be struck down in court in about 10wk whereas a "novel" convoluted regulation like micro managing printers will take 10yr.
Gun Control legislation is plenty slow to move through courts as well. The California magazine limits passed in 1999, it is sitting at the Supreme Court, waiting now 26 years later.<p>The Sullivan Act was passed in 1911, and it took 111 years to overturn (Bruen). So gun control cases move slowly like everything else.
I don't know the situation with the actual charge, but if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition.
you need tight tolerances for modern ammo, a shotgun, or muzzle loader is more forgiveing. reloading materials are not federally regulated as firearms, you just dont want to have more than 2lbs at a time, or that could bring trouble.<p>you want to be able to KNOW and SEE the difference between a blackpowder, and a smokeless powder, and what not to put it in.<p>one thing that would add a lot of friction is if the primers are regulated.<p>thats the funny thing, felons cant possess firearms or ammo, however you can possess reloading materials, and be fine there until you start actually reloading, then you are in possession of ammo.
I guess you are right, both are pretty easy to make.
People would probably use smuggled primers if arms were outlawed. The rest of the chemistry is easy enough to work with and the primers are small enough they'd likely flow along with fentanyl with the cartels anyway.
> if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition<p>theoretically true but having re-sleeved ammunition, the chances of injury is tremendously different. That said, a lot of people in California are having to resort to re-sleeving ammunition, not out of choice but because for all practical purposes, California has made buying ammunition impossible.<p>While you can crawl and bite your way through getting a horribly castrated gun in California, the real struggle begins buying affordable ammunition.<p>For regular people to own a gun that you can actually use in California, (not LEOs or certain other people), you either needed to have inherited them or bought them from the cartels. Otherwise you own something of limited use that insanely expensive to operate.
Can't you make a blunderbuss pretty easily with some rocks and scrap? I wonder how straight shooting a musket you could make? Probably pretty straight if you happened on something manufactured that already happens to fit pretty precise into your cylinder I'm guessing. You could probably get pretty far with airguns too. I mean a pellet gun is already enough to kill a bird or squirrel outright and pretty damn accurate. I probably wouldn't want to take one of those to the neck or soft part of the head.
pellet guns use the "diablo" profile to the pellets.<p>pellet guns have low spin per inch, and use drag to add extra stability.
and keep velocity below that trans-sonic shock range.<p>if you went to a reloading shop, and purchased some .177, or .22 projectiles, trimmed them down, or core them to about half wieght, and it will perform like a small rifle.
> For regular people to own a gun that you can actually use in California, (not LEOs or certain other people), you either needed to have inherited them or bought them from the cartels.<p>or, you can just break these stupid, unenforceable laws and buy out of state or just "uncastrate" it yourself.<p>no idea why so many people get their panties in a twist everytime California passes an unenforceable law. they're unenforceable.
[dead]
I've always felt that it you want to really impact gun violence, tax the hell out of ammo and gunpowder. Like $20/bullet. For those who believe in self-defense, a handful of bullets is all you need your entire life, and ideally they'll go unused.<p>Could probably create exceptions for bullets used at the gun range, so you can become proficient and safe.<p>Tricky part would be hunting, but restricting such a tax to ammo used for handguns is probably an 80% solution.
I've always felt if you really want to impact election fraud, tax the hell out of votes. Like $1,000/vote. For those who believe in democracy, a handful of votes over a lifetime is all you need, and ideally the right candidate wins anyway.<p>Could probably create exceptions for local elections, so you can still participate in your community.<p>Tricky part would be general elections, but restricting such a tax to federal races is probably an 80% solution.
Difference being that if you need ammo, you're already paying for it.
> I've always felt if you really want to impact election fraud, tax the hell out of votes. Like $1,000/vote.<p>You don’t even have to go that far. $10 and a trip to the DMV is apparently an insurmountable barrier.
States that already have a voter ID law haven't had any issues. The bigger objections are to those who say that the ID you can use to drive, board an airplane, buy ammo, etc, aren't good enough for voting.
The states aren't very logically consistent on ID laws. Illinois requires an FOID to bear arms but not an ID to vote. Arizona requires an ID to vote but not one to bear arms. Vermont is probably the most consistent non-ID state, not requiring an ID to vote and also not requiring an ID even to conceal carry a gun.<p>I can sort of buy the ID argument from places like Vermont but the arguments in many/most states are just complete bullshit where they've worked backwards to rationalize it and that's why there is no consistency for ID gating of rights within even the same state.
If you care about self defense, you practice using a gun semi-regularly.<p>The trick is to just tax murder so people can't afford it anymore.
> Could probably create exceptions for bullets used at the gun range, so you can become proficient and safe.<p>Amusing to imagine the red diesel of sport shooting - better hope the tax authority doesn't find any combustion-proof dye on the self-defense shell casings!
> California's proposed legislation to put the burden of blocking 3D-printed firearms onto printer manufacturers<p>I can only assume California has solved all its major problems if policing 3D printers is at the top of the agenda. It's like when someone complains their neighbor can afford two yachts and they can only afford one, you know they are doing pretty well if that's their major concern.
I could ask LLM to find me "legal" parts that are 1:1 with gun parts or even better find metal parts in craftcloud3d.com or sendcutsend.com. With big enough database it could find right items on Amazon. It's impossible to legislate.
Clearly there are not enough meaningful tasks available in society and all that's left is people in different positions of power trying to look busy.
Ugh. Imagine if HP were the only "legal" 3D printer manufacturer for Californians.
Follow the money here. Who is actually asking for this?
waste of time and resources. you aren't going to win a fight against 3d printers. might as well outlaw the printers completely.
Reason #5382 to not live in California.
This is why republicans get votes.<p>If you pull nonsense like this in a two party system, there are enough people with blind spots that it tilts the results against you.<p>My favorite example of such a blind spot is a friend being flabbergasted that someone funny could be evil.
AFAIK If I try to scan a dollar bill, both the hardware and the software won’t let me be.<p>How is this different?<p>Edit: I appreciate the responses! Thank you
A dollar bill is exactly the same (roughly) always. Banning models of gun parts (or anything 3D printed, for that matter) is like trying to ban the patterns of dust in the wind. There are millions of permutations and ways to slice the problem.
Having never seriously looked into 3D printing and knowing essentially nothing about firearms, a few mostly-unserious questions come to mind:<p>1. Is there any value in 3D printing the inverse of the shapes one would need to use as a mold?<p>2. How many subdivisions of gun-shaped part I wonder are needed before the ultimate intended shape is obscured without impacting the functionality<p>3. Given 2, is there even any value in 1.
> slice the problem<p>Pun intended
Photoshop does that voluntarily; it's not required to by law. GIMP doesn't do it.<p>This is akin to trying to require all image editors to detect currency and refuse to process images of it. Making open source image processing software would probably have to be illegal because end users could trivially modify it to illegally process currency, or having general-purpose computers that can run software the government hasn't approved would need to be banned.
US currency has machine-detectable identifying markings incorporated in the design. "Ghost gun" parts do not.
One practical difference is that you can make dollar bill detection relatively robust. Sure, you could cut it into 4 pieces and scan them separately, but you'd still get stuck when it comes time to print them. There are only finitely many dollar bill shapes. But there are infinitely many plausible gun components, and infinitely more ways to divide them into sub-assemblies.
> but you'd still get stuck when it comes time to print them.<p>It also seems a lot harder to DIY an inkjet or laser printer. The parts needed to DIY a 3d printer are a lot simpler.
It would be interesting to test what the minimum detectable piece of US currency is. (I wouldn't want to do it on a network-connected system, though.)
There is a pattern of yellow dots on the currency. I do not know at what size they tile across the paper, but the piece of currency would have to be smaller than that, most likely.<p>Far easier to dump the firmware and NOOP out that algo.
Some critical differences between the situations that come to mind:<p>- The problem of counterfeit currency is well acknowledged and has roots in antiquity. Reasonable people agree that currency genuinely cannot do its only job if counterfeiting is possible, and have had that agreement for thousands of years. In addition, the sole right to print currency is given to the US government in its constitution (almost certainly for this reason). These two things grant government control over printing currency both a moral and a legal legitimacy that government control over printing gun parts doesn't have.<p>- Because the government has control over the design of legitimate currency, it is actually practical to prevent software from reproducing it. See: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation</a> . Gun parts have no such distinguishing characteristic, and cannot be made to have one, since there is no authoritative body responsible for all of them. Having such a marking could be made legally mandatory, but it is not actually required for the function of the part, whereas currency needs to match the authentic design in order to be useful. It is therefore much less practical and effective to mark gun parts to prevent replication than it is to similarly mark currency.<p>- Creating your own guns specifically (and weapons, generally) is widely seen as a natural or God-given right. I would go so far as to say that it is intrinsically human, and that losing access to it would be as painful to some as losing access to rock 'n roll. I would say that due to this pain, losing that right is one of the chief signs of an enslaved people. While not everyone would agree with me, many would, which gives the issue a divisive moral edge. By contrast, creating your own currency might be seen as some sort of natural right by some people, but creating your own US Dollars certainly is not seen that way by anybody. Well, I'm sure you could find <i>someone</i>, but you know what I mean.<p>- As far as I know, there is no law compelling printer/photocopier manufacturers to use anti-counterfeiting software, and compliance is voluntary (but apparently pretty widespread -- though I doubt it's universal). A similar voluntary setup with 3D printer manufacturers would be less objectionable (though also much less likely to succeed). Introducing any sort of mandatory compliance regime introduces friction, slows innovation, and invites corruption.<p>- Manufacturing gun parts is actually pretty easy, and could be accomplished via many methods accessible to hobbyists, ranging from whittling by hand to duct taping hardware together to lost wax casting to desktop CNC to a desktop injection molding setup to metalworking on a lathe in a garage machine shop. It is in no way limited to 3D printing, though that admittedly lowers the bar a bit. Learning to work on guns is not significantly harder than learning to work on cars, though perhaps fewer people know how to do it. Thus, a focus on 3D printing seems much more driven by sensationalism, paranoia, and ignorance of this fact than it is by practical assessment of the issue. By contrast, creating even minimally recognizable counterfeit currency without the assistance of a computer is practically impossible and certainly cost-prohibitive. In manufacturing gun parts, it is perfectly practical in some cases to do the equivalent of drawing a dollar bill with a crayon -- something much less successful in the counterfeiting world.<p>- Adding broad pattern-recognition controls to a 3d printer is a novel and difficult problem that will likely impact innocent people doing legal things. Preventing the printing of accurate-looking currency has a much more narrow impact, and is much more focused on people doing illegal-adjacent things.<p>Without meaning any malice toward your question, I mention that I write because you have stepped on one of my pet peeves: it seems to me that an inability to see the difference between things that are, in fact, different, is one of the major failure modes of modern society in general. We need an appreciation for texture and nuance if we are to navigate the world rightly.
You cannot defend yourself from a hungry coyote or surprised mountain lion with a dollar bill but you can certainly protect yourself or your child from one with a gun
I just laugh whenever I hear “ghost gun”.<p>> On January 13, 2014 a certain State Senator (no reason to name names) held a press conference where he held a modern rifle in his hands and stated, “This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”<p>Anyone that knows even a little bit about guns knows that this is utter nonsense, and it was appropriately memed into oblivion.<p>Most anti-gun activists and legislators seem to have no more knowledge than this - which is to say, none.
Hence "assault weapons" which are not a particular type of gun but a list of scary characteristics associated with military weapons—bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and the like—used by legislators to FUD their way into being seen as "doing something" about guns.<p>In the United States we even have a word for an assault weapon on four legs—pitbulls. Most breed-specific legislation, where it exists, targets pitbulls which are not a single breed nor group of related breeds, but basically any large muscular dog with a short snout and blocky head. The American Pit Bull Terrier is one such breed but far from the only one targeted by BSL.<p>I think it was Toyotomi Hideyoshi who said something like, the law is not obligated to logic, but it still must be followed.
In Canada a gun might be banned as an “assault” weapon when a slightly different version of the same gun is still legal with the only difference being that one of the guns is painted black, and the other (still legal) has a wood coloured stock. One looks like a “military” gun while the other one is a “hunting” rifle when in reality they are exactly the same weapon and the only difference is cosmetic.<p>I am all for sensible gun regulations but that is almost never the case in practice.
> Anyone that knows even a little bit about guns knows that this is utter nonsense<p>Most people in California who vote on these matters have not held a BB gun, let alone a semi automatic.<p>They have 0 idea that you just cannot buy actual guns from a grocery store in California anymore!<p>They think you can just buy a gun at Walmart like you can buy a can of Coke. I was able to pull up clips made in 2023 and 2025 that were literally claiming that. Hasn't been true since atleast 2009, likely even earlier.<p>A few years ago a local Walmart was clearing our their air gun and rifle selection after there had been a shooting on the east coast that was all over the news. Since ammo have become really expensive, I bought out the whole shelf of air rifles so I could continue to target practice with a focus on my breathing.<p>People called the cops on me. Multiple people verbally abused me as a gun nut and recorded me buying them on their phones. I had <i>air</i> guns - *children* *toys*. They thought it was the real deal!<p>The local sherrif's department received nearly a 100 calls that hour when we spoke. When I asked them why they even bothered to turn up because they know no Walmart in a 300 mile radius have ever sold a rifle in the last 20 years as was described to them over the phone, they just shrugged and said "politics".
We are sorry, but your print resembles random princess from Disney too much (actually, we won't tell you which). Just following the law you know..
I don't understand the problem solving mindset that thinks banning guns would solve the problem of a person intent on causing harm.<p>In the U.K., where I feel guns are only showpieces (do even cops have them?), stabbing is a known problem.<p>In India, where ammo is way more expensive than machetes and knives, people are literally murdered with them.<p>The <i>only</i> argument I can understand, when it comes to banning guns, is that it reduces the blast radius that an evil person can have.<p>So what's next, lock down the air, radio, roads, internet, water, food supply chains because these are all attack vectors?<p>If that's the proposal, what's my plan when coyotes and mountain lions attack my child and I on our regular walks on rural property?
It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. The people proposing the bill must have zero understanding of how a 3D printer works.<p>It makes as much sense as requiring saw manufacturers to implement protections that restrict what can be cut out with a saw.<p>Or pen manufacturers being required to enforce copyright.<p>Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-quite-unintended consequences.<p>And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an <i>unlicensed</i> 3D printer to make <i>unlicensed</i> prints? That's how the industry literally began.<p>(Not to mention: what do they think would happen to the hundreds of millions of existing "dumb" 3D printers? They won't disappear because there's a law).<p><i>Sigh</i>.
> Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-quite-unintended consequences.<p>California gun laws in a nutshell.
>And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an unlicensed 3D printer to make unlicensed prints?<p>You really don't have to go that far. A very high quality control board (eg. an original Prusa) is like 125$ and cheap ones go for like 25$.<p>You could buy the licensed printer and swap the board. Or maybe even just flash the firmware on the licensed printer
> what do they think would happen to the hundreds of millions of existing "dumb" 3D printers?<p>Hey, my printer might be going up in value.
Next up flinging rubber bands with your two fingers to be banned.
I'm surprised the EFF didn't address the issue that traditional printer manufacturers already comply with law enforcement, specifically that a fingerprint of yellow tracking dots [1] are printed and printers will often refuse to or fail to copy images of money.<p>My point is there's already precedent for printers cooperating with authorities so one can see this as simply an extension to 3D printer manufacturers.<p>I suspect it's a losing battle for the EFF and 3D printer manufacturers to resist some kind of fingerprinting or even the prohibition of things that are guns.<p>I'm not saying that's right or wrong. That's just what I expect to happen. And if you want to argue against it, you should address the printer tracking dot issue or argue how this is different.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots</a>
The bottom of that wiki page has links to EFF pages. However you are correct that they view it as a lost battle:<p><pre><code> (Added 2015) Some of the documents that we previously received through FOIA suggested that all major manufacturers of color laser printers entered a secret agreement with governments to ensure that the output of those printers is forensically traceable. Although we still don't know if this is correct, or how subsequent generations of forensic tracking technologies might work, it is probably safest to assume that all modern color laser printers do include some form of tracking information that associates documents with the printer's serial number. (If any manufacturer wishes to go on record with a statement to the contrary, we'll be happy to publish that here.)
(Added 2017) REMINDER: IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT ALL RECENT COMMERCIAL COLOR LASER PRINTERS PRINT SOME KIND OF FORENSIC TRACKING CODES, NOT NECESSARILY USING YELLOW DOTS. THIS IS TRUE WHETHER OR NOT THOSE CODES ARE VISIBLE TO THE EYE AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINTER MODELS ARE LISTED HERE. THIS ALSO INCLUDES THE PRINTERS THAT ARE LISTED HERE AS NOT PRODUCING YELLOW DOTS.
This list is no longer being updated.</code></pre>
Open source is core to 3d printing. I have never heard of an open source traditional printer. That is the difference. This is an attempt to lock down open source.
> how this is different<p>From purely a technical standpoint: the printer indiscriminately adds tracking dots to all documents, the proposed 3D printer regulation requires the printer to phone home and make some dispositive call on what it's allowed to do.
I believe EFF did address the yellow dots but got nowhere. Yellow dot problem is decades old.