California ghost-gun bill wants 3D printers to play cop, EFF says
alterom
It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. The people proposing the bill must have zero understanding of how a 3D printer works.
It makes as much sense as requiring saw manufacturers to implement protections that restrict what can be cut out with a saw.
Or pen manufacturers being required to enforce copyright.
Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-quite-unintended consequences.
And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an unlicensed 3D printer to make unlicensed prints? That's how the industry literally began.
(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).
Sigh.
annoyingnoob
> what do they think would happen to the hundreds of millions of existing "dumb" 3D printers?
Hey, my printer might be going up in value.
dabluecaboose
[delayed]
asdff
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.
convolvatron
I don't know the situation with the actual charge, but if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition.
dabluecaboose
That was tried in Lexington and Concord circa 1775, it didn't end well for the guys trying to seize the powder.
MisterTea
> The primary goal is clear and simple: to require 3D printer manufacturers to use a state-certified algorithm that checks digital design files for firearm components and blocks print jobs that would produce prohibited parts.
"state-certified algorithm" has a really nice tyrannic ring to it. I am sure once this has passed the rich people can finally sleep at night knowing they are safe from roving gangs of armed Mangiones.
ginkgotree
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.
I don't understand the problem solving mindset that thinks banning guns would solve the problem of a person intent on causing harm.
In the U.K., where I feel guns are only showpieces (do even cops have them?), stabbing is a known problem.
In India, where ammo is way more expensive than machetes and knives, people are literally murdered with them.
The only argument I can understand, when it comes to banning guns, is that it reduces the blast radius that an evil person can have.
So what's next, lock down the air, radio, roads, internet, water, food supply chains because these are all attack vectors?
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?
rdtsc
> California's proposed legislation to put the burden of blocking 3D-printed firearms onto printer manufacturers
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.
alterom
It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. The people proposing the bill must have zero understanding of how a 3D printer works.
It makes as much sense as requiring saw manufacturers to implement protections that restrict what can be cut out with a saw.
Or pen manufacturers being required to enforce copyright.
Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-quite-unintended consequences.
And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an unlicensed 3D printer to make unlicensed prints? That's how the industry literally began.
(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).
Sigh.
annoyingnoob
> what do they think would happen to the hundreds of millions of existing "dumb" 3D printers?
Hey, my printer might be going up in value.
dabluecaboose
[delayed]
asdff
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.
convolvatron
I don't know the situation with the actual charge, but if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition.
dabluecaboose
That was tried in Lexington and Concord circa 1775, it didn't end well for the guys trying to seize the powder.
MisterTea
> The primary goal is clear and simple: to require 3D printer manufacturers to use a state-certified algorithm that checks digital design files for firearm components and blocks print jobs that would produce prohibited parts.
"state-certified algorithm" has a really nice tyrannic ring to it. I am sure once this has passed the rich people can finally sleep at night knowing they are safe from roving gangs of armed Mangiones.
ginkgotree
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.
I don't understand the problem solving mindset that thinks banning guns would solve the problem of a person intent on causing harm.
In the U.K., where I feel guns are only showpieces (do even cops have them?), stabbing is a known problem.
In India, where ammo is way more expensive than machetes and knives, people are literally murdered with them.
The only argument I can understand, when it comes to banning guns, is that it reduces the blast radius that an evil person can have.
So what's next, lock down the air, radio, roads, internet, water, food supply chains because these are all attack vectors?
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?
rdtsc
> California's proposed legislation to put the burden of blocking 3D-printed firearms onto printer manufacturers
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.
It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. The people proposing the bill must have zero understanding of how a 3D printer works.
It makes as much sense as requiring saw manufacturers to implement protections that restrict what can be cut out with a saw.
Or pen manufacturers being required to enforce copyright.
Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-quite-unintended consequences.
And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an unlicensed 3D printer to make unlicensed prints? That's how the industry literally began.
(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).
Sigh.
> what do they think would happen to the hundreds of millions of existing "dumb" 3D printers?
Hey, my printer might be going up in value.
[delayed]
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.
I don't know the situation with the actual charge, but if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition.
That was tried in Lexington and Concord circa 1775, it didn't end well for the guys trying to seize the powder.
> The primary goal is clear and simple: to require 3D printer manufacturers to use a state-certified algorithm that checks digital design files for firearm components and blocks print jobs that would produce prohibited parts.
"state-certified algorithm" has a really nice tyrannic ring to it. I am sure once this has passed the rich people can finally sleep at night knowing they are safe from roving gangs of armed Mangiones.
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.
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/dangers-californias-le... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47759420)
I don't understand the problem solving mindset that thinks banning guns would solve the problem of a person intent on causing harm.
In the U.K., where I feel guns are only showpieces (do even cops have them?), stabbing is a known problem.
In India, where ammo is way more expensive than machetes and knives, people are literally murdered with them.
The only argument I can understand, when it comes to banning guns, is that it reduces the blast radius that an evil person can have.
So what's next, lock down the air, radio, roads, internet, water, food supply chains because these are all attack vectors?
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?
> California's proposed legislation to put the burden of blocking 3D-printed firearms onto printer manufacturers
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.
It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. The people proposing the bill must have zero understanding of how a 3D printer works.
It makes as much sense as requiring saw manufacturers to implement protections that restrict what can be cut out with a saw.
Or pen manufacturers being required to enforce copyright.
Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-quite-unintended consequences.
And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an unlicensed 3D printer to make unlicensed prints? That's how the industry literally began.
(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).
Sigh.
> what do they think would happen to the hundreds of millions of existing "dumb" 3D printers?
Hey, my printer might be going up in value.
[delayed]
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.
I don't know the situation with the actual charge, but if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition.
That was tried in Lexington and Concord circa 1775, it didn't end well for the guys trying to seize the powder.
> The primary goal is clear and simple: to require 3D printer manufacturers to use a state-certified algorithm that checks digital design files for firearm components and blocks print jobs that would produce prohibited parts.
"state-certified algorithm" has a really nice tyrannic ring to it. I am sure once this has passed the rich people can finally sleep at night knowing they are safe from roving gangs of armed Mangiones.
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.
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/dangers-californias-le... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47759420)
I don't understand the problem solving mindset that thinks banning guns would solve the problem of a person intent on causing harm.
In the U.K., where I feel guns are only showpieces (do even cops have them?), stabbing is a known problem.
In India, where ammo is way more expensive than machetes and knives, people are literally murdered with them.
The only argument I can understand, when it comes to banning guns, is that it reduces the blast radius that an evil person can have.
So what's next, lock down the air, radio, roads, internet, water, food supply chains because these are all attack vectors?
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?
> California's proposed legislation to put the burden of blocking 3D-printed firearms onto printer manufacturers
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.