That amendment is so overly broad the author should be forced to re-take some sort of how to draft bills class.
It would require fingerprinting for purchases of "certain 3D printers". What does that even mean? I guess the existing law defined what "firearm" means in the context of that law, but if I was a retailer selling 3D printers, I would have some serious questions about it.
My 5-year-old entry level 3D printer could probably print parts of a firearm, but those parts would probably not be very durable to a point they would be completely unusable. Would selling that printer be subject to this law? Who the f** knows. I don't think the author of the bill knows either.
It's so tiring to have these kinds of conversations with folks who do not understand the legislative process. There's no need to treat the legislator like an idiot. She's doing what EVERY legislator does, which is to identify a problem ("printed guns are a loophole in how we manage guns in this state") and saying she wants to find a solution to that problem. One mechanism by which legislators do that is by writing draft bills and then helping it through the legislative process to be improved, sorta like how you'd write a draft essay for a college class and then go back for a second and third pass before submitting it. As part of this process, people who are in favor of no legislation will come forward, people who are in favor of strong legislation will come forward, she'll hear their advice and feedback. If she's lucky, the bill will be seen by a committee who will hold hearings and re-draft it.
When you see a "ready to go bill," it's either been through a dozen-step process in this legislative session OR it's been brought up in a dozen different sessions and been improved along the way as legislators have to re-introduce all the bills they are sponsoring in each legislative session.
The legislator is not an expert in the issue, and I doubt she's claiming she is. She's proposing the broad strokes of a solution to a problem she sees. The point is not to pass the bill in its current form – it's to figure out how to solve the problem, using this general idea as the starting point.
I do want to point out that if you want to make durable parts with a 3D printer, the easiest thing to do would be to create the part with the printer, then use it to form a mold for casting the part out of metal. Then case harden. That's the cheap and fairly easy way. I just want to point that out because I think that use case of 3D printers gets overlooked. Or you buy a fairly expensive lathe/mill.
In New York legislation is drafted by attorneys, the elected person and their staff don't usually write them. It's still bloody awful but I think it's worse because an actual attorney was supposed to write this
I should buy a 3D printer. At university I knew a man who said any time the government wanted to make something illegal to buy he felt a compulsion to buy it. I think I see what he means now.
Be aware that many or most 3D printers create an incredible amount of plastic dust and microdust that floats in the air, pollutes your home, gets in your lungs, etc.
If you've ever given a shit about microplastics, do your research when shopping for 3D printers. And if you don't care about the environment but do care about your health, take precautions as far as PPE/where you use the machine.
What next, they'll ban transporting 3D printers across state borders and have the cops go around knocking down doors hunting for unlicensed 3D printers? Otherwise people would just buy them interstate.
Is there any support for this bill or is it just a random NY legislator proposing a bill with no actual support or plan for getting it passed? EDIT: It looks like this bill is in committee and only has one sponsor, so I am thinking no, but one never knows.
Someone has to dip their toe in to see how people react. That no big names are behind it doesn't mean they aren't "behind" it.
The people who proposed this need to be put on display tied upside down somewhere so that the message is clear.
If someone tells you "I want to take a crap on your head", the apropriate response is not saying NO, it's making sure they never ask that question again.
The proposal is for 3D printers that are capable of printing a firearm, or firearm component.
Which is actually really broad. From what I can find, NY law doesn't define "firearm component", but it does define "major firearm component" to include "barrel, slide, cylinder, frame or receiver". And I imagine pretty much any decent 3d printer can print a receiver for a gun designed to be 3d printed...
I was curious what NY does for purchasing a firearm and found this article[0] which says:
> New York is now a point of contact state, meaning the New York State Police NICS Unit will process National Instant Criminal Background Checks (NICS) when a customer tries to purchase a firearm. NYSP NICS will contact the FBI to determine if the buyer qualifies to purchase the gun.
So it's good to see that they're not imposing something on purchasing a 3D printer that isn't also done for what they're trying to control. But then the article goes on to say:
> For ammunition, the division of the state police will check a state record system to decide if a customer is permitted to purchase ammunition. This state background check is a new system.
Previously, there was no ammunition background check and gun shops submit requests directly to FBI NICS without passing through the state.
> “They’re putting excess burden on systems that are already working,” Jeff Benty, CEO of Just Holster It Firearms and Training Center in Elma told News 4. “That communication [between the shop and FBI] is severed off and we have to pass through the state, so basically the state has used their government authority to inject themselves in the middle and now charge customers a toll fee.”
> Customers have to pay $9 per firearm background check and $2.50 per ammunition background check. The state says the money collected will pay for the new background check system.
Seems like the state could be rent-seeking. I sure hope the requests aren't merely forwarded to the FBI every time someone buys a 3D printer (or refill filament).
Virtually any 3D printer that isn't bottom-barrel Amazon crap can print off a pistol lower. So the same item that one can buy in 49 other states at Micro Center or via Amazon now requires the same process as acquiring a firearm -- another thing that New York state is loathe about.
No matter what you think about the potential of 3D printers, just consider that at any given time there are folds more people printing the Rocktopus or hose couplers than there are firearms.
Please, dear God, don't anyone tell them about sand-casting...
Explanation for non-mechs: Make a shape out of wood with a chisel, push it into sand to make a void, melt Alu in a glorified BBQ, pour into sand to make a perfect replica of the wooden template. You can turn out 100 high quality "mechanical parts" in alloyed metal in the same time it takes to 3D print one in PLA.
Again with the casting in this thread. What parts are you imagining you can make this way? Modern small arms generally require quite good tolerances. If you aren't going for that (which you clearly aren't because you chose casting lol), just buy a pipe and move on.
ITAR is all over the lathe/CNC world - I'm an industrial/controls engineer, and have to do compliance reviews, "production of arms" forms, and "destination control statements" for the machines we build. The main difference is that cheap 3D printers are $200 and can be carried to your bedroom, instead of $200k+, requiring riggers and 3-phase power.
Yes, you can buy old Bridgeports and Pacemakers on Craigslist, or cheap mini-mills and mini-lathes at Harbor Freight, and run them in your garage, and yes, those would be infinitely more valuable in the making of a firearm. No, this law won't prevent someone clever and determined from building a 3D printer with some aluminum scraps, an Arduino, and a few steppers. Similarly, those ITAR PoA forms don't prevent me from buying some servos and bearings from AliExpress, bolting some steel together, and downloading LinuxCNC to make a 5-axis machine that ITAR would say could be used to enable nuclear proliferation. Many in the industry [1] agree that all these restrictions are ineffective and harmful.
The good news for this law is that while a nation state can probably devote a couple engineers and dismantle some obsolete equipment to build a custom 5-axis mill, a New York gangster is more likely to be deterred by this obstacle. But whether these restrictions are completely ineffective political posturing, an opportunity to add a charge to a separate conviction, or an obstacle in front of would-be criminals that is actually effective at reducing crime, is a social question, and unfortunately answers probably depend more on your political preferences than on anything measurable.
Good point, because without CNC, with 3d printers solely you couldn't do a firearm that do more of 1 shot. CNC are more "dangerous" for firearm production. This bill is a show of ignorance of the legislators.
According to my casual Googling, metal lathes start out a lot more expensive than 3d printers. Wood lathes and CNC machines are surprisingly affordable though. So this seems like a good question.
Nope. But NY can fuck over its own citizens until the Decision Class and Elites Leave. It may take a few more decades or years for them to sink into their own version of Detroit circa the 60's. But it is already happening across once large and prosperous cities.
PS, an un-friendly jab:
LOL; voting blue no matter who sure is working.
[+] [-] gorbachev|2 years ago|reply
It would require fingerprinting for purchases of "certain 3D printers". What does that even mean? I guess the existing law defined what "firearm" means in the context of that law, but if I was a retailer selling 3D printers, I would have some serious questions about it.
My 5-year-old entry level 3D printer could probably print parts of a firearm, but those parts would probably not be very durable to a point they would be completely unusable. Would selling that printer be subject to this law? Who the f** knows. I don't think the author of the bill knows either.
Maybe someone could ask. She's Jenifer Rajkumar: https://nyassembly.gov/mem/Jenifer-Rajkumar
This bill is listed on her list of sponsored bills: https://nyassembly.gov/mem/Jenifer-Rajkumar/sponsor/
[+] [-] pandemicsoul|2 years ago|reply
When you see a "ready to go bill," it's either been through a dozen-step process in this legislative session OR it's been brought up in a dozen different sessions and been improved along the way as legislators have to re-introduce all the bills they are sponsoring in each legislative session.
The legislator is not an expert in the issue, and I doubt she's claiming she is. She's proposing the broad strokes of a solution to a problem she sees. The point is not to pass the bill in its current form – it's to figure out how to solve the problem, using this general idea as the starting point.
[+] [-] giantg2|2 years ago|reply
I do want to point out that if you want to make durable parts with a 3D printer, the easiest thing to do would be to create the part with the printer, then use it to form a mold for casting the part out of metal. Then case harden. That's the cheap and fairly easy way. I just want to point that out because I think that use case of 3D printers gets overlooked. Or you buy a fairly expensive lathe/mill.
[+] [-] Simulacra|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ajay-p|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gotts|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rngname22|2 years ago|reply
If you've ever given a shit about microplastics, do your research when shopping for 3D printers. And if you don't care about the environment but do care about your health, take precautions as far as PPE/where you use the machine.
[+] [-] aksss|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] millzlane|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webdoodle|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logicchains|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Euphorbium|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tinus_hn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jprete|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kobalsky|2 years ago|reply
The people who proposed this need to be put on display tied upside down somewhere so that the message is clear.
If someone tells you "I want to take a crap on your head", the apropriate response is not saying NO, it's making sure they never ask that question again.
[+] [-] icegreentea2|2 years ago|reply
Which is actually really broad. From what I can find, NY law doesn't define "firearm component", but it does define "major firearm component" to include "barrel, slide, cylinder, frame or receiver". And I imagine pretty much any decent 3d printer can print a receiver for a gun designed to be 3d printed...
[+] [-] thelastparadise|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karmakaze|2 years ago|reply
> New York is now a point of contact state, meaning the New York State Police NICS Unit will process National Instant Criminal Background Checks (NICS) when a customer tries to purchase a firearm. NYSP NICS will contact the FBI to determine if the buyer qualifies to purchase the gun.
So it's good to see that they're not imposing something on purchasing a 3D printer that isn't also done for what they're trying to control. But then the article goes on to say:
> For ammunition, the division of the state police will check a state record system to decide if a customer is permitted to purchase ammunition. This state background check is a new system.
Previously, there was no ammunition background check and gun shops submit requests directly to FBI NICS without passing through the state.
> “They’re putting excess burden on systems that are already working,” Jeff Benty, CEO of Just Holster It Firearms and Training Center in Elma told News 4. “That communication [between the shop and FBI] is severed off and we have to pass through the state, so basically the state has used their government authority to inject themselves in the middle and now charge customers a toll fee.”
> Customers have to pay $9 per firearm background check and $2.50 per ammunition background check. The state says the money collected will pay for the new background check system.
Seems like the state could be rent-seeking. I sure hope the requests aren't merely forwarded to the FBI every time someone buys a 3D printer (or refill filament).
[0] https://www.wivb.com/news/it-was-really-inconvenient-new-yor...
[+] [-] 15155|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tiznow|2 years ago|reply
No matter what you think about the potential of 3D printers, just consider that at any given time there are folds more people printing the Rocktopus or hose couplers than there are firearms.
[+] [-] hcrean|2 years ago|reply
Explanation for non-mechs: Make a shape out of wood with a chisel, push it into sand to make a void, melt Alu in a glorified BBQ, pour into sand to make a perfect replica of the wooden template. You can turn out 100 high quality "mechanical parts" in alloyed metal in the same time it takes to 3D print one in PLA.
[+] [-] eindiran|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lawn|2 years ago|reply
The VORON printers for example, and they're beastly printers. They should appeal to the HN audience as they're completely open source and moddable.
[+] [-] rtaylorgarlock|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 317070|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeifCarrotson|2 years ago|reply
Yes, you can buy old Bridgeports and Pacemakers on Craigslist, or cheap mini-mills and mini-lathes at Harbor Freight, and run them in your garage, and yes, those would be infinitely more valuable in the making of a firearm. No, this law won't prevent someone clever and determined from building a 3D printer with some aluminum scraps, an Arduino, and a few steppers. Similarly, those ITAR PoA forms don't prevent me from buying some servos and bearings from AliExpress, bolting some steel together, and downloading LinuxCNC to make a 5-axis machine that ITAR would say could be used to enable nuclear proliferation. Many in the industry [1] agree that all these restrictions are ineffective and harmful.
The good news for this law is that while a nation state can probably devote a couple engineers and dismantle some obsolete equipment to build a custom 5-axis mill, a New York gangster is more likely to be deterred by this obstacle. But whether these restrictions are completely ineffective political posturing, an opportunity to add a charge to a separate conviction, or an obstacle in front of would-be criminals that is actually effective at reducing crime, is a social question, and unfortunately answers probably depend more on your political preferences than on anything measurable.
[1] https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/technology-evalu...
[+] [-] Buxato|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Thervicarl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neallindsay|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] extraduder_ire|2 years ago|reply
But seriously though, I'd hope this either doesn't pass or has a clear carve-out for reprap people.
[+] [-] Jemm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fastneutron|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kkielhofner|2 years ago|reply
They are used to convert semi-automatic Glock handguns to fully automatic (which is illegal without a tax stamp).
They are very popular with criminals (typically gangs) in the US[1].
[0] - https://www.yeggi.com/q/glock+auto+switch/
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_switch
[+] [-] jprd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yungporko|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cainxinth|2 years ago|reply
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ghost-gun-use-crimes-1000-perce...
Number of 3D-printed ghost guns soaring in New York:
https://abc7ny.com/nyc-ghost-guns-3d-printed-printer/1334500...
3D Printed Gun Arrests Tripled in Less Than Two Years – 3DPrint.com Investigates:
https://3dprint.com/291684/3d-printed-gun-arrests-tripled-in...
[+] [-] bentt|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sirmike_|2 years ago|reply
PS, an un-friendly jab: LOL; voting blue no matter who sure is working.
[+] [-] jamesbond009|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] skymast|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stevespang|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] varelse|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]