[nippoo]

The irony isn't lost on me that it's the USA, the country with some of the most permissive gun laws in the world, that's imposing these draconian rules on 3D printed guns - or is this pressure from the gun manufacturing lobby?

[kube-system]

Politically the US is very much not a monolith on this topic and many states and localities have passed laws that were later struck down as unconstitutional. This is a bill in California, which does have about the strictest laws that the federation allows them to have, and they would place even stronger restrictions on guns if they could. This is not really ironic as much as it is pushing the envelope for gun control as far as they legally can.

But also, California regulators likely see the regulatory landscape as the reason this law is needed rather than in spite of it.

Gun manufacturers are likely against these types of regulations because many of them would affect manufacturers and the tools they use too.

[guelo]

> strictest laws that the federation allows them to have

Note that "the federation" allowed states to have stricter gun laws until recently when we got a new partisan supreme court that is out of step with the previous 200 years of jurispudence.

[PunchyHamster]

> Gun manufacturers are likely against these types of regulations because many of them would affect manufacturers and the tools they use too.

No chance. For them compliance is the easiest thing in the world to law like that

[thom_nic]

> is this pressure from the gun manufacturing lobby

Definitely not, it's pressure from the anti-gun lobby that keeps pushing "one more bill that this time will actually change violent crime statistics, we promise!"

These bills are being introduced in the states that already have the most restrictive gun control already, yet to nobody's surprise, hasn't done much to curb violent crime. But the lobby groups and candidates campaign and fundraise on the issue so they have to keep the boogeyman alive rather than admit that the policies have been a failure.

[sellmesoap]

Ironically the anti-gun lobby seems to drive a lot of gun sales, perhaps it is not what it says on the tin?

[kube-system]

There are dumb arguments on both sides of this debate, but "one more bill that this time will actually change violent crime statistics, we promise!" is definitely one of the weaker arguments... pretty much all state-level gun control is worthless when there is no border control at state lines.

[FireBeyond]

> states that already have the most restrictive gun control already, yet to nobody's surprise, hasn't done much to curb violent crime

The "most restrictive gun control" states in the US would still be generally by far the least restrictive gun control states in the rest of the developed world (you know, where gun-related deaths are a small fraction of here?).

Your answer smacks of "well, they tried and surprise surprise it doesn't work so why are we doing it?", i.e. "'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens".

[pear01]

It is hard to police guns when there is free travel between the US states, yet only individual states can be relied upon to pass any reform. A broken federal government means guns are easily exported from red states with practically zero gun laws to blue states where they are used to commit crimes. States are often forced to recognize rights granted by other states because such an interstate jurisdictional question naturally bubbles up to the aforementioned dysfunctional federal system.

Similarly to how many (most?) guns used criminally in Mexico actually come from the United States.

Edit: I'm not surprised by the downvotes, but I am amused. These are objective facts. Any basic research will yield many studies (including from the American government) showing that the majority of guns used in crimes in Mexico are traced back to the States. Americans love the boogeyman of dangerous Mexican cartels so much they never seem to ask themselves where these guns come from in the first place. Hint: look in the mirror.

[mullingitover]

> hasn't done much to curb violent crime.

> they have to keep the boogeyman alive rather than admit that the policies have been a failure.

It's a documented, empirical fact that there is a marked correlation between common-sense gun laws and reduced rates of gun deaths.[1]

[1] https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/

[tadfisher]

On the other hand, no one from the pro-gun camp is involved with or wants to involve themselves with drafting common-sense gun regulations to reduce the impact of mass shootings while respecting Constitutional rights. Everything from that side seems to revolve around arming schoolteachers and permitting more guns in more spaces.

So of course you're going to have wildly-overreaching proposals making it through committees and put to the vote, because no one from the other side is there to compromise with. Americans prefer to debate on the news circuit instead of the committee floor.

[rdtsc]

> The irony isn't lost on me that it's the USA, the country with some of the most permissive gun laws in the world, that's imposing these draconian rules on 3D printed guns - or is this pressure from the gun manufacturing lobby?

It's like saying "I am baffled by Europe, look at what Hungary is doing ..."

For example, some states don't need any permit to open or conceal carry, some have no minimum age requirements to buy guns, and the majority don't have any mention of 3D printed guns.

Federal law applies then about untraceable guns and or arms that cannot be detected by metal detectors. But those predate 3D printers as we know them today.

[oceanplexian]

It's not the most "permissive gun laws in the world". In Norway you can buy a suppressor off the shelf with little to no paperwork.

If you live in CA and don't want to experience permanent hearing damage from shooting, you'll catch a Felony for simply possessing one. It's a big middle finger like the rest of California's gun laws.

[BobaFloutist]

I'm pretty much a gun control maximalist, but I would be more than happy to barter suppressor restrictions for pretty much anything else, since I agree with you that there's a good non-shooting-other-people reason to want to have them and I doubt they're actually that relevant to murder stats.

[FireBeyond]

I mean on Amazon you can buy them too, you just might have to look for something like a "lawnmower muffler for 9mm exhausts".

[plandis]

I think the current government of California would significantly regulate firearms if they could. It’s prevented from passing more restrictive laws due to the US constitution and a Supreme Court which takes an extremely broad interpretation of the rights derived from the second amendment.

[jwitthuhn]

In the US there is a certain class of politician that considers poor people being able to exercise their rights a problem that needs to be solved.

[dylan604]

Is that really limited to the US though?

[conradev]

It is both the USA and California. California doesn't allow most guns that other states allow and there is a lot of friction between CA and the USG.

[rconti]

This is a reaction to the inability to accomplish anything at the federal level in the "we have to do SOMETHING" vain.

[ToucanLoucan]

^ This. The Feds are so utterly gridlocked in culture war nonsense and whatever dumb bullshit Trump is up to that they cannot effectively govern. States and activists groups are trying to address actual problems the country has, instead of just playing political games on Twitter.

[gopalv]

> that's imposing these draconian rules on 3D printed guns

This is a bill with no votes - the first committee hearing is in March.

The purpose of the bill seems to be have some controversy & possibly raise the profile of the proposer.

The bill is written very similarly to how we enforce firmware for regular printers and EURion constellation detection.

[SilverElfin]

It’s pressure from the anti gun obsessed nonprofits on the left like Everytown. Bloomberg has nowhere else to waste money and there are legislators willing to present bills authored by Everytown blindly. But in many cases gun control bills are known to be unconstitutional and pushed through anyways. It takes years for laws to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and even if they are, states like Washington or California or Oregon will just pass the next Everytown authored unconstitutional bill with a slight variation.

The real fix is that we need to get rid of immunity for legislators. When they violate the civil rights of the constitutional rights of citizens through their actions, they must be held personally liable and must go to jail.

[AngryData]

If by "the left" you mean the DNC, then sure. Otherwise, Marxists, Socialists, and other far left groups are perfectly fine with guns. Hell Vermont has some of the highest gun ownership rates and most permissive gun laws in the nation, while having Bernie Sanders as a senator.

[throwway120385]

> The real fix is that we need to get rid of immunity for legislators. When they violate the civil rights of the constitutional rights of citizens through their actions, they must be held personally liable and must go to jail.

Why are you so angry about this?

[jopsen]

This only benefits expensive proprietary enterprise 3D print makers..

[stuffn]

It's the anti-gun lobby. Bloomberg's band of morons who believe a government monopoly on force is good.

These bans are almost exclusively in states with already extremely strict (high rated by the gifford's law people) gun laws.

So far, there is zero evidence in the last 30 years more strict gun laws have curbed crime. The states with the strictest laws conveniently have the highest proportion of gun crime. The same people writing these laws don't understand what "per capita " means. Nor are they willing to confront the reality of what the data shows. The calculus for these petty tyrants has changed from banning guns wholesale to lawfare. Make owning and purchasing firearms so burdensome the market dies, and with it, the rights. This is just another play in that strategem.

Fun fact: More people died last year putting foreign objects in their rears than by AR-15s. That is how insane the anti-gun lobby has become. They are literally barking at their own shadow these days.

[goostavos]

No amount of FBI stats about how often "assault" rifles are used will change people's minds. They don't like them and so want to take them away.

I don't know how to square the same people saying we're living under a tyrannical government also pushing legislation that makes sure said tyrannical government is the only one with guns.

[lovich]

> So far, there is zero evidence in the last 30 years more strict gun laws have curbed crime. The states with the strictest laws conveniently have the highest proportion of gun crime. The same people writing these laws don't understand what "per capita " means. Nor are they willing to confront the reality of what the data shows.

I’ve seen this claim from a few people in this thread but everytime I look up gun deaths per capita Massachusetts and California are low on the list and both have strict gun laws compared to red states

[whyenot]

Do you have a reference or at least some hard numbers for your "fun fact"?

[dekhn]

Can you redo your "fun fact" but include all types of guns?

[dekhn]

Your fun fact is misleading because it's specific to AR-15s. A better comparison would be all types of guns.

[tracker1]

It's mostly the same Karens that want to outlaw guns altogether so come up with burdensome rules to inhibit gun ownership. I've always been pretty libertarian on 1A and 2A myself.

[WillPostForFood]

It is pressure from the gun control lobby. Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, is the brains behind it. The states moving this legislation (California, Washington) are very hostile to gun ownership, and already have bans on assault rifles and printed guns. This is just another step in tightening the noose.

[kmeisthax]

It's important to note that the USA also has some of the fiercest opponents of private gun ownership in the world.

The most important thing to note here is that a majority of the support for gun control in America is cultural. Even the loud-and-proud pro-gun people got extremely shy about their own principles once the Black Panthers started packing heat. On the flipside, it's also not hard to find gun control supporting Democrats that happen to own firearms in their house. There's a related cultural argument over "assault weapons", or "black guns" - i.e. the ones that look like military weapons rather than hunting tools.

The result of all this confusion - and, for that matter, any culture war fight - is a lot of stupid lawmaking designed specifically to work around the edges of 2A while ignoring how guns actually work or how gun laws are normally written. Like, a while back there were bans on purely cosmetic features of guns. Things like rail attachments, that do not meaningfully increase the lethality of the weapon, but happen to be preferred by a certain crowd of masculinity-challenged right-wingers. In other words, a ban on scary-looking guns.

What's going on here is that someone figured out how to make a 3D printed gun that will not immediately explode in your hand on first firing. In the US it's legal to manufacture your own guns, and there's no requirement to serial-number such a gun, which makes it more difficult to trace if that gun is used to commit a crime. You can't really stop someone from making such a "ghost gun" (practically, not legally), so they want to take a page out of the DMCA 1201 playbook and just ban all the tools used to make such a thing possible.

Personally, I don't think that will pass constitutional muster - but that also relies heavily on existing culture-war brained nonsense that happens to be standing constitutional principle. 2A itself can be interpreted in all sorts of different ways. The original interpretation was "no interfering with state-run slave catching militias", and then later that turned into "everyone has the right to own firearms". Nothing stops it from changing again.

[almosthere]

No, this is probably an illegal CA law.

I'm a strong believer in 2a rights. However I think every type of weapon might require a license. So if you 3d print a gun that you would be allowed to own if you had already completed your background check, then you're gold.

If you end up 3d printing a nuclear bomb, the licensing requirements for that would be a billion times harder. (secure facilities, 24/7 guards, blood oath to the United States etc...)

[lovich]

They’re more American than whatever the fuck you are to have that thought