> The state should prosecute people who make illegal thing, not add useless surveillance software on every tool in every classroom, library, and garage in the state.
This bill is analogous to requiring text editors to verify that a document does not contain defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, child porn, etc., before it saves the file. In first amendment terms that led to the conclusion that prior restraint on publication is incompatible with the amendment. The same doctrine should be extended to the second amendment for the same reasons. The alternative is intolerable surveillance.
1st Amendment + 2nd Amendment == The Right to 3D Print and Bear Arms
Moreover, how could this be implemented? Determining the 3D volume which a given G-code file will result in is something which the industry would find very useful, but no one has yet achieved. Doing so would probably simultaneously result in the folks doing so being awarded a Fields Medal and the Turing Award (in addition to making a boatload of money licensing the resultant software/patent).
On top of that, how does one resolve the matter of the same G-code file (for two nested circles plus some machine-specific codes) resulting in either a metal washer, or a lamp base, depending on whether run on a machine set to metric w/ a coolant system, or Imperial w/ a tool changer?
Lastly, who creates the list of forbidden parts? How will it be curated? And most importantly, how will it be secured that it isn't a set of blueprints which are then used to make firearms?
A more reasonable bit of legislation would be one which required folks who are barred by statute from owning firearms (convicted felons (who have not had their rights restored)/convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse) to approve with their parole officer any file for a part/object made by a 3D printer or CNC machine before submitting it to the machine.
I'll be honest, I've always been mixed on prohibiting parolees and ex-cons from owning firearms in the first place. I think the right itself as part of self-defense is pretty clear and self-evident. I also don't like secondary crimes in general.
Killing is bad... killing because you don't like $group is double-bad. Speeding is bad, speeding without a seatbelt is double-bad. etc.
If you are such a danger to society that you shouldn't be allowed to be armed in case of defense, then you probably shouldn't be in society and remain locked up. That's just my take on it. I feel similarly on taking away voting rights after prison as well. I may not like how you vote, but I'm just not a fan of taking away people's rights outside prison/jail.
I agree about the guns. The second amendment doesn't say "except felons". It says "shall not be infringed".
Possibly, if there are enough armed felons running about, we might be able to get both sides to the table and admit that maybe there should be some limits. Until then it does us no good to exclude some groups just because we don't like them, while still enduring school shootings.
In 1700s terminology, the process of regulating (training) the militia has to take place after first gathering the 'irregular' militia, whose members bring their own weapons. This was established even in colonial times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_Movement_in_North_Ca... You'll recall the Baker Street Irregulars, and Paul Revere's "You know the rest, in the books you have read, how the British Regulars fired and fled." The 2A's 'Arms' also covers non-gunpowder weapons. The right of the People to keep arms comes prior to issues related to their use.
The point about militia is a short statement for why the right to bear arms is important, rather than trying to restrict or qualify the right.
The ability to form militias is so important, that everyone should have the right to bear arms, in order to enable this.
The idea is that it prevents the idea of a "special militia" having some selection criteria, so the government of the day cant make qualifying for its group a requirement to own guns.
I agree, that clause is there to explain why. To my eye, Madison appears to have been thinking mostly about state militias versus a standing (national) army. We obviously don't muster any of those today, I suppose the closest we come is the National Guard.
According to the first militia act, which defines the militia ss every able bodied male over 18... everyone is required to own a firearm... yeah, it's a musket, but it was the most common weapon of the time, today it would likely be a 9mm handgun and an AR-15.
It would also mean having regular meetups in your community to discuss any coordination necessary in times of emergency... Where to show up with your gun(s), who is in charge, who to communicate with, etc.
The "well-regulated militia" bit is given as the rationale behind the amendment. That does not therefore mean that the right codified by the amendment only applies to those who are a part of a militia.
Too expensive/punitive, and note that there is an option to be restored to full citizenship after time served/restitution is made.
My take on it is that if your judgement is so twisted that you are able to commit a felony and not be able to successfully petition for rights restoration, then you are not suited to deciding by whom the country should be governed.
I haven't had my firearm rights restored since I caught my (non-violent, bullied into a plea deal) felony over 20 years ago because I have not yet managed to fully pay restitution to a large insurance company. Despite having paid more than the original judgement, interest is a killer and my current balance stands at over $130k (original judgement for $33k).
No, but the felony involved damage to property and so there was a civil penalty involved and where I live my criminal status is linked to whether or not I've paid that off. They did restore my voting rights after my parole was up, though, and I don't care to own a gun, so I've made peace with the situation.
I was trying to get ahead of the debt for awhile but I realized that's a sucker's game and now I just pay the minimum that keeps them from confiscating parts of my paycheck or other assets.
Doesn't the law include that devices which fail to implement such checks are barred from sale?
>In addition, knowingly disabling or circumventing the blocking software is a misdemeanor.
The inobvious thing is that that aspect of the law cannot be applied to felons or persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, since like failing to pay the tax stamp on a Class-III firearm or accessory, it would require self-incrimination, which thus far, is still illegal.
Have you actually looked into what it takes to restore full citizenship in many places? In some locations it means having to get the Governor to act on your behalf. Imagine what it would take to even get in contact with the Governor of a largely populated state, let alone trying to convince them that you should have your rights restored.
Your judgement is twisted if you think that's a reasonable expectation for anyone who has served their time.
Yes, I have experience of this, having known a person for decades who has done this --- if a person can't manage it, they shouldn't be voting, and they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms as I reasoned/rationalized above.
Just to confirm your meaning --- if a person has demonstrated such poor judgement as to be convicted of a felony, and then cannot trouble themselves to then recant this judgement and argue that they are now capable of making responsible decisions, then they should be allowed to vote and own firearms despite not being willing to make an effort to state that their character has changed?
So because someone gets railroaded into a plea deal that includes a felony, they should never be able to vote or protect themselves again unless they can form the connections and/or the ultra-wealth to coopt a seated governor of that state?
I'd be more inclined to see an English language and American history/civics test as a requirement to vote. Not that I'm advocating for this, but it would be just as justified by your logic.
If you've served your time, you've served your time... I wouldn't even mind a reasonable parole term (something up to even a decade) after release... but at least some limit on the restriction(s). I'm also opposed to private prisons for similar reasons... you shouldn't incentivize restricting/removing people's rights. If you're too much of a danger to society, you should remain locked up.
It's not interesting because it's not representative. Pair this with some stat that shows it happens the same way most of the time and then it's interesting.
If you lost someone, you might feel differently. And the people that lived that day, almost most certainly don't want to die like that.
That's the problem with those style of arguments. As logical as you want them to be, it doesn't remove the trauma burned into the psyche of the people who lived that day.
If you deny someone's humanity in your argument, you've lost.
They said exactly that they do not think these are double bad.
They are presenting them as examples of things that a lot of people do say, and many laws are written this way, and many cops, prosecutors, & judges treat them as double bad.
Speeding without a seatbelt is two separate infractions so it should be double bad. Just like robbing a bank and shooting someone is double bad compared to either individually.
And intentional killing is generally considered worse because it means you thought about it and then did it, vs when it's due to acute emotional disorder. Intentional crimes are usually treated more harshly
I'm not talking about two crimes together... I'm talking specifically about changing the punishment based on intent or secondary effects.
Owning a gun is legal, but if you've ever smoked weed it's illegal for you... murder is bad, but if it's because you hate a protected group it's a much harsher punishment... in some places, you can't be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, but you can be charged with it if you're pulled over for anything else. It's just to attach additional charges for prosecution.
I don't like the idea of excessive charges as part of the prosecution process in general. It creates/extends what I consider an unfair asymmetry between the state (prosecution) and the individual. That's not to say there aren't similar examples in the other direction, such as a clerical error resulting in dismissed charges altogether.
Arguably it is, see my observation about self-incrimination elsethread --- I just didn't carry things forward on that basis, nor work up a clever way to include that number as well --- anyone have any ideas along those lines?
> Lastly, who creates the list of forbidden parts? How will it be curated? And most importantly, how will it be secured that it isn't a set of blueprints which are then used to make firearms?
My conspiracy theory is that these laws (there have been a rash of them lately, and that feels off) are being promoted by some of the cloud-based 3d printer manufacturers. In other words, an attempt at regulatory capture.
As you note, determining from gcode whether the print is a gun is effectively impossible, and hiding the blocklist is hard anyway. Thus, the only way that could possibly work technically is with those cloud printers that take a .STL as input, routed through the printer manufacturer's servers.
Discriminating between "gun" and "not gun" from the .STL is still hard, but vastly easier than inferring from gcode. The blocklist story becomes at least coherent, if still highly suspect, to anyone who knows anything about computer security.
3d printing is also a creative expression and part of free speech. However principles don't matter to authoritarians, and really the only defense is constant political pressure and civil disobedience.
The model files and designs are protected speech, yes.... but free speech doesn't really follow the transitive property. Just because you can have a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook doesn't mean that building the things in the book are protected speech.
Not in California but generally 3d printing or otherwise self-manufacturing firearms is legal per the 2nd amendment, and publishing files is protected expressive activity (I bet there are some ITAR cutouts for weapons but I suspect that doesn't come into play here).
Self-manufacturing is definitely federally legal by statute but I don't think it is entirely clear that a constitutional right to self-manufacturing is incorporated to states or localities. Heller never mentioned manufacturing.
And on top of that, there is no protected right to 3d printers.
Regardless, it is 1000% more clear that states can't ban you from sending around gun design files.
The state applying strict scrutiny is an intimidation tactic that infringes legitimate speech. We also know very well that none of these systems will work well and that the DOJ will be happy to apply bans as far as they can get away with. It will be the no fly list for physical objects, and we won't even be told what is explicitly banned. We'll just not be able to print something. It will be very hard to argue to argue to the courts and at that point the harm is done, and there is no real effective remedy. They've already blocked and discouraged a legitimate right.
Which physical objects that you make in your home, are actively monitored by the police as you make them? When I bake something in my oven, would it be reasonable for the DEA to have a camera in my kitchen to ensure I do not make weed brownies?
I think you are a little confused because the title is a little bit editorialized, but, this law doesn’t monitor anything in anyone’s home. It controls the commercial sales of 3d printers.
"This bill would require, on or before July 1, 2028, any business that produces or manufactures 3-dimensional printers for sale or transfer in California to submit to the department an attestation for each make and model of printer they intend to make available for sale or transfer in California, confirming, among other things, that the manufacturer has equipped that make and model with a certified firearm blueprint detection algorithm."
This in my opinion is the state monitoring me in my own home. You can split hairs on semantics, but the effect is the same if machine learning or a person does it.
This reflects a lack of technical understanding of the subject. The proposal is not enforceable, as there is no control over the end user’s networking stack. E.g. you can't actually rely on "3D printers that report themselves". The law makers need our help and some technical consultation.
The manufacturer can simply require that all prints go through their proprietary software, or better, cloud service for validation before the printer will accept them.
The person proposing this, and/or their staff certainly knows this.
It's okay, we just need a new tax to cover the mandatory sim chips that will need to be installed in compliant printers (which will not be permitted to be operated in metal buildings or basements, of course.)
This policy has existed for (non-3D) printers and image editing programs for decades now. They will refuse to print currency or anything with a specific watermark.
This bill is analogous to requiring text editors to verify that a document does not contain defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, child porn, etc., before it saves the file. In first amendment terms that led to the conclusion that prior restraint on publication is incompatible with the amendment. The same doctrine should be extended to the second amendment for the same reasons. The alternative is intolerable surveillance.