this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
262 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

81534 readers
4104 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

California’s new bill requires DOJ-approved 3D printers that report on themselves targeting general-purpose machines.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan introduced AB-2047, the “California Firearm Printing Prevention Act,” on February 17th. The bill would ban the sale or transfer of any 3D printer in California unless it appears on a state-maintained roster of approved makes and models… certified by the Department of Justice as equipped with “firearm blocking technology.” Manufacturers would need to submit attestations for every make and model. The DOJ would publish a list. If your printer isn’t on the list by March 1, 2029, it can’t be sold. In addition, knowingly disabling or circumventing the blocking software is a misdemeanor.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Bauer-Kahan is a Democrat, if you wonder.

If the bill is passed, I'd be surprised if Newsom didn't sign it.

[–] rushmonke@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 hour ago

This is all politics is, convincing morons to vote for puppets of the ruling class.

[–] EtherWhack@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I imagine it wouldn't really be too difficult to design parts in a way that they would be completely inconspicuous until trimmed and assembled

[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago

or a 3D printer that doesn't call the FBI

[–] Bluefruit@lemmy.world 16 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Wow a great bill to stop people from making weapons. Y'all gonna ban pipes and steel ball bearings next?

The fuck is our country coming to man.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 11 points 3 hours ago

Here's the thing. This isn't about banning weapons. It's about controlling access to IPs and preventing right to repair.

A forcibly Internet connected online. Only 3D printer that has to first check a public database to see if it's allowed to print the thing you just sent is most definitely going to be used to block you from printing parts to fix your appliances or devices.

And definitely going to be used to provide copyright protection and blocking to IPS of large corporations and companies.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 16 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Even if this bill was in good faith, I wouldn't want it: I believe that the USA is headed into a civil war, and I want the good guys to have the ability to manufacture stuff if they need to. Be it guns or tractor parts, having flexible logistics will be invaluable. Not just for military use, but also for civilians who don't have access to official parts.

In any case, the implementation of universal healthcare and UBI would be much more helpful for quelling violence. People who can have access to mental healthcare and with enough prosperity, are much less likely to become deranged enough to murder people. Measures like this, often exist to keep the peasants from being able to rise up against their overlords.

This thing is a product of malicious greed, not for the sake of good.

[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

Mental health care is a challenge even in universal health countries. MH is very time intensive.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 17 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I guess that'd make open-source firmware illegal.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

That's just a happy by-product for them.

[–] SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Printing guns wouldn't be a problem if you just make all bullets cost $5000.

[–] popekingjoe@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Damn that guy must've did something! They put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass!

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Just messaged my assembly member asking to vote against it. I suggest those who live in the state to do the same thing too.

[–] rushmonke@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 hour ago

Messaging your representatives is a waste of time and only exists to make you feel good about yourself.

The only way to fix problems like this is to vote for better reps, but we're too stupid to do that so the problem doesn't get solved.

[–] MatSeFi@lemmy.liebeleu.de 52 points 11 hours ago (7 children)

Sorry, I’m just a guy from overseas trying to understand why, in a country where 1 out of 4 people possess weapons, the 3D printer is the problem. I mean, there are companies selling industrial-grade firearms—why the heck is the 3D printer the target?

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

It's not about firearms.

It's about controlling what you can 3D print.

When your 3D printer has to connect to a third party service to check if it's allowed to print what you just sent it. That's a clear vector for companies to enforce IPs.

Printing a replacement part for your appliance? Sorry, they're blocked.

Printing parts to repair part of your vehicle or snap something back on? Sorry, that's banned.

Printing something that resembles the intellectual property of any other company? Sorry, that's banned.

Can't have you cutting into the profits of corporations by self-servicing and self-repairing.

Also a mass surveillance device to produce surveillance of what people are 3D printing and report it to a central authority.

[–] MatSeFi@lemmy.liebeleu.de 1 points 1 hour ago

Ok however its hard for me to believe that such measures could render effective. Regulating the tech literate people in such a way will always fail. The only effect it could have is that when its illegal to posses a unregistered/hacked you are an easier target for "law enforcement actions"

[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 hours ago

Because money. Firearms are everywhere in the US because of gun lobbyists. If citizens print their own guns then money is lost.

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 hours ago

Because it doesn't make money for Big War

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Because between them, the legislators don't have two brain-cells to rub together and figure out why this is an un-enforceable bunch of bullshit.

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 15 points 10 hours ago

Because it makes firearms available to people without having to jump through hoops the government can track, but they can make a machine that makes flexi-dragons into a boogyman, so they throw a "protect the children" in the bill and it automatically passes.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 19 points 11 hours ago

Because it makes for a good distraction from actual problems that they don't care to solve because those problems would require them to heavily tax millionaires and billionaires.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 13 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The last half of the 2020's is going to be remembered as when we lost all anonymity and privacy.

I guarantee by the end of the decade we get on-device snitches (to protect the children!) that profile and report everything you do, everything you type, everything you view.

Just leave me alone. Let me think my thoughts.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 11 points 8 hours ago

Then refuse to participate. Use open source software and any other kind of system outside their control until they throw you in jail. That's what I'll be doing. If enough of us do they can't jail us all. Participation is consent.

[–] osanna@thebrainbin.org 15 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] coolmojo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Terms and conditions apply.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 119 points 14 hours ago (14 children)

If they were smarter, which they are not, they would look to place restrictions on the slicer software. I doubt the printers even have the capability to recognize what is being printed. Most of them are like move left 3 steps, extrude .1mm of filament, move right 1 step…. yada yada yada.

This is just insanely dumb. They are essentially trying to regulate technology they know very little about.

[–] rushmonke@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Slicers are open source so anyone can and will remove surveillance malware from it.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Require printers to check digital signatures on STL files and have only approved slicers add those

[–] rushmonke@ttrpg.network 1 points 50 minutes ago

So we're back to placing restrictions on the printers...

[–] SalamenceFury@piefed.social 74 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (6 children)

They are essentially trying to regulate technology they know very little about.

That's not surprising, that's just what politicians do. Especially politicians who are 65+ years old and completely out of touch with technology.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 21 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Frankly it seems more like a mild inconvenience then actual prevention. I don't really care how smart a software gets, it can't predict and prevent all possible configurations of prints that could possibly be used to create functioning guns without being so overly restrictive that even perfectly innocent prints would get flagged constantly in which case they simple won't sell to normal users.

It would be a constant game of whack a mole with new creative designs, using multiple printers or with non-printed parts in the design. But no hardware or software that a smart enough engineer has their hands on is impervious to mods either, especially if they're motivated like someone seeking to produce firearms would be.

It's an overreaching law that will likely solve little to nothing, but might make 3d printers in general a bit more annoying to work with. "Sorry, you can't make your dice tower because there's a 16 percent change that it could be capable of firing an RPG out of the dragon's mouth. Please make your design at least 12 percent less gun-ish and try again."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

This is a lost battle either way but a non-lost opportunity to acquire some power

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 55 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

This is coordinated. Multiple states at the same time.

I don’t think it has anything to do with guns. Middle of the bell curve, most people aren’t using these for guns. They’re using these for right to repair. They’re using these for garage businesses. Shop businesses. Small businesses. (See: not corporate USA). Or for making/creatimg.

I’ve no doubt there are people sitting on some small slice of a tail on the bell curve who do print gun parts, but this is about corporate America.

It’s also a foot in the door dig on free and open source software.

It’s a way to block individual and small business from horning in on corporate America’s profit for a comparably tiny slice of their own.

Printing a knob to replace a broken on/off switch instead of buying a whole new item? Worse, selling that item or even just posting the pattern for free? We can’t have that.

Now, you’re bypassing my item’s proprietary system by printing…

Wait. I was able to sell threaded hand screw knobs for $5 each. Now you’re all just printing them? And the pattern is up there for free?

We need a law.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 59 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

This is stupid.

You easily tell who is 3D printing guns because they have one hand and bits of plastic barrel stuck in their faces.

[–] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 3 points 8 hours ago

On the contrary, there was a very interesting video by PSR (pardon the YouTube link) about how the civil war in Myanmar was being fought almost exclusively with 3D printed firearms. Apparently they're reliable enough to be an actual threat.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 14 hours ago (14 children)

"3d printing guns" isn't about the pressure holding parts, it's about the traceable serial number holding parts. On most firearms the "lower assembly" or "receiver" (frame, trigger group, feeding assy) is legally considered the firearm and is what bears the serial. Most of those can be printed and use off the shelf hardware to work, albeit with a much lower lifespan.
Pressure containing wear parts that are meant to be exchanged (barrel and breech bolt) typically do not carry serials and are thus not normally traceable. If you eliminate the serialized, traceable part of the firearm, then any collection of parts could be used.

That said, eliminating an entire hobby and industry because gun serialization laws haven't been updated in a hundred years is probably not the right way to do it.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 7 points 10 hours ago

This is true and very underreported.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 49 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

'Kay. They do know these things are barely capable of being networked, right?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›