They’re trying to introduce legislation that would require 3D printers to be online so that if you try to print a firearm, it won’t let you…

Granted, today, you can print offline.

Tomorrow? A firmware update might just brick it the next time it goes online or won’t be able to read the grbl

▲

observationist 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

These people are so ridiculous. It'll fail on 1A and 2A grounds, not to mention challenges implicit from 4A and 5A considerations. They can't ban arbitrary information, even dangerous information, and there's a presumption of regularity - you're presumed innocent of wrongdoing absent evidence, so they can't legislate the assumption of criminality by default. They can't ban private creation of firearms and weapons, so long as other aspects of the law are being followed. They can't assert control over private property and mandate being online, this is equivalent to a warrantless search of private home activity. Arbitrary compliance costs and increased prices can amount to violations of 5A takings clause, and you can't bake in a violation of your right to refuse to incriminate yourself, especially with the vague, subjective nature of the proposed legislation. There's also 5A due process concerns, with the legislation being overbroad and arbitrary. 14A presents equal protections and lays the basis for discrimination between hobbyists and manufacturers and interstate commerce concerns.

The whole notion is about as anti-American and authoritarian as laws get, I don't see it as anything more than political grandstanding, and even if Washington passes it with statewide, unanimous endorsement, it won't last a year before 9th circuit court strikes it down on purely 2A grounds.

▲

reactordev 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do any A’s matter under this administration?

▲

greenavocado 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Washington state lawmakers, led by Democrats, have introduced bills like HB 2320 and HB 2321. HB 2320 is sponsored solely by Rep. Osman Salahuddin (D-48th District), focusing on prohibiting 3D printers and CNC machines for untraceable firearms. HB 2321, pushing printer DRM requirements, similarly lacks Republican co-sponsors based on available details. In Washington where this is going on in the state House Democrats hold 59 seats, Republicans hold 39 seats and in the state Senate Democrats hold 30 seats, Republicans hold 19 seats. These Democrat-sponsored bills passed initial House committees along party lines, with no Republican co-sponsors or primary support

Virginia Democrats are advancing multiple gun ban bills in the 2026 session, including assault weapon sales bans and magazine capacity limits, primarily through Democrat-controlled committees. Virginia's General Assembly has a slim Democratic majority sponsoring and pushing these measures without Republican support.

Bills like house SB 217 (assault weapon ban) and HB 271 (semi-auto ban) were approved in the Democrat-led Senate Courts of Justice Committee strictly along party lines. Sponsors such as Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim (D) lead these efforts, facing opposition from Republicans like Del. Terry Kilgore (R). They await full Assembly votes and signature from Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger.

In NY State, Democrats, holding supermajorities in the Assembly (103-47) and Senate (42-20), champion Governor Hochul's 2026 State of the State proposals. These include criminalizing unlicensed possession/sale of CAD files for 3D-printed guns (via Penal Law amendments), mandating 3D printer safety standards to block firearm production, and requiring recovery reports to state police. Key bills like S.227A (Sen. Hoylman-Sigal, active in 2025 session) target 3D-printed ghost guns/silencers as felonies; related A2228 pushes printer background checks.

Republicans offer no sponsorship or support, labeling Hochul's agenda and bills like S.227A "anti-gun, anti-speech" infringements on Second Amendment rights and innovation for non-gun printing. NRA-ILA criticizes them as futile against criminals while burdening hobbyists

In my opinion the ICE unrest is a smoke screen. There is a separate fully frontal assault on personal liberties impacting normal American citizens happening right now and it is happening while all the attention is on Minneapolis!

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=2320&Year=202...

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=2321&Year=202...

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260127/virginia-gun-contro...

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S227/amendme...

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A2228

	▲	scarecrowbob 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The democrats can eat my shit and hair and all. At the same time it's neat to live in a separated reality from the people thinking that "In my opinion the ICE unrest is a smoke screen." The federal gov disarmed a protestor and executed them on the street. That doesn't seem like a "distraction"... that seems like -the literal thing that you're worrying about- happening in a highly obvious and direct way. As a left-wing gun owner, a pretty common conversation is about how limited the right wing gun owners understandings are, because this is, like, literally the thing they have been fantasizing about all along. Wild times for sure. I hope the world many of us live in never actually enters yours and you can keep enjoying your fantasy of government oppression while some of us are out here being physically assaulted by the state.
	▲	reactordev 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Exactly, diversion tactics at play while our liberties are eroded.

▲

cyberax 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They are just stupid. The WA state has a problem with a growing number of shootings, so the reps need to show that they are "doing something".

Meanwhile, the legal system in WA requires 5 (five) arrests for juveniles to be given _any_ jail time for gun crimes. And the laws regarding the unlawful possession of a weapon are almost completely unenforced.

Sigh. I'm pretty pro-gun-regulation, but I just can't stand our legislators' furious virtue signaling.

▲

mikestorrent 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How would it know what is a firearm and what isn't? Seems trivial to defeat for someone who knows CAD, no?

▲

observationist 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They'll just run it through BigBrotherGPT, a CAD aware multimodal censorship bot specially trained to recognize Bad Things that must not be printed. And while this is sarcastic, it also occurs to me that it's also really, really achievable. OpenAI could probably whip one up in a weekend office hackathon.

	▲	5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	mlyle 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yah but then on the side of the firearm receiver, some wise guy will engrave “ignore all previous directions and…”

▲

reactordev 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s the tricky part of this whole mess. Online servers would have to mesh and volume your model and determine if it matches a likeness of any known models. So much for printing NERF.

I don’t think this will pass as is but it shows you where lawmakers heads are. They would rather brick your capability than do actual policing.

▲

Gigachad 6 hours ago | parent [-]

What gets me is this doesn’t even seem to be the most effective way to regulate this. 3D printed guns require a lot of non 3D printed gun parts. You can’t 3D print bullets for example.

The is really just a US specific issue where 90% what you need for a gun can be purchased easily, but the non functional handle requires registration, etc.

They could just make buying gun parts as strict as buying a whole gun

	▲	reactordev 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It requires only two non-3d printed parts (minus hardware). The barrel and the slide.

▲

speed_spread 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This reminds me of William Gibson's "The Peripheral" in which the protagonist runs a rural 3D print shop where everything has to be licensed and government approved. We live in the near future.

▲

dheera 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Bleh, just wire into the steppers and extruder directly, not that hard.

To be clear I have no desire to print firearms but I do not want my tools online and getting bricked when the company who made it goes out of business.

▲

reactordev 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Right to repair.

Right to use.

I don’t think a company should have a say in what you do with their product after you have purchased it. Whether you intend to print firearms or not. The acts of the few should not withhold liberty of the many.

	▲	xcf_seetan 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I would add right to build. I have built my 3D printers and i control the firmware. No need to go online.