| ▲ | charcircuit 3 hours ago |
| It's legal to manufacture your own firearms. Putting limitations on 3d printers just makes people who want to this's lives harder and stifles innovation. |
|
| ▲ | ggreer an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| California law prohibits anyone from 3D printing a firearm (or most firearm parts) without first getting a manufacturing license from the state[1]: > (b) A person, firm, or corporation shall not use a three-dimensional printer to manufacture any firearm, including a frame or receiver, or any firearm precursor part, unless that person, firm, or corporation is licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29030). To get a license from the state, you must first have a federal firearms manufacturing license. California has additional requirements such as fees ranging from $250-600, yearly background checks of any employees who handle guns, a CA DOJ certificate of eligibility for every business owner, stricter building security measures than a FFL type 07, records of the serial numbers of all firearms produced, and allowing the local police to inspect the facility regularly. Firearm manufacturers are not allowed to sell guns to individuals, so you would not be able to take possession of your 3D printed gun until you got the model approved on California's roster, transferred it to a firearm dealer, then went through California's standard process for buying a gun, which I describe here.[2] 1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47079461 |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This is sad to hear. My knowledge of the situation was out of date of what things were like around 2020 in California. Many firearms companies today started off with one person creating an innovative design and then scaling that up. All of these barriers to entry just lock out hobbyists and potential disrupters out of the market. |
|
|
| ▲ | oceanplexian 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's legal insofar that if you want to exercise your rights expect to sit in Jail until your lawyer can take it to the Supreme Court. At which point CA will slightly reword the law to intentionally circumvent the Constitutional rights of its citizens. |
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have no idea about CA but this is absolutely the case in NYC.[] Dexter Taylor is sitting in jail for a decade for making personal use firearms without a license. No other alleged criminal activity and they never even left his house. During trial, the judge said "the second amendment isn't allowed in my courtroom."* His lawyer knows they are going to lose all the appeals in New York but basically he has to sit in jail for 3-4 years through the state court system until it can hit federal courts where there is a good chance his case will eventually get overturned. [] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Taylor * Response to below (my comments are throttled): The argument/reference in his defense, not actual guns. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Respect. "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law out of all other freedom struggles." | |
| ▲ | stronglikedan 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | NYC, California... they're the same picture | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | daveguy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Of course the second amendment isn't allowed in his courtroom. It's literally not allowed in any courtroom in the country. It's a courtroom. The only people permitted to have guns in a courtroom in the US are the bailiffs and the judge. Was that a reading comprehension issue, or are you just trying to rile people up? Sports Arenas and Jails are two other places you might be surprised to learn don't allow the second amendment. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The full quote is. >Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York. This is not about guns in the courtroom. This is a claim that the 2nd amendment of the constitution does not apply to the state of New York. | | |
| ▲ | daveguy an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Weird. I have seen a bunch of people repeating that quote, but not a single source for the full court transcript. Court transcript are public record, available for request by anyone. So it's real strange no one seems to have a source reference, no? Did you read the transcript? Happen to have a reference? | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Me either, that's why I replied opened endedly since I didn't have the full context. | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Interesting point. The quote appears to be the defense attorney's interpretation of the judge's statements. https://scnr.com/article/hobby-gunsmith-in-nyc-convicted-aft... IMO, it depends on the events in court; if there was extensive argumentation about that and the judge is finally saying that it's been discussed to death and there's no point bringing it up, that seems fine. (I don't want to read the actual court transcripts to figure out what the attorney is referring to, so this comment is intentionally inconclusive.) |
| |
| ▲ | throwway120385 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, what the judge is saying is that just arguing that you're allowed to do whatever "gun things" you want because of the 2nd amendment in a state district court is specious. You can argue the merits of the specific case based on the precedent in that and other courts that have jurisdiction but simply standing up and arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number doesn't carry water. To make that argument you'd first have to take the F out of ATF and roll back a lot of case law that exists at the federal level that does give states the right to enact some controls. It's a gross oversimplification of what the judge was trying to say to imply that they don't care about the 2nd amendment or the constitution. | | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number I'm not familiar with the details of the case but, reading the thread, it seems this didn't occur if the guns "never even left his house". | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Such a thing could have been phrased better by the judge in such a scenario. I personally feel the statement that was made was unprofessional at best. | |
| ▲ | mothballed 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This has nothing to do with the federal laws that are enforced by ATF ... what he did was totally legally federally. And he didn't sell them, you pulled that out of your ass. It doesn't appear you have any familiarity with the case yet you purport to understand what the judge was saying by completely mischaracterizing the case with outright falsehoods. But I suppose if you just tell straight up lies confidently enough, someone will believe you! |
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rolph 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| the caveat is it has to be your personal product and you cant sell it, probably cant "loan" it, and it would be questionable if you were found letting your buddy try a few shots. you have to be an FFL to legally transfer a nonserialized firearm, and part of that includes endowing the firearm with a serial, and completing the 4473. if the firearm is already serialized you can do private sale from person to person, in a casual non business context, you cant privately transfer a "ghost" it has to be serialized and go through 4473 transfer then it can go through private sale. [addndm] "Requirements for Individuals For individuals who already possess a PMF or an unfinished receiver for personal use, the rule does not require retroactive serialization. However, if that individual decides to sell or transfer a privately made firearm to another person, the transaction must be conducted through an FFL. The FFL must then apply a serial number to the weapon and complete the required background check and record-keeping procedures before the transfer can legally occur." https://legalclarity.org/supreme-court-ghost-gun-decision-cu.. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | mothballed 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Might be true in California, but this is almost entirely false at a federal level. You can't make it for the purposes of sale, but you can sell or loan it as part of trading your personal collection. I've heard the myth about not being able to sell over and over but no one has ever been able to point out a federal law against selling a privately manufactured firearm incidentally later as part of trade in their collection, with or without a serial number. All successful prosecutions I've read involved people making them for the purpose of sale or transfer and then getting caught doing that -- for that you need an FFL. You do not have to be a FFL to transfer a nonserialized firearm. In fact tons of guns made before the GCA had no serial number, as there was no blanket requirement before 1968, they are legally sold privately all the time (as are PMF / "ghost guns" that people no longer want). >[addndm] "Requirements for Individuals Yeah that's an uncited bit of misinformed nonsense, it's totally false. If there is a law or ruling they surely could have cited it, in fact what they did was apparently trawl forums or something repeating that myth and just regurgitated it out. Here is the actual rule they claim they are referring to[] I challenge anyone to find that nonsense in there. In fact, it says the exact opposite, as I will cite the actual rule publication that those morons are pretending to refer to but yet won't cite themselves: At the same time, neither the GCA nor the proposed or final rule prohibits unlicensed individuals from marking (non-NFA) firearms they make for their personal use, or when they occasionally acquire them for a personal collection, or sell or transfer them from a personal collection to unlicensed in-State residents consistent with Federal, State, and local law. There are also no recordkeeping requirements imposed by the GCA or the proposed or final rule upon unlicensed persons who make their own firearms, but only upon licensees who choose to take PMFs into inventory. In sum, this rule does not impose any new requirements on law-abiding gun owners.
[] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/26/2022-08... |
|