Actual text from your link is:

> (a) Any business that produces or manufactures three-dimensional printers for sale or transfer in California shall take both of the following steps

This is worded a bit ambiguously: it's not clear whether it's meant to be "manufactures ... in California" or "for sale or transfer in California". IANAL, but wouldn't the latter be unconstitutional inasmuch as it conflicts with federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce? It seems unlikely that California would be able to enforce this against businesses that have no operational presence there, and are merely shipping 3D printers to California from other states.

And if that's the case, the only meaningful effect of this bill passing will be to further motivate anyone making or selling 3D printers to leave California for other states.

▲

vel0city 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I do agree, there are a lot of federalism concerns. That said, there are a lot of things which are illegal for sale at a state/city/county level that vary across state/county/city lines. Its not entirely a new domain.

	▲	Gormo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, but those local laws have no relevance outside their jurisdiction. In this case, it's not clear that California isn't trying to extend its reach beyond its own borders.