I also think the law is bad.

I do want to point out that if you want to make durable parts with a 3D printer, the easiest thing to do would be to create the part with the printer, then use it to form a mold for casting the part out of metal. Then case harden. That's the cheap and fairly easy way. I just want to point that out because I think that use case of 3D printers gets overlooked. Or you buy a fairly expensive lathe/mill.

My first thought was, will this apply to basically all machinery? Because for about $2000 I can buy a mill kit that I can manufactur a complete firearm on.

> the easiest thing to do would be to create the part with the printer, then use it to form a mold for casting the part out of metal

This is definitely not true for parts that need to be closely toleranced. Lost-PLA casting, DIY mold-making, etc are manufacturing processes not world-renowned for their ability to keep things precise.

Yeah, most parts in simple designs do not need to be super precise. Some hand fitting might be necessary.

This is in the context of firearms, which are presumably modern repeating firearms, where they will cease to function if the tolerances are wrong.

You can get remarkably far with pretty crude tolerances, especially with lower pressure, pistol rounds. For example a direct-blowback, open-bolt submachine guns akin to what was used in WW2 can be pretty easily designed and built by anybody with a passable understanding of mechanics.

Again, we're talking about casting. Take a look at an Owen or a Sten and get back to me on what parts you think can be plausibly lost-PLA casted.

In New York legislation is drafted by attorneys, the elected person and their staff don't usually write them. It's still bloody awful but I think it's worse because an actual attorney was supposed to write this

In most places, the legislation is drafted by special interest groups.

It's so tiring to have these kinds of conversations with folks who do not understand the legislative process. There's no need to treat the legislator like an idiot. She's doing what EVERY legislator does, which is to identify a problem ("printed guns are a loophole in how we manage guns in this state") and saying she wants to find a solution to that problem. One mechanism by which legislators do that is by writing draft bills and then helping it through the legislative process to be improved, sorta like how you'd write a draft essay for a college class and then go back for a second and third pass before submitting it. As part of this process, people who are in favor of no legislation will come forward, people who are in favor of strong legislation will come forward, she'll hear their advice and feedback. If she's lucky, the bill will be seen by a committee who will hold hearings and re-draft it.

When you see a "ready to go bill," it's either been through a dozen-step process in this legislative session OR it's been brought up in a dozen different sessions and been improved along the way as legislators have to re-introduce all the bills they are sponsoring in each legislative session.

The legislator is not an expert in the issue, and I doubt she's claiming she is. She's proposing the broad strokes of a solution to a problem she sees. The point is not to pass the bill in its current form – it's to figure out how to solve the problem, using this general idea as the starting point.

Fundamentally though, the 'problem' she sees, is it really a problem?

How many gun deaths in the past 10 years were related to 3d printed guns or gun parts? Is that number greater than 1% of gun deaths in the past year of the same area? (1% of gun deaths in 10yrs / 1% in 1 year)

If it's not, than I would surmise that this is a non-issue nor a problem. And that instead it is a older representative that needs to retire instead of proposing laws that drastically damage the fr edoms of the citizenry. To take away the democratization of manufacturing plastic parts from its citizens will irreparably damage the community this legislature feigns to serve.

I dont think NY puts the threshold at 1% of gun deaths. FWIW guns that NY defines as assault weapons are responsible for less than 1% of gun deaths and around 0% of all murders, but they still spend a disproportionate amount of effort legislating them

If I was somehow tasked to come up with the worst imaginable way to generate laws which impact the day-to-day lives and liberties of an entire civilization, I quite sincerely doubt whether I could do much better than this.

> There's no need to treat the legislator like an idiot.

But the legislator is an idiot, and should be treated like one. They aren't identifying a problem and trying to solve it, they are engaging in performative legislation for the benefit of their donors. That should not be rewarded, on either side of the aisle.

As I understand it manufacturing your own firearms is explicitly legal in the US. This isn't a loophole, it is another politician who simply wants to disarm the working class.

>As I understand it manufacturing your own firearms is explicitly legal in the US.

In the US, yes. But maybe not in NY.

There are a lot of firearms laws in NY on paper.

To me, it seems rediculous to claim that the right to bear arms somehow excludes building one for personal use.

The legislator doesnt realize 3d printer parts can be purchased and built. It is a CNC machine and this is America, home of more firearms owned by citizens than anywhere.

> There's no need to treat the legislator like an idiot. She's doing what EVERY legislator does, which is to identify a problem ("printed guns are a loophole in how we manage guns in this state") and saying she wants to find a solution to that problem. One mechanism by which legislators do that is by writing draft bills and then helping it through the legislative process to be improved

One normally researches a topic to become at least somewhat knowledgeable to put forth a somewhat reasonable solution to the identified problem. There is zero nuance in this bill. It essentially requires a background check for every 3d printer. I would find it hard to believe you could find a 3d printer that was not capable of printing a firearm component. I'm sure you could find a way to include those pens.

> sorta like how you'd write a draft essay for a college class and then go back for a second and third pass before submitting it.

I would fail a middle schooler for purposing this as a solution. A bill as simple as this one is simply zero effort or intentionally malicious.

> When you see a "ready to go bill," it's either been through a dozen-step process in this legislative session OR it's been brought up in a dozen different sessions and been improved along the way as legislators have to re-introduce all the bills they are sponsoring in each legislative session.

Any bill I've seen introduced that isn't simply looking for a participation trophy looks like there was some thought into it. This was zero thought or intentionally malicious.

> The legislator is not an expert in the issue, and I doubt she's claiming she is. She's proposing the broad strokes of a solution to a problem she sees. The point is not to pass the bill in its current form – it's to figure out how to solve the problem, using this general idea as the starting point.

Broad strokes? This is not broad strokes. Broad strokes might be only requiring it for metal 3d printers. Or have something to do with printing volume. This is about as full on nuclear as you can get without banning them. Maybe they should talk to some experts beforehand? This solution is basically the same as putting forth that everyone should stop breathing as a solution to global warming. Sure it is a "solution", but it in no way starts a productive conversation. This is nothing more than a useless political stunt and at worst an idiot/malicious legislator. Given that this is New York, I'd lean towards malicious.

> it's to figure out how to solve the problem

Using this excuse for people who want to actively take your civil rights away is absurd. It's so tiring to argue against authoritarianism apologia time and time again.

>The legislator is not an expert in the issue

They have an entire team who can find experts on the issue. Yet they choose not to and go out with this haphazard blunderbuss this is.

So yes, treating the legislator like an idiot is exactly the right thing to do.