California Ghost-Gun Bill Wants 3D Printers To Play Cop, EFF Says (theregister.com) 50
A proposed California bill would require 3D printer makers to use state-certified software to detect and block files for gun parts, but advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) say it would be easy to evade and could lead to widespread surveillance of users' printing activity. The Register reports: The bill in question is AB 2047, the scope of which, on paper, appears strict. The primary goal is clear and simple: to require 3D printer manufacturers to use a state-certified algorithm that checks digital design files for firearm components and blocks print jobs that would produce prohibited parts. [...] Cliff Braun and Rory Mir, who respectively work in policy and tech community engagement at the EFF, claim that the proposals in California are technically infeasible and in practice will lead to consumer surveillance.
In a series of blog posts published this month, the pair argued that print-blocking technology -- proposals for which have also surfaced in states including New York and Washington - cannot work for a range of technical reasons. They argued that because 3D printers and other types of computer numerical control (CNC) machines are fairly simple, with much of their brains coming from the computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software -- or slicer software -- to which they are linked, the bill would establish legal and illegal software. Proprietary software will likely become the de facto option, leaving open source alternatives to rot.
"Under these proposed laws, manufacturers of consumer 3D printers must ensure their printers only work with their software, and implement firearm detection algorithms on either the printer itself or in a slicer software," wrote Braun earlier this month. "These algorithms must detect firearm files using a maintained database of existing models. Vendors of printers must then verify that printers are on the allow-list maintained by the state before they can offer them for sale. Owners of printers will be guilty of a crime if they circumvent these intrusive scanning procedures or load alternative software, which they might do because their printer manufacturer ends support."
Braun also argued that it would be trivial for anyone who uses 3D printers to make small tweaks to either the visual models of firearms parts, or the machine instructions (G-code) generated from those models, to evade detection. Mir further argued that the bill offers no guardrails to keep this "constantly expanding blacklist" limited to firearm-related designs. In his view, there is a clear risk that this approach will creep into other forms of alleged unlawful activity, such as copyright infringement. [...] Braun and Mir have a list of other arguments against the bill. They say the algorithms are more than likely to lead to false positives, which will prevent good-faith users from using their hardware. Many 3D printer owners also have no interest in printing firearm components. Most simply want the freedom to print trinkets and spare parts while others use them to print various items and sell them as an income stream.
In a series of blog posts published this month, the pair argued that print-blocking technology -- proposals for which have also surfaced in states including New York and Washington - cannot work for a range of technical reasons. They argued that because 3D printers and other types of computer numerical control (CNC) machines are fairly simple, with much of their brains coming from the computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software -- or slicer software -- to which they are linked, the bill would establish legal and illegal software. Proprietary software will likely become the de facto option, leaving open source alternatives to rot.
"Under these proposed laws, manufacturers of consumer 3D printers must ensure their printers only work with their software, and implement firearm detection algorithms on either the printer itself or in a slicer software," wrote Braun earlier this month. "These algorithms must detect firearm files using a maintained database of existing models. Vendors of printers must then verify that printers are on the allow-list maintained by the state before they can offer them for sale. Owners of printers will be guilty of a crime if they circumvent these intrusive scanning procedures or load alternative software, which they might do because their printer manufacturer ends support."
Braun also argued that it would be trivial for anyone who uses 3D printers to make small tweaks to either the visual models of firearms parts, or the machine instructions (G-code) generated from those models, to evade detection. Mir further argued that the bill offers no guardrails to keep this "constantly expanding blacklist" limited to firearm-related designs. In his view, there is a clear risk that this approach will creep into other forms of alleged unlawful activity, such as copyright infringement. [...] Braun and Mir have a list of other arguments against the bill. They say the algorithms are more than likely to lead to false positives, which will prevent good-faith users from using their hardware. Many 3D printer owners also have no interest in printing firearm components. Most simply want the freedom to print trinkets and spare parts while others use them to print various items and sell them as an income stream.
mill (Score:2)
The metal parts I cut by hand on the mill are better quality anyway. Will that make me an illegal human?
Re: (Score:1)
Will that make me an illegal human?
That's what the Republicans running California imagine, yes
oh... wait.
Re: (Score:3)
EURion constellation (Score:2)
Re:EURion constellation (Score:4, Insightful)
If there was exactly one pattern that produced a "gun" then it would be possible to block it. However a gun will work with quite large variations to the pattern, unlike a dollar bill.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the dumbest analogy for this i've seen yet
Re: (Score:2)
This is the dumbest analogy for this i've seen yet
Which is, no doubt, why our congresscritters think it's a pretty good analogy.
BAN IRON (Score:4, Interesting)
Make all unlicensed possession of iron a punishable offense. There's no reason any human should have iron on or about their person unless they are attempting to make a dangerous and deadly weapon. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Copper is a gateway metal. Get started with repoussé and next thing you know it's full on Blacksmithing.
Never going to happen. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ban motors (Score:2)
Because motors could be used to drive an unlicensed CNC machine. And maybe ban magnets too. Who needs magnets?
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to test the law in the following way.
Instead of directly printing a desired part (say, the frame for a Glock clone, which holds the rails that turn it into a receiver), print a mold which can then be used using casting or injection molding to mass produce the desired part.
Text of the law:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca... [ca.gov]
As defined in the bill:
"(g) âoeIllegal firearm partsâ means a firearm precursor part and any part designed and intended for use in converting a semiautomati
Re: (Score:2)
If it does happen, it will do nothing but turn the 3D printer hobby market into a market similar to the "get free movies/TV/sports on this magic streaming stick" market. I built a CNC stepper controller from discrete components connected to a DOS computer in the 90's. I wrote my own limited CAM software, too. Things have only gotten easier since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't klippers rendsr the stl files being printed as a preview?
Re: (Score:2)
The other printer tech you listed doesn't report home or have to be updated for rapidly variable print designs.
Impossible (Score:2)
This is obviously impossible unless almost any moving parts are prevented, or printing with some materials is prevented. That would make it impossible to 3D print lots of stuff that is not illegal.
The effect on open software and hardware is also disastrous.
As others pointed out, currently you can make better gun parts on some non-computerized equipment, so this also does not seem to prevent anything.
Re: (Score:2)
PS I am not a gun nut. If guns were illegal then printing parts of them using a 3D printer would also be illegal and you could get in a lot of trouble if you do it. But after the fact, don't try to prevent it first.
Is cooking equipment supposed to not work if it figures out it is being used to make drugs?
Re: (Score:2)
The effect on open software and hardware is also disastrous.
Only if other states adopts this or similar laws. Otherwise, it's a simple workaround to buy whatever printer you want in Nevada. It would be perfectly legal too, since the law doesn't ban imports, only sales and transfers of non-compliant printers.
Fine for 3D printing (Score:2)
But they will have to close every bicycle repair shop to prevent the metalworking tools necessary to produce ghost guns from illicit use.
Multiple fools errands in one (Score:3)
It isn't like you tell a 3D printer you want a gun and a few hours later one appears. What is printed are a series of discrete components the user assembles into a finished product.
Here are the parts for one of the 3D printed designs:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Not only is locking this down a fools errand as anyone wanting to print firearms is just going to bypass the restrictions.. even if they don't there is no way for a computer program to discern whether or not a discrete component is part of a weapon anymore than the hardware store the bolts and springs were purchased from can discern intent to produce a weapon.
Breath life back into the DIY 3D printer hobby (Score:2)
Adding more evidence to the claim... (Score:3)
...that politicians are totally clueless about technology
Re: (Score:3)
Its about turnout on Election Day (Score:2)
Nor do they care. It is all about what the electorate, which knows even less, thinks about the idea.
Not really. It's about which phantom wedge issue gets more people to show up on Election Day. That's why neither sides want to actually fix the problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Clueless about firearms for about 60 years now (Score:2)
Adding more evidence to the claim that politicians are totally clueless about technology
It may be a somewhat recent phenomenon with respect to computers, but with respect to firearms its been on display for even longer.
Anyone who thinks (Score:2)
they can create an algorithm to stop someone from printing a ghost gun part is daft. First of all, just move one state over, or for that matter, change the country code on your 3d printer or use modified software. There isn't going to be an algorithm that can check to see if you've made a part, you can slice it. But what I think they really want is the surveillance, so they could watch people print out parts. But then again that will be easily evadible, if you can't stop a gun from going into a place, you w
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I just read the linked proposed law. I can get a nice piece of walnut, and make my own grips. Is printing grips illegal? Right now, you can buy a new trigger online, or you can print one. How about sights? Most modern sights are polymer. You can buy replacement parts legally, or you can print your own.
You can buy a barrel. I have gunsmith friends that make their own slides (on a CNC machine). Is that now illegal?
Go and read the bill. Tell me exactly which parts are illegal to make. Specifi
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me exactly which parts are illegal to make. Specifically.
In California a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet lug.
Saws and chisels? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to risk your life using it, you can 3D print a barrel...
Re: (Score:2)
The 2nd amendment says nothing about bullets.
Courts have recognized that ammunition is an essential parts of the protected "arms".
What are they on about? (Score:2)
If I want to go and make my own trigger, that is perfectly legal. My own sights, grips.... You name it.
These people understand that it is perfectly legal to buy a barrel, trigger pack, slide, spring kit.... Right?
Is it now illegal to make my own grips out of a nice piece of walnut? Which parts - specifically - are you allowed to buy through the mail, but not make at home?
Politicians thinking they define reality (Score:3)
Obviously, they do not. This is completely impossible to do. Nobody can identify "gun components" from a g-code stream that is playing in real-time while the printing happens. That is just not how CNC (large or small) works.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, they do not. This is completely impossible to do. Nobody can identify "gun components" from a g-code stream that is playing in real-time while the printing happens. That is just not how CNC (large or small) works.
The problem is the serial number is printed on the receiver which is just a block that holds the all important properly made barrel without which you aren’t going to have almost any accuracy or velocity both of which actually separate it from a crude barely functioning weapon and an accurate and powerful one. Putting the serial number on the barrel and regulating that makes far more sense, you can’t even rifle the barrel properly without specialized equipment that’s not run of the mill CN
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. You cannot make even somewhat decent gun components on a cheap 3D printer. That is the other problem with this law.
Re: (Score:2)
> you can’t even rifle the barrel properly without specialized equipment that’s not run of the mill CNC
Burmese rebels have been using semi-auto 9mm carbines which require no firearms parts other than the ammo. An Indian guy made a .22 AR-15 with a few basic tools and some parts he bought from Aliexpress.
Humans are much more innovative than you seem to believe. This law will just criminalize people who aren't a problem while criminals buy real guns from the black market.
A couple of observations (Score:2, Insightful)
First, the gun problem is pretty much specific to the US. Other developed countries get along without "muh gunz" for the most part, and their societies haven't fallen prey to dictators. Yet ironically, the "land of the free" is now a Fascist dictatorship, in spite of all those armed citizens. So much for taking up arms to dethrone tyrants! Maybe the US should just re-think this whole "guns are sacred" thing?
Second, in a country which just this year has had 21 school shootings as of today [cnn.com], the real problem
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the most popular 3D-printed guns were developed in Europe. Americans don't really need 3D-printed guns, because they can just buy real guns. Europeans do.
The most full-retard law I ever see (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to California.
We have a full legislature of them that are employed full time making laws just like that.
From September of 2024:
https://calmatters.org/politic... [calmatters.org]
"Gov. Gavin Newsom cleared his desk today of nearly 1,000 bills â" and he blocked 183 of them.
Thatâ(TM)s a veto rate of about 18% of the bills he acted on after the Legislature adjourned Aug. 31 (and about 16% of all 1,200 bills passed this year). That compares to a 15% veto rate in 2023, when he blocked 156 bills. He had a similar
Re: (Score:2)
The person who wrote this law must be one of the most utterly moronic person on earth.
They're in the California legislature. That goes without saying. Although, even by Sacramento standards, this is pretty moronic.
Sacramento is a dangerous neighborhood (Score:2)
Sacramento is in itself, a dangerous neighborhood. Gang bangers are shooting at innocent people across the street from the State Capitol. Politicians can't even keep their own neighborhood safe with their silly laws. They had to put a fence around the state capitol. I'd challenge all of them to take a stroll down some of their neighborhoods after dark.
Here's an idea (Score:2)
If you commit a violent crime that involves a firearm you go to prison for life. No parole, no pardons, nada. If you kill someone with a firearm you get a free dirt nap compliments of the justice system.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that would be racist.