this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
94 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

81534 readers
5862 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
94
California’s New Bill Requires DOJ-Approved 3D Printers That Report on Themselves (blog.adafruit.com)
submitted 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

California’s new bill requires DOJ-approved 3D printers that report on themselves targeting general-purpose machines.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan introduced AB-2047, the “California Firearm Printing Prevention Act,” on February 17th. The bill would ban the sale or transfer of any 3D printer in California unless it appears on a state-maintained roster of approved makes and models… certified by the Department of Justice as equipped with “firearm blocking technology.” Manufacturers would need to submit attestations for every make and model. The DOJ would publish a list. If your printer isn’t on the list by March 1, 2029, it can’t be sold. In addition, knowingly disabling or circumventing the blocking software is a misdemeanor.

top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 37 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

If they were smarter, which they are not, they would look to place restrictions on the slicer software. I doubt the printers even have the capability to recognize what is being printed. Most of them are like move left 3 steps, extrude .1mm of filament, move right 1 step…. yada yada yada.

This is just insanely dumb. They are essentially trying to regulate technology they know very little about.

[–] SalamenceFury@piefed.social 29 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

They are essentially trying to regulate technology they know very little about.

That's not surprising, that's just what politicians do. Especially politicians who are 65+ years old and completely out of touch with technology.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 14 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I am reminded of a senator from Alaska trying to describe the internet as a series of tubes.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 hour ago

Sen Ted Stevens, rest in piss.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

So in other words, what else is new?

The danger if this passes isn't that someone will be able to successfully implement some manner of system for identifying gun parts which will, apparently, rely on pixie dust and magic. In reality this will effectively prohibit 3D printer sales in California entirely because compliance is literally impossible. And it'll and give overreaching cops and prosecutors yet another nonsense charge they can arbitrarily slap people with over "circumventing" this mystical technology which does not in fact exist if they, ye gods forbid, build their own printer.

It's the same horseshit rationale as the spent casing "microstamping" fantasy that legislators have been salivating about for decades. It doesn't work, it'll never work, but that's not going to stop them from wishing it does and therefore turning it into a defacto ban.

Keep in mind, California also has the precedent of their infamous approved handguns list, which notoriously does things like arbitrarily declaring that the black version of some model of gun is legal, but possession of the stainless version of the exact same gun is a felony. We're not dealing with people in possession of any type of rationality, here.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

I was just talking with a friend about the microstamping idea. I’d never heard of it before.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

They are essentially trying to regulate technology they know very little about.

You're surprised that law makers are trying to regulate things they know nothing about? Oh....oh I have like 2000 years worth of news for you....

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 22 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

This is coordinated. Multiple states at the same time.

I don’t think it has anything to do with guns. Middle of the bell curve, most people aren’t using these for guns. They’re using these for right to repair. They’re using these for garage businesses. Shop businesses. Small businesses. (See: not corporate USA). Or for making/creatimg.

I’ve no doubt there are people sitting on some small slice of a tail on the bell curve who do print gun parts, but this is about corporate America.

It’s also a foot in the door dig on free and open source software.

It’s a way to block individual and small business from horning in on corporate America’s profit for a comparably tiny slice of their own.

Printing a knob to replace a broken on/off switch instead of buying a whole new item? Worse, selling that item or even just posting the pattern for free? We can’t have that.

Now, you’re bypassing my item’s proprietary system by printing…

Wait. I was able to sell threaded hand screw knobs for $5 each. Now you’re all just printing them? And the pattern is up there for free?

We need a law.

[–] freshcow@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Great points, I think you're on to something.
I think the old saying "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" doesn't apply when malice and corporate interests are in alignment. Now I'm curious to dig into who actually wrote the bill, and who are they financially supported by...

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 43 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

This is stupid.

You easily tell who is 3D printing guns because they have one hand and bits of plastic barrel stuck in their faces.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

"3d printing guns" isn't about the pressure holding parts, it's about the traceable serial number holding parts. On most firearms the "lower assembly" or "receiver" (frame, trigger group, feeding assy) is legally considered the firearm and is what bears the serial. Most of those can be printed and use off the shelf hardware to work, albeit with a much lower lifespan.
Pressure containing wear parts that are meant to be exchanged (barrel and breech bolt) typically do not carry serials and are thus not normally traceable. If you eliminate the serialized, traceable part of the firearm, then any collection of parts could be used.

That said, eliminating an entire hobby and industry because gun serialization laws haven't been updated in a hundred years is probably not the right way to do it.

[–] RedMari@reddthat.com 5 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Is printing a lower less illegal than removing the serial number? Must be, otherwise what's the point other than cost?

[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 2 points 44 minutes ago* (last edited 41 minutes ago) (1 children)

Yes. In most of the US removing a serial is explicitly illegal, while manufacturing a firearm for personal use (the serialized part is legally the firearm, but most places don't require you to serialize personally manufactured firearms) is completely legal.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 16 minutes ago (1 children)

I believe it's a federal felony to remove the serial.

[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 minutes ago

That's what I thought, but I wasn't positive and I didn't want to provide incorrect information.

[–] tomalley8342@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Serialized parts have their purchases recorded and restricted, other parts are (usually) unrestricted.

[–] RedMari@reddthat.com 1 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

How would they connect a serialized part to a purchase if the serial number is completely gone? I guess 3d printing would also allow those who are unable to legally buy the parts to get them too.

[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 2 points 37 minutes ago* (last edited 37 minutes ago)

If there's a record of you purchasing X gun, and they find you have that same model with the serial filed off, 99% chance you filed the serial off your gun.

[–] tomalley8342@lemmy.world 3 points 58 minutes ago

They can't definitively pin a particular purchase to a particular serial-defiled firearm, but the fact that the government knows that you purchased a firearm on such and such date is probably enough of a concern for a lot of people. It's a lot easier to gather a stockpile of parts without drawing much attention.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 49 minutes ago

Because to get the serialized part, you still have to be approved for the purchase through background checks, which will go live on the state police database, and then the police can check that database to see recently acquired firearms if something happens. Chances are the list of a specific type of firearm with the serial ground off is going to be pretty short.

And yes, the being able to obtain it with no background checks at all is the other big key.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 54 minutes ago

That doesn't make much sense as a law against printers, since it's far easier and just as illegal to grind off the serial numbers on a gun.

[–] eli@lemmy.world 1 points 5 minutes ago
  1. The printer doesn't know what it is printing, the slicer does, and at that point just use an open source slicer
  2. Just drive to Arizona, Nevada, or Oregon, buy a printer, and drive back, The MicroCenter in Phoenix just opened up.
[–] skip0110@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 minutes ago

But….if someone sold a manually operated plastic extruder, that’s fine?

And if someone separately sold CAM software that’s fine too?

Just sayin’

[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 1 points 8 minutes ago

What are they going to do? Put IoT DRM in every stepper motor?

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 37 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

'Kay. They do know these things are barely capable of being networked, right?

[–] Sharpiemarker@startrek.website 24 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Which unfortunately means the base price for a California-legal 3d printer is going to be exorbitant.

[–] DosDude@retrofed.com 4 points 58 minutes ago

Just build your own with a kit. Hell, call it a CNC filler. This was a DIY hobby from the start. I don't see how this can be regulated.

[–] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 19 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Just when I think California couldn't possibly come up with dumber laws, they deliver yet again.

There's genuine concerns they could be addressing but instead go after something that's going to be near impossible for them to enforce.

Blueprints for homemade 3D printers exist that can be built with a pretty short list of parts from Digikey.

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

It’s not law yet, and may never be.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I was going to say, I thought open source 3D Printer designs/kits have been a thing for awhile. My friend just built his own last year using his original 3D printer to help in the process, lol

[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 4 points 57 minutes ago

The entire hobby is built on open source, it’s only very very recently that commercial hobby level printers were worth a damn

[–] meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Wait so far these things are relatively trivial pieces of equipment in terms of software, no? Read instructions, move stepper motors/control heating elements.

So realistically what we're looking at is hash based block lists for known firearm and parts designs, which would be trivial to circumvent by adding the equivalent of noop instructions to the .gcode files 🤷‍♂️

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

They'll do anything but adopt firearm laws that are relevant and sensible.

[–] SalamenceFury@piefed.social 9 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

HEY CALIFORNIA DO YOU KNOW WHO IS LEADING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RIGHT NOW????? WHY ARE YOU COMING UP WITH THIS AT ALL, LET ALONE WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION IN POWER????

Oh wait, Gavin Newsom is the governor, that explains everything. Of course the DINO who's only mad at Trump for stealing his spotlight would try to push a stupid law like this.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 57 minutes ago

I could make a working metal gun in a day with hand tools and a trip to home depot. Guns aren't magical complicated devices. It's a handle and a tube and a pin that smacks a bullet.

This bill is the epitome of stupid and one of the reasons the left has had so many issues becoming the party leaders. Stop trying to play "big brother" and stop trying to fuck with the 2nd amendment.

[–] northernlights@lemmy.today 2 points 35 minutes ago

Some poor government employee is going to see loooots of dildos

[–] freshcow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Already contacted my assembly person to oppose it. I get the intent behind it, but theres no way im going to ask the government for permission to use my own hardware.
I dont even own a 3D printer yet, but I wouldn't want to be subject to such a bad and dumb law if and when that changes.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Oh boy, what's a good not too expensive 3d printer to buy right now, preferably all FOSS? It hasn't been on my short term shopping list but I figure if I'm ever likely to want one, better get it now. I remember the original RepRap. I think modern stuff is a lot better, but might have more closed source software.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

Prusa or Qidi. Avoid Bambu.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 hour ago

You can still get an Ender 3 (essentially the end result of RepRap). Every vendor has their own.

That said? If you buy a printer in 2025 (let alone 2026) and it does not have an integrated enclosure, you are opening yourself up to a world of hurt. The price difference isn't that much anymore and even just having a box to hold the waste heat in solves like 90% of print problems.

Bambu are, above and beyond, the best bang for your buck. They ALSO are ahead of the curve on locking things down to support only their networked slicers. Which... is a huge concern with stuff like this.

Personally? I love the Qidi printers. I have a Q1 something or another and convinced a friend to get a different model. They use a semi-open fork of Klipper so you can theoretically make something work when it is abandoned. Which is good because the various CoreXY printers are no longer all based on the same standard so part kits aren't (easily) interchangeable. And, of course, you can use Orcaslicer or whatever else you want.

Keep in mind that is all FDM. For Resin (SLA?), the ship has already sailed and people are genuinely happy to run slicers with literal fucking ads in them. Assuming the vendor doesn't lock them out of even that garbage.