I’m imagining a bunch of first amendment challenges to these laws
Washington state already started making moves against it, as an attempt to prevent 3D printed firearm components. Specifically, it requires 3D printers sold within the state to have firmware-based scanning to cancel prints it suspects are used for firearms.
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Mac@mander.xyz 8 hours ago
In this shithole? Good luck. They do whatever they want regardless of whatever rights you think you have.
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Yea that’s true
pennomi@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Good fucking luck. That’s completely impossible
FatherPeanut@pawb.social 16 hours ago
One passed, the other has yet to be presented. These legislators have no clue how they’d even do it, but circumventing the scan is also made illegal.
So yeah, flashing Open-Source firmware is something they dont like either, but fingers crossed they just choose to not allocate resources to enforcement. Wouldn’t be surprised if this 3D printed missile mentioned in the article above comes up ad a taking point during the legislative hearings.
Nasan@sopuli.xyz 15 hours ago
Sounds like something that wouldn’t be worth going out of the way to enforce. But rather used to tack on extra charges when someone commits another crime where the extra level of investigation would uncover the flashed firmware. Not that it would do much to deter or prevent what they’re afraid of from happening.
pennomi@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Doesn’t matter if it’s passed or not. It’s not possible to implement, and therefore completely unenforceable. Legislation cannot change the fundamental limits of software.
This is either a blanket ban on all 3D printers, or none of them.
NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com 14 hours ago
California is joining in too with AB-2047 and New York has AB-2228 requiring a criminal background check for buying a 3D printer.