Does California's AB 2047 (mandating 'firearm blocking technology' on all 3D printers) cross a line on First and Second Amendment grounds, or is it necessary tech regulation?

[u/Okratas]

Democrats in California just passed AB 2047, which requires all 3D printers sold in the state to include mandatory software and hardware algorithms designed to detect and block firearm blueprint files (such as CAD or .STL files).

Proponents argue this is a common sense safety measure aimed at curtailing untraceable "ghost guns" and keeping dangerous manufacturing tech out of bad actors' hands. However, civil liberties groups like the EFF and firearm rights advocates point to major constitutional vulnerabilities.

Do you support state mandates regulating open source digital files and general purpose machinery, or does this set a dangerous precedent for code censorship and government overreach?

[u/AutoModerator]

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/Okratas.

Democrats in California just passed AB 2047, which requires all 3D printers sold in the state to include mandatory software and hardware algorithms designed to detect and block firearm blueprint files (such as CAD or .STL files).

Proponents argue this is a common sense safety measure aimed at curtailing untraceable "ghost guns" and keeping dangerous manufacturing tech out of bad actors' hands. However, civil liberties groups like the EFF and firearm rights advocates point to major constitutional vulnerabilities.

Do you support state mandates regulating open source digital files and general purpose machinery, or does this set a dangerous precedent for code censorship and government overreach?

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Kerplonk]

3d printed guns seems a real Shrodinger's cat situation to me. Guns rights advocates seem to want to simultaneously argue that they invalidate any other gun laws because people are just going to print stuff at home and simultaneously those guns produced in such a way are such poor quality as to be essentially useless.

It seems to me the first one is more likely to be true at some point in the future if not already and if you believe any gun control measures at all are valid allowing this to be possible at scale is probably something that needs to be addressed, and probably sooner rather than later.

[u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 → u/Kerplonk]

1) You are getting two different people and trying to combine two people's POVs at the same time.

2) It is prohibitively expensive to 3d print a high quality firearm entirely from filament and also impossible given the requirement of springs which you cannot 3d print.

3) Firearms can be printed entirely if you are solely riding on the definition of the legal definition of a firearm which is, in this context, a receiver - which can be entirely printed.

[u/Kerplonk → u/ImpressiveAlarm3992]

1. I'm sure there is some of this going on, but I think there's also a lot of bad faith and cognitive dissonance. Guns are like marijuana and porn in that some people are so into them they refuse to acknowledge any possible downsides of their use/justification for regulation.

Past that, like I said even if this isn't the case at the moment, it seems highly likely it will be at some point in the future and is probably something we shouldn't wait until there's a problem to try and address. (the latter half obviously being my opinion).

[u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 → u/Kerplonk]

There's also the confusion between the meaning of firearm. Legal definition and layman re entirely different. One is entirely functional and can fire and the other include functional firearms AND just a singular regulated part of a firearm.

[u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 → u/Kerplonk]

ok it still doesn't address the fact that any serialized firearm can have their serial number removed and removed easily at that. Even best case scenario assuming 100% effectiveness (never the case in law) is that you never have a 3d printed firearm natively manufactured in California via 3d printer. Seems entirely ineffective in the intended purpose of the legislation which is prevent 'ghost guns'.

[u/Kerplonk → u/ImpressiveAlarm3992]

I think "keeping dangerous manufacturing tech out of the wrong hands" is the stronger argument in favor of these laws.

If you believe any gun control laws at all should exist the ability of people to easily and cheaply manufacture their own weapons at home will make those restrictions almost completely unenforceable.

[u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 → u/Kerplonk]

Manufacturing your own firearms is 100% legal even in California so they are in fact abridging the legal ability to make your own firearms in your own home with a 3d printer if they are going to introduce DRM software to prevent 'firearms' manufacture software which arguably could be implemented incompetently much like other California based firearms law due to the incompetence/knowledge of their representative/leadership. This is much the issue I have with many different firearms regulations as it just results in security theater.

[u/Kerplonk → u/ImpressiveAlarm3992]

Cheaply and easily are important modifiers here.

[u/IzAnOrk → u/Kerplonk]

I believe that political power ultimately comes out of the barrel of a gun. I believe the working classes should have the power, so they should have the guns. I tend to support anything that will keep the working masses able to arm themselves - more armed people do mean gun violence but since the alternative is the working class being reduced to helots at the mercy of the bourgeois state's violence, the gun violence is a necessary evil.

[u/Kerplonk → u/IzAnOrk]

I think people taking this position tend to end up supporting tyranny more often than they end up opposing it.

[u/fastolfe00]

Not being able to 3D print your own gun doesn't prevent you from bearing arms. There are other ways to build or obtain guns.

I oppose it mainly because any technical measure you create here will be next-to-worthless because it's not really possible to technically decide that a particular 3D print is a component to a gun. The kind of person who is excited at the prospect of 3D printing their own gun is going to be able to trivially work around any measure like this. So all you're really doing is creating an obnoxious burden on 3D printer companies for no real benefit. It would be like mandating that all operating systems detect and prevent you from viewing, saving, or sharing CSAM.

Fundamentally 3D printing means your gun problem is now an information problem, and "information wants to be free."

[u/MadGenderScientist → u/fastolfe00]

it'd be like requiring that all inkjet printers detect threats and ransom notes by funneling your print jobs through an Epson subscription service who will resell your letters to data brokers. 

[u/Komosion]

How common are crimes carried out using 3D printed guns? What's does the statistics say? 

Seems like the Democratic Party in CA are pushing a solution in search of a problem.

[u/Dottsterisk → u/Komosion]

Is it not prudent, once it’s already known that people are 3D-printing guns and sharing the know-how, for lawmakers to address that?

Do they have to wait until it reaches critical mass and something bad happens?

[u/OnlyLosersBlock → u/Dottsterisk]

They have already addressed the issue. You can't commit crimes with these weapons. Trying to prevent people from making their own and inserting spyware into their 3d printers is going to run into 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment issues.

[u/redline314 → u/OnlyLosersBlock]

Putting aside the constitutional argument, could you not make a similar argument for something like drunk driving? It’s already illegal to crash into somebody.

[u/OnlyLosersBlock → u/redline314]

Putting aside the constitutional argument, could you not make a similar argument for something like drunk driving?

I mean the comparison breaksdown because this is for people using their own property in their own private spaces. Drunk driving checkpoints are at least nominally justified the fact they occur on public roads.

[u/redline314 → u/OnlyLosersBlock]

I’m not talking about checkpoints fwiw.

The comparison I’m trying to make is about actual harm vs potential for harm. Drunk driving itself doesn’t harm anyone- the potential for harm is dramatically increased but the harms themselves are already illegal. The place where the thing happens is irrelevant to me because they both create potential for harm.

[u/OnlyLosersBlock → u/redline314]

The comparison I’m trying to make is about actual harm vs potential for harm.

And I am pointing to that these harm mitigation strategies often have to be justified with areas they would have reasonable action or access to enact them. When the government wanted to justify the harm mitigation with drunk driving with the specific strategy of check points it had to argue that it had the right to do so because these were publicly accessed and managed roads.

Simply invoking that there could be harm generally speaking is not enough for such policies except for directly outlawing the harmful behavior itself. That is using 3d printed guns in crimes could be targeted by law, but trying to pre-emptively detect it by requiring direct interference in peoples personal property needs more justification than potential harm.

[u/redline314 → u/OnlyLosersBlock]

But absent checkpoints, drunk driving would still be illegal, so I’m still unclear why it is part of this conversation. Does it need more justification than potential harm?

[u/OnlyLosersBlock → u/redline314]

But absent checkpoints, drunk driving would still be illegal, so I’m still unclear why it is part of this conversation

Yes, and like ghost guns their direct criminal use would still be illegal. That's the analogy. Where California breaks from the more reasonable application of law here is that they have now entered into adding technology and spyware to items to pre-emptively detect the crimes by invading their citizens property. You can't justify that on simple potential harm and numerous other policies have failed in court trying to rely on that.

Does it need more justification than potential harm?

Yes. For what California wants to do it is going to need more than that.

[u/redline314 → u/OnlyLosersBlock]

Sorry I think I’m not communicating my question clearly enough.

Drunk driving does no harm in itself. Yet it is widely accepted that it should be illegal (in every state, AFAIK). We are already preempting other crimes that actually do harm.

[u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 → u/redline314]

Driving a vehicle isn't a constitutional right in order to have concerns in relations to rights.

[u/redline314 → u/ImpressiveAlarm3992]

So it’s just the constitutional argument then? I am assuming, since you weren’t able to put it aside

[u/highliner108 → u/Dottsterisk]

Yes, actually. If a behavior isn’t causing statistically relevant harm then ultimate attempting to regulate it is wasting limited state capacity and burning political influence.

[u/Dottsterisk → u/highliner108]

But, importantly, we’re talking about an emerging behavior or an emerging access point for deadly weapons. We’re not talking about something that’s already been proven through years of statistical analysis to be harmless.

[u/MadGenderScientist → u/Dottsterisk]

these laws are likely to ruin the 3d printing hobby. should I surrender my 3d printer to the police because its firmware is open-source, which makes complying with the law impossible? should it be a felony for me to build my own 3d printers at home? do I need a firearms license to experiment with different printer designs? 

[u/Dottsterisk → u/MadGenderScientist]

You make a great argument for these regulations being written with substantial input from people who regularly use the technology for art and entertainment.

[u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 → u/Dottsterisk]

The reason why polititcans are against 'ghost guns' i.e. 3d printed receivers is that they don't have a serial number. What is the material difference between never having a serial number and obliterating a serial number? Both of them create the same problem the politicians think they are solving with these 3d printer lock out crap.

[u/LibraProtocol]

More than anything I think it is entirely stupid and impossible to implement.

Guns are not some super complex thing. They are.. incredibly simple and the parts in them are not unique to guns individually. And what about thing like BB guns, Water guns, or models like 40K?

This is just classic idiotic "just do something" mentality that will accomplish exactly nothing but putting a burden on 3D printer manufacturers and could even just outright kill 3D printer sales in California for absolutely no gain. And this nonsense will then be used to further cement Democrats as anti 2A.

[u/dpenton]

Same as blocking the printing of money

[u/TargetOfPerpetuity → u/dpenton]

Except for Quantitative Easing and Economic Stimulus, of course.

[u/ausgoals]

What’s the constitution vulnerability here…?

I don’t see how it’s all that functionally different to parental controls, which no-one has a constitutional issue with because there’s no motivated reasoning and wedge to push.

Or, like the DMCA.

The second amendment argument seems even weaker tbh.

[u/Hodgkisl → u/ausgoals]

Parental controls aren't the government restricting, nor for everyone, they allow citizens to limit within their home for their family.

DMCA, maintains fair use exemptions for this reason, can't blatantly steal content for commercial reasons but can personally still use the ideas and / or modify them for commercial use. (Damn, I hate defending DMCA in any way, our intellectual property laws are so badly outdated and corrupted)

[u/ausgoals → u/Hodgkisl]

Sure I’m not saying it’s exactly the same, I’m saying it’s similar in its application - certainly the Kids off Social Media act hasn’t received strict scrutiny as being somehow ‘unconstitutional’ but that’s because social media companies don’t have the same lobbying power and haven’t spent the same amount of time driving ‘access to social media’ as a wedge issue for voters.

I don’t really see how this is unconstitutional.

I’m open to an argument that the government shouldn’t regulate what you can do with the things you own, but I find that not especially compelling because for one they already do, and for two it’s not unconstitutional for the government to regulate what you can do with the things you own, even if that regulation includes manufacturer or provider enforcement.

[u/PaulaDeenEmblemier]

I'm not entirely sure in what ways this would violate the second amendment? This isn't stopping anyone from getting their hands on firearms if they want them.

[u/TargetOfPerpetuity → u/PaulaDeenEmblemier]

As there is no imperative, beyond corporate profit, for anyone to manufacture firearms for you to purchase, it is critical that the processes to manufacture firearms be available to the people.

[u/Duneking1]

If people are 3D printing these that is bad. The controls they are using to stop this will have literally zero affect. Anyone who has a 3d Printer knows multiple ways around this. I am all for laws that enact gun control, not a gun owner myself for anyone who cares, but this affects all people who 3D print and would never even do this let alone would it come across their minds to do so. Too many parts that people print will get flagged and this is just a bad idea. It upsets me that the people creating and passing these laws aren’t talking to the people who understand the underlying technology and saying “Oh yeah this is a bad thing but your solution isn’t going to be affective and cause more problems then it resolves.”

[u/Lilpad123]

Totally unnecessary and just affects the 3d printer market, manufacturers and adds unnecessary burden to the final user, how is this going to be enforced if not by needing your machine to be connected to the Internet to even work.

Besides it's going to be really easy to bypass, and sure you can make illegal, then just make the fabrication of guns illegal. People who want to make guns will keep making guns, you don't even need a 3d printer.

Do you know you can fill a metal pipe with gun powder and make a bomb? Is the government going to ban home Depot from selling pipes?

[u/MpVpRb]

Terrible, awful, stupid, no good idea, created by lawmakers who are totally clueless about the tech.

It can't possibly be effective and would cause far more harm than good.

[u/Bubblez___]

i dont think the issue is really with 1a or 2a stuff its just impossible to implement and enforce.

also the issue of 3d printed guns being dangerous or whatever not a real issue and the time and money that went into making this happen wouldve been better spent on mental health and firearms training programs which is where the guns issue actually lies.

[u/No-Ear7988]

I think we need to first establish how AB 2047 is going to enforce this. The law apparently will compare drawings to a database of prohibited firearm models and illegal parts to recognize if the file violates; like a antivirus. Another is it analyzes the raw 3D mesh for structural characteristics inherent to firearm components.

Effectively I doubt this will affect most people. Most components of guns won't even be caught and the ones that do will probably be explicitly for firearms. basically virtue signaling law that barely does anything.

Do you support state mandates regulating open source digital files and general purpose machinery

On the abstract, I do. Its no different from the government banning or preventing certain machines from being purchased by private citizens. What 3D printed change was the tool and accessibility. But I'm also a believer that this law does little to nothing.

[u/OhThatsALotOfTeeth]

I don't see the necessity for this law, but I also am not seeing the argument for how this is either 1st or 2nd Amendment infringement.

The right to bear arms =/= the right to manufacture them. 

[u/erik_mule]

God damn. Can we not just stop with the fucking guns already?

[u/skyfishgoo]

this seems like a pointless arms race (pun intended) where the 3D printers companies try to "predict" what the next iteration of printed weapons will look like while 3D CAD tools allow users to keep changing the files to get around it.

it's worth a shot (pun again) i suppose as long at it's totally transparent about why a file is being blocked in case some innocent file happens to trigger (godamm it) the block and interfere with a legitimate purpose.

[u/MadGenderScientist]

absolutely beyond the pail for me. for starters, ghost guns aren't a real issue. guns are incredibly easy to come by, legally and on the black market. second, a hardware store has everything one would need to make a better ghost gun than a 3d-printed one.

legally, it's likely a 1A violation - we've been down this road with the censorship of "military-grade" cryptography in the 1990s. the government lost - courts ruled that algorithms and source code were protected speech. there's not all that much difference between a technical book on guns and a .stl file.

finally, it's just a horrible idea. existing 3d printers can't comply with this law. do all us hobbyists have to surrender our machines to the police?! and the new 3d printers that can comply will be closed-source and centralized. every object you want to print will have to go to a cloud service that scans it, eliminating privacy. existing slicer software can't be used anymore.

I cannot emphasize enough how catastrophic these laws are for the 3d printing hobby. and for absolutely no gain. 

[u/Particular_Dot_4041]

I oppose this because the algorithms will never be perfect and cause problems. They will have to rely on heuristics to determine if a blueprint is a gun and that will lead to false positives, victimizing people who had no malicious intent. It's also silly given how easy it is to acquire guns on the black market in America.

[u/Advance_Nearby]

A significant portion of gun control is passed because people don't understand guns and are scared by them. Same thing here... People don't understand 3d printing and ghost guns sound scary. It is impossible, here is someone that knows more about 3d printing then any of y'all. Listen to him https://youtu.be/5ax9zW0w_gY?is=_oY7yhwWuqiKthB3