New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Perceived Futility and Misfocus of the Law

  • Many argue it’s far easier in the US (and even in NY) to obtain a conventional firearm illegally or via travel to looser states than to make a reliable 3D‑printed gun.
  • Commenters note you can also build guns with hardware-store parts, lathes, mills, or “80%” receivers; focusing on printers is seen as security theater.
  • Including CNC and subtractive machines is viewed as especially absurd, effectively sweeping in large amounts of shop and manufacturing equipment.
  • Several see this as political posturing on “ghost guns” while ignoring the dominant source of gun crime: regular pistols and trafficked weapons.

Technical Infeasibility and DRM Concerns

  • Detecting “gun geometry” from printer-side data is widely called impossible or near-useless:
    • G‑code is machine- and setting-specific, not a canonical model.
    • Gun parts can be split, slightly modified, or printed as “innocent” components.
  • Suggested hash- or library-based blocking (like currency-detection on printers) is seen as trivially evadable and prone to huge false positives.
  • Many expect any workable scheme to require networked printers, cloud scanning, or locked slicers—likened to DRM and “you don’t get root” on your own tools.
  • People anticipate immediate firmware flashing, DIY printers, and out‑of‑state purchases, making compliance largely symbolic.

Constitutional and Legal Issues

  • Thread notes that US federal law has historically allowed home gun manufacture (with nuances on intent, serialization, and resale), while states like NY/CA already restrict unserialized or self-made firearms.
  • Extended debate over the Second Amendment: whether it covers modern arms, what “in common use” means, and how far states can go in banning means of production.
  • Additional worries: First Amendment (files as speech), Fourth Amendment (device-level scanning as unreasonable search), Commerce Clause overreach, and selective enforcement.

Actual 3D‑Printed Gun Landscape

  • Some say fully printed guns are mostly novelty “zip guns” or YouTube stunts; most practical builds print only the frame/receiver and buy metal parts.
  • Others counter that designs like FGC‑9 and modern polymer frames can be quite functional, especially where legal guns are scarce (e.g., parts of Europe).
  • The recent high‑profile killing of a healthcare CEO with a partly printed gun is cited as a likely political trigger for these bills.

Impact on Makers, Industry, and Precedent

  • Makers fear being socially lumped with “gun weirdos” and see this as chilling harmless hobbyist and educational use.
  • Concerns that such mandates will:
    • Reduce usability and reliability (like printer tracking dots and ink DRM).
    • Advantage large vendors and lock down open-source ecosystems.
    • Create a path for future restrictions on replacement parts, IP enforcement, and broader tool control (drones, robots, GPUs, CNC, etc.).
  • Some note similar 3D/CNC bills in other states, reading this as coordinated model legislation rather than a one‑off mistake.