Washington State’s House Bill 2321 is currently causing a bit of an uproar, as it seeks to add blocking technologies to 3D printers, in order to prevent them from printing “a firearm or illegal firearm parts”, as per the full text. Sponsored by a sizeable number of House members, it’s currently in committee, so the likelihood of it being put to a floor vote in the House is still remote, never mind it passing the Senate. Regardless, it is another chapter in the story of homemade firearms, which increasingly focuses on private 3D printers.

Also called ‘ghost guns‘ in the US, these can be assembled from spare parts, from kits, from home-made components, or a combination of these. While the most important parts of a firearm – like the barrel – have to be made out of something like metal, the rest can feature significant amounts of (3D printed) plastic parts, though the exact amount varies wildly among current 3D-printed weapons.

Since legally the receiver and frame are considered to be ‘firearms’, these are the focus of this proposed bill, which covers both additive (FDM, SLA, etc.) and subtractive (e.g. CNC mill) technology. The proposal is that a special firearms detection algorithm has to give the okay for the design files to be passed on to the machine.

This blocking feature would have to be standard for all machines sold or transferred in the state, with a special ‘preprint authentication’ handshake protocol required. The attorney general is here expected to create and maintain a database of the no longer legal firearm and parts designs for those without a requisite license.

Putting aside for a moment the ridiculousness of implementing such a scanning feature, even if it wouldn’t be child’s play to circumvent with e.g a compatible SBC and fresh copy of Klipper or the equivalent for any CNC mill, it also barks up the wrong tree. Although in the most recent ruling pertaining to this topic in Bondi v. VanDerStok it was acknowledged that advances in 3D printing have made this worth considering from a legislative context, the main issue with ‘ghost guns’ comes still by far from kits and similar sources.

Based on this, it seems highly unlikely that HB 2321 will be put up for a vote, never mind get signed into law. Although 3D printed designs like the 9×19 mm cartridge Urutau bullpup are apparently quite functional, it’s notable that its manufacturing involves many steps, many DIY store parts and a bolt carrier manufactured from steel bar stock, not to mention a significant time investment. Trying to detect ‘firearm parts’ at any of these steps would seem to be a fool’s errand, even if privacy considerations were not an issue.


From Blog – Hackaday via this RSS feed

  • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I’ve been printing for a little over a decade. Not only have I built my own printers but I’ve tweaked and modified them so many times over the years that with the right settings my Bowden feed fdm can compete on print quality with commercially produced resin printers. All of this is a long winded way of saying I know what I’m taking about.

    Trying to prevent 3d printed guns is a fools erand. The machines can be built out of two broken printers and a dream. The software can be ran on a toaster and 90% of it is coded by wackos bootlegging 40k merch. The material can be sourced from weed wackers and soda bottles, you can feed paracord into it and get a nylon print with the right settings. Any AI you use to detect a part will invariably fail to detect the billion ways you can tweak a model before slicing it, if not false read every nerf mod and fidget until the the aforementioned wackos simply patch it out.

    It would, with no hyperbole, be easier to make a society where 3d printed guns aren’t of interest than it would be to stop them from being made.

    Lastly, if anyone wants links to 3d printed guns or PDFs for models that can made with $70 and a shitty welder. Hit me up.