I'm pretty sure they're getting sued too.
I'm trying to remember when we gained sovereignty over Sweeden, but can't come up with a date.
Donald says he only has to think about it, and ownership becomes law, just like "declassification".
Dot-Com Bubble: "We'll move X to the Internet and do X on the web! Invest!"
AI Bubble: "We'll move X to a data warehouse and do X via AI! Invest!"
...AI
No one has experimentally demonstrated what happens if you try to eat an anti-pizza, but theory suggests that it is probably not good.
One would need to take an antiacid.
Well, what are you waiting for? Step on it!
(The idiots may also have been algorithms.)
...enough for anyone!
- Sony Gates
Maybe if you [Americans] locked your nutcases up...
Our Supreme Court gave the most egregious ones immunity from that.
Guessing motivations is poor evidence in either direction.
...Streisando Effectux
It is quite insane as it criminalizes a very specifc method of production. You can make an injection mold and produce the same part, but apparently using the same material using a slightly different process is not allowed.
However, this is California. Using pepper spray is allowed, but pepperballs are considered a tear gas grenade delivery device and illegal for use by civilians.
https://www.sandiegouniontribu...
Yes, you can own pepperball launchers. You just can't possess or use pepperballs:
https://shop.pepperball.com/pr...
So here, less than lethal weapons allowed for use by civilians go pepper spray, tasers. After that you go straight to firearms.
My opinion is that they are having their cake and eating it too:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca...
"(b) âoeFirearmâ has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 16520 of the Penal Code.
(c) âoeFirearm blocking technologyâ means hardware, firmware, or other integrated technological measures capable of ensuring a three-dimensional printer will not proceed to any print job unless the underlying three-dimensional printing file has been evaluated by a firearms blueprints detection algorithm and determined not to be a printing file that would produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts."
"(g) âoeIllegal firearm partsâ means a firearm precursor part and any part designed and intended for use in converting a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun, including, but not limited to, a pistol convertor."
"(e) âoeFirearm precursor partâ has the same meaning as defined in Section 16531 of the Penal Code."
https://law.justia.com/codes/c...
"16520. (a) As used in this part, âoefirearmâ means a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.
(b) As used in the following provisions, âoefirearmâ includes the frame or receiver of the weapon, including both a completed frame or receiver, or a firearm precursor part:"
"(c) As used in the following provisions, âoefirearmâ also includes a rocket, rocket propelled projectile launcher, or similar device containing an explosive or incendiary material, whether or not the device is designed for emergency or distress signaling purposes:"
https://law.justia.com/codes/c...
"16531. (a) âoeFirearm precursor partâ means any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled or converted to be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm, or that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed, assembled or converted."
So you could read it as written, and say "an 80% frame is illegal, in context of an additional part to convert a finished firearm from semi-automatic to fully automatic operation". Which is to say, something like a Glock switch/auto sear:
https://apnews.com/article/glo...
You could also read to say, well, in order to recognize when an 80% frame is being printed in that context, we also need to recognize anything that could be converted into a firearm in that context. There are plenty of remixes that use the glock parts kit for the fire control group and slide rail, and completely reimagine everything else to create a DIY PDW-style pistol.
More importantly, even if the bill is intended to be narrowly targeted, it creates
1) An enforcement regime implemented in software administered by the California DOJ, which looks suspiciously like the approach they use for regulating firearms,
2) Legal liabilities for manufacturers doing business in California,
3) A right to sue by any individual who can claim standing (they were impacted a failure to implement the law as written)
Once these three items are in place, I fully expect that others will attempt to bootstrap further provisions to expand scope of the law.
Of the three examples you gave (trigger, sights, barrel), I would say, looking at the above:
1. Trigger would fall under fire control group, and it depends on whether the software as implemented by a private company would regard the fire control group as a firearm, an illegal firearm part, or a precursor part.
2. Sights - probably not. Not part of the frame, not part of the fire control group.
3. Barrel - an interesting question. Based on my understanding, under US law, a barrel is not a firearm, nor would a barrel be considered a precursor part. However, you could have a firearm design that is a single shot breechloader, where the breech and the barrel are integrated. Would someone go as far as flagging tubes of certain diameters with or without rifling? Depends on who is doing the software implementation and what they decide to flag.
Unfortunately, you have the text of the law here:
"(3) The performance standards shall require that firearm blueprint detection algorithms have the capacity, with a high degree of accuracy, to do all of the following:
(A) Evaluate three-dimensional printing files, whether in the form of STL files or other computer-aided design files or geometric code.
(B) Detect and identify any such files that can be used to program a three-dimensional printer to produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts.
(C) Flag any disallowed files for rejection by a software control process.
(4) The performance standards shall require that, at a minimum, firearm blueprint detection algorithms have the capacity to utilize an inventory of disallowed firearm blueprint files that have been commonly downloaded or shared on public internet forums to detect those files and modified versions of those files.
(5) The department or other relevant state agency shall not require that a firearm blueprint detection algorithm produce a perfect success rate at detecting disallowed files. "
I read that to mean if the trigger, sights, and barrel (let's assume that there are desktop metal sintering printers for sake of argument, or that the law also includes CNC machining), are included in one of the "bad" firearm files (this is suspiciously sounding like the classifications of "assault weapons"), then they could be flagged and prevented from printing, and in fact - it sounds like updating detection algorithms to do so would be one of the ongoing requirements for compliance.
It would be interesting to test the law in the following way.
Instead of directly printing a desired part (say, the frame for a Glock clone, which holds the rails that turn it into a receiver), print a mold which can then be used using casting or injection molding to mass produce the desired part.
Text of the law:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca...
As defined in the bill:
"(g) âoeIllegal firearm partsâ means a firearm precursor part and any part designed and intended for use in converting a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun, including, but not limited to, a pistol convertor."
Definition of "firearm precursor part"
https://california.public.law/...
"(a)
âoeFirearm precursor partâ means any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled or converted to be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm, or that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed, assembled or converted."
It is interesting that by that definition, it appears that the law is creating a loophole - illegal parts includes a part that is not yet considered a firearm part, if a part which is illegal is involved - for example a semi-automatic to automatic conversion kit. In order to identify the precursor part when produced in conjuction with a semi-automatic to automatic conversion kit, you'd need to be able to identify the precursor part by itself.
By this definition, even a water gun could be considered an illegal part, if there is a process to convert it to a functioning firearm part (for example, dremeling channels to hold rails for the slide, and epoxying nuts to hold the hardware necessary to add the fire control group.) There's nothing in the law that says you have to be printing an actual firearm, or parts of a firearm, only that could be printing parts that eventually could be used to create a working firearm, even if the parts as currenly assembled, cannot work, and would not be able to work without further additional processing.
This section is what I would consider a red flag:
"(f) (1) A person who has suffered harm in California as a result of a violation of this section may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish that a person has violated this section, and may seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the person and any other defendant from further violating the law.
(2) The Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish that a person has violated this section, and may seek a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each violation, as well as injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the person and any other defendant from further violating the law.
(3) A prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneyâ(TM)s fees and costs."
You're now creating a new cottage industry for lawyers to sue people under this law. They don't even need to win, or have a decent case, they just need to threaten people into settling, as a successful court case allows them to charge for legal costs on top of the civil penalties and any injuctive relief.
Someone earlier in the thread talked about moving from a problem of "ghost guns" to a problem of "ghost printers". Literally this is shifting left - instead of targeting criminals who commit crimes, they're now criminalizing businesses and industries who sell to consumers in California. For legal liability reasons alone, I would assume pretty much every printer manufacturer would stop selling to California consumers, and the ones that do sell to businesses and consumers will jack up their prices to cover the cost of legal liability insurance for doing business in the state.
It will be like when California banned "assault weapons". Existing owners were grandfathered in, but could not sell their property to other users in state. If you own a Bambu printer, you may find yourself locked out of using your own hardware with your next software update, thanks to this proposed law...
Real computer scientists don't program in assembler. They don't write in anything less portable than a number two pencil.
