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

212 points - yesterday at 3:51 PM

Source

Comments

robflynn today at 12:20 AM
My main concern is, how long is it before you can't print a replacement part for something you bought because it looks too similar to an OEM part and the manufacturer doesn't think you should be able to do that so they throw a little money to the right politician.
pjc50 yesterday at 4:35 PM
This is insanely stupid stuff. Even the UK with our weird panic over Incredibly Specific Knives hasn't tried to do this kind of technical restriction to prevent people printing guns. Why not? Because nobody is printing guns! It's an infeasible solution to a non-problem!

Someone should dig into who this is coming from and why. The answers are usually either (a) they got paid to do it by a company selling the tech, which appears not to be the case here, or (b) they went insane on social media.

(can't confirm this personally, but it seems from other comments that it's perfectly feasible to just drive out of New York State and buy a gun somewhere else in the gun-owning US? And this is quite likely where all the guns used in existing NY crime come from?)

I would also note that the Shinzo Abe doohickey wasn't 3D-printed.

androiddrew today at 1:21 AM
I think a lot of people don’t realize that in the US we have the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which gives you the right to manufacture a fire arm. There are still requirements like it must be for personal use, cannot be transferred, must have a serial number, etc.
IFC_LLC today at 1:16 AM
So what's next? People will re-flash their printers with an open-source firmware that won't do the checks? Who's liable in this case?
crazygringo yesterday at 4:23 PM
I don't think they know what Ctrl+Alt+Delete means.

They want to restart it? They want to go to the screen where you can switch users or sign out?

Do they think it's just a fancier way of saying delete?

pigpop today at 1:37 AM
Once again another proposed law that would just make normal people's lives more difficult while doing nothing to prevent individuals who are motivated to do the illegal thing from doing it. Offline 3D printers are really not difficult to build, there are many open source plans and all of the hardware is available to order from AliExpress making it simple to do. Somewhat more technically capable people can cobble them together from alternative sources if they don't want to purchase things online.

But the bar is even lower than that since you can simply buy a gun much more easily than you could 3D print parts for one.

AnotherGoodName yesterday at 4:31 PM
This will cause 3D printer usability to go down massively. A bit like the multicolored tracking dots - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots that causes the driver to tell you "you can't print black and white as you're out of yellow".
le-mark today at 1:28 AM
The irony is it’s really easy and cheap to get a type 7 ffl, basically a background check and $150. Legally manufacture and sell all the guns you want. The reality is no one would buy your 3d printed junk anyway.
uzish yesterday at 4:41 PM
Hmmm... this is literally the intro of the narrative arc in the game that I'm making. Governments confiscating 3D Printers, powerful GPUs, robotic parts to prevent "simple people" the access to "dangerous technologies". For their own good of course.
hazmazlaz yesterday at 6:18 PM
The most insane thing about this is that it is not illegal to manufacture firearms in the United States. Providing that you do not sell or distribute the firearm, it is entirely legal to manufacture a firearm in the USA for personal use only. Laws vary state by state, of course, and it may be different in the state of New York, but assuming that this federal law has not been overridden by some state law in New York, then this proposed regulation is 100% nonsensical.
Joel_Mckay today at 1:43 AM
The real problem is criminals don't care about the law.

* Firearms owners follow the law as they enjoy their hobby

* Firearms enthusiasts are not going to make something that will eventually fail ripping their fingers off and opening up their own neck. They will customize something with retail parts like a sane person, and that is allowable in most cases under the law.

While governments may seek regulatory capture of 3D printers with sycophantic idealism, it is a fools errand. People that enjoy that hobby also don't want their toys taken away for doing stupid illegal stuff.

Criminals don't care about the laws, and adding more laws does nothing to change that fact. Adding a valid firearms license requirement to purchase ammunition, barrels, and magazines could help constrain the ghost problem. =3

delichon yesterday at 4:46 PM
> The obvious problem: you cannot reliably detect firearms from geometry alone.

The obvious problem with this argument is that in just the medium term, world-model style AI will get good at this task, but having big brother pre-approve every print will still be bad.

harrisi yesterday at 5:03 PM
Should flour, yeast, water, and ovens be banned, and only commercial bakeries be allowed to make bread?

I know guns are different. There are also an enormous amount of ways to cause harm. I personally think that, ideally, nobody should have guns. That's not the world we live in, though. A political government body should not infringe on privacy of individuals because some small percentage may cause harm.

I can make a sword, grow poisonous plants, isolate toxins, or stab someone with a pencil. I do not. I shouldn't be punished for the idea that other people may.

arnonejoe today at 12:50 AM
Also, manufacturers that make 3d printers simply wont sell in NY. They’ve solved nothing with this.
jp191919 yesterday at 4:21 PM
It's not illegal to make your own firearm, you just can't sell it.
rdiddly yesterday at 4:35 PM
4th Amendment, unreasonable search. And of course the 2nd, but the former is more worrying. Also if printing is speech, then you can add the 1st to the list as well.
krunck yesterday at 4:50 PM
For hundreds of years people have been making guns without 3D printers and CNC mills. All that is needed is some metal machining skills, a lathe, and some other tools.
tamimio today at 12:26 AM
Year 2027: beep boop beep boop, scan your implanted rfid digital ID chip to authenticate:

- your social media consumption and any post you make

- your app installations

- registering a new account or keeping an already existing one

- driving your car

- 3D printing something

- watching a YouTube video

- buying anything online

- receive any gov support or healthcare

- any transaction including cash ones

And all of that is synced with your digital wallet (TM) for convenience, internet is not needed!! I am so glad we are protecting the 16yo from accessing tiktok, or something something deportations if you are the other team!!

iancmceachern yesterday at 11:29 PM
Yeah but what about CNC milling machines? Way more guns are made on those every day than 3d printers. There is even one you can buy that is specifically for making "ghost guns"
SanjayMehta today at 1:27 AM
Why is it in a budget bill?
iamnothere yesterday at 10:41 PM
I will just continue to use my non-regulated printer and open source slicer. Fortunately I have a copy of the source.

If anyone needs help printing parts for a Voron just let me know. (Not a real offer for the public, but for friends absolutely.)

slg today at 12:16 AM
I think it's interesting to note that not only is there precedent for this type of "blocking technology that prevents the printing of certain things"[1], but it's also inconsequential and uncontroversial enough that most of the people here obviously have never even heard of it.

We lost the ability to print $50 bills with our HPs[2] and it had no noticeable negative impact on society. I'm not sure why losing the ability to print a gun with our Prusas will be any different.

[1] - https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/cant-photocopy-scan-cu...

[2] - https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Printers-Archive-Read-Only/Won...

hypeatei yesterday at 4:45 PM
Any state laws trying to restrict the 2nd amendment are always going to be useless. You're not going to stop someone who's determined at causing harm with firearms in a country where firearms outnumber people. All these little "bandaid" solutions do is allow for fishing expeditions by police and prosecutors.

On a related point, trying to implement more gun control after seeing how this federal government is deploying the three letter agencies is pretty fucking stupid.

MisterTea yesterday at 4:19 PM
Why would I bother with an unreliable 3D printed zip gun and 3D printing when I can go and get a real working gun off the street for a few hundred?

Edit, reading further it's even more insane:

> The New York definitions sweep in not just FDM and resin printers, but also CNC mills and “any machine capable of making three-dimensional modifications to an object from a digital design file using subtractive manufacturing.” That’s a lot of shop & manufacturing equipment!

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

assaddayinh today at 12:25 AM
Just another example of more lid than pots.

Instead of containing the anger of the public by doing good politics and thus reduce radicalizations and peace by plenty of filled pots, its surveilance, panopticons, terror and ever more laws sas lids. If you can't atand the heat get out of the kitchen.

like_any_other yesterday at 11:45 PM
It tells you all you need to know about their honesty, that such a dramatic expansion of government power into our private lives and property, was put into a "budget bill".
CamperBob2 today at 12:36 AM
Note that Washington's similar HB 2321 defines a "3D printer" as any additive or subtractive manufacturing machine. So these idiots want to regulate CNC machines too.

Public comments can (and should!) be submitted here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill/2321 Keep them polite and respectful; insults and threats won't help.

qwlefkjlk yesterday at 5:24 PM
And not for the first time:

2025: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A2228

2023 (before Mangione): https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/A8132

Maybe there are others.

Hizonner yesterday at 5:23 PM
Wait, so this is in the budget bill proposed by the supposed adults in the room, not from the usual types in the peanut gallery of the legislature?
SirMaster yesterday at 4:28 PM
But not CNC machines?
0_____0 yesterday at 4:41 PM
Policy in the pursuit of easy political narrative wins looks like this. US gun crime is a national issue, and therefore unsolvable in the current political climate, so useless posturing like this is what we're left with.

The real fix is something like a nationwide licensing system like for cars, with auditing of weapons and weapon storage.

talkinghead yesterday at 4:50 PM
perhaps people printing their own guns at home is actually quite bad and in fact should be controlled in some way without it being seen as a fundamental incursion on your rights.

just a thought from across the pond.

SilverElfin yesterday at 4:29 PM
Weird how this is happening simultaneously in many states. Washington is considering a vague 3d printer and CNC law to address ghost guns. Gun crimes are mostly committed with regular pistols but that isn’t stopping politicians from passing all sorts of restrictions under the guise of keeping people safe. Meanwhile these states have serious budget problems that go unaddressed 

loeg yesterday at 8:28 PM
Washington state is pursuing a similar law at a similar time. Presumably pushed by the same advocacy organization, whichever one it is. The Washington one seems impossible to actually comply with -- how the hell is the computer in a CNC machine going to figure out what geometries are gun-like? A de facto ban on additive or subtractive manufacturing is pretty dumb.
pragma_x yesterday at 5:29 PM
I wrote as good an opposition as I could. Basically, I opposed it on multiple principles.

From the top, I absolutely detest this kind of censorship. But the bill states that the implementation will be defined (or rendered infeasible - yeah right) AFTER the bill passes. Said decision will be punted to a "working group" of industry folks. That alone stinks, since it places a lot of abuse potential outside of duly elected representation.

Simulacra yesterday at 4:33 PM
If you haven't bought a 3D printer yet then I think it's a good time to invest in one. This is going to be one of those technologies that slowly the government will erode our access to, so getting on board now is the best course of action.
scratchyone yesterday at 4:36 PM
Second half of this article has signs of AI slop, as confirmed by Pangram:

https://i.imgur.com/gGIAApA.png

Hard to trust an article like this when the legal analysis and suggestions are being outsourced to an LLM.

deleted today at 12:48 AM
ortusdux yesterday at 4:37 PM
Seems like a boon for small batch 3d printing companies.
OutOfHere yesterday at 5:33 PM
Just reject printing everything or nearly everything :)

Inform users where this censorship filter is implemented, so users can go change the source file value from 1 to 0 :)

Malicious compliance is highly appropriate for a malicious law.

bitwize yesterday at 4:25 PM
Gun nut Eric Raymond was cheering when the first printable guns came out. Checkmate gun grabbers, you'll never prevent us from having our shooty-shootys now! Haha! I thought, well the answer to that is simple: simply declare 3D printers to be weapons. You know, like how the Feds declared encryption to be "munitions".
rickcarlino yesterday at 11:34 PM
Yet another case of lawmakers proliferating the “you should not have root access” meme. This is one of the most dangerous ideas in the modern political landscape and a backdoor to much less well intentioned actions (intentional and unintended).
bieganski yesterday at 4:52 PM
"preventing firearms printing", aka "securing big companies' income from spare parts selling with 500% margin"
EarlKing today at 12:00 AM
They can require whatever the want. Good luck stopping people from just building their own printers without such "blocking technology".
kogasa240p yesterday at 4:46 PM
> The New York definitions sweep in not just FDM and resin printers, but also CNC mills and “any machine capable of making three-dimensional modifications to an object from a digital design file using subtractive manufacturing.”

...what? This some of the stupidest, most out of touch garbage I've ever read and clearly made by uneducated lawmakers being out of their depth.

deleted yesterday at 4:42 PM
andrewmcwatters yesterday at 4:23 PM
[dead]
dangus yesterday at 4:38 PM
I really dislike this whole debate because I never wanted to be lumped in with 3D gun printing weirdos.

When I first told my very non-technical somewhat new friend about my 3D printer, they looked really concerned and told me they weren’t comfortable with it because of how people make weapons with them.

I’ve had to spend a lot of time building trust and showing that I’m not one of those weirdos.

Ultimately I don’t think any kind of printed gun banning law has a tangible impact (it’s not like guns with serial numbers aren’t regularly getting away with murder), but what I don’t like is that the law and discussion around it validates this stupidity and continues to lump me in with gun weirdos.

It’s weird to own a gun. It’s weird to print a gun. I don’t even think the 2nd amendment is very necessary and is clearly not capable of stopping tyranny (and the amendment itself says that’s not its purpose anyway).

At this point we could probably get a coalition of Trump cult members who have no consistent ideology (Trump doesn’t like guns) and “liberal pansies” to just repeal the 2nd amendment and become a normal country.

3x35r22m4u yesterday at 4:34 PM
I can more or less understand where the legislator might be coming from: laser printers and copiers are already mandated to include fingerprinting in the output and disrupt any attempt of copying money.