zlacker

[return to "New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers"]
1. jp1919+k7[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:21:10
>>ptorro+(OP)
It's not illegal to make your own firearm, you just can't sell it.
◧◩
2. reacto+G7[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:22:25
>>jp1919+k7
They want to make it illegal
◧◩◪
3. ameliu+0a[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:31:26
>>reacto+G7
Maybe they should look more at how other countries quite successfully banned fire arms. Hint: it wasn't by banning printers.
◧◩◪◨
4. Austin+Ta[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:34:51
>>ameliu+0a
They could attempt it, but the Second Amendment is quite clear that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to ban firearms and ammunition.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. hoarse+Qe[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:49:45
>>Austin+Ta
SCOTUS has ruled before that 2A does not afford freedom to own any kind of weapon. There are limits on explosives for example.

They tend to lean on whether it is reasonable that the Founders might have had access to such a weapon with their technology. Machine gun is just a rifle with automatic rechamber. Not an unreasonable upgrade for 1700s technology. Maybe, I dunno; political people don't have to actually care about the details.

There are limits. And if cases like this made it there they might rule that no Founder was smelting the materials. That they would have had to collaborate, in some "market dictates options" ruling to limit hermits going in a rampage. Also everyone a weapons assembly line in their home is anti-corporate capitalism.

"George Washington understood the value of civic life and sound economics! He would not have tolerated such insular selfishness! He did not make his own weapons! He engaged in trade!"

Not saying it's realistic but politics is not never controlled by people living in reality. Making shit up seems as reasonable as anything.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. 9x39+Eh[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:00:42
>>hoarse+Qe
>SCOTUS has ruled before that 2A does not afford freedom to own any kind of weapon. There are limits on explosives for example.

This is largely machine guns and explosives. Pistols, rifles, etc are ordinary weapons in common use*

*NYC authorities may not agree

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. hoarse+jm[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:23:04
>>9x39+Eh
https://ammo.com/research/list-of-banned-guns-and-ammo-by-st...

Sawed off shotguns seems arbitrary and that was ultimately my (pre-coffee) point; government is fine with coming up with an arbitrary restriction when they want.

They could outlaw the means of production. Gen pop is not allowed to own that.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. int_19+Zx2[view] [source] 2026-02-04 06:44:06
>>hoarse+jm
There is, in fact, a good question wrt how much of NFA is actually constitutional. A funny thing about this is that ATF has dropped cases on several occasions where the defendant tried this angle, presumably because they didn't want something contrary to their current regulations as written to be overturned in court, and because they had plenty of other charges to throw at those guys anyway.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. WillAd+5a3[view] [source] 2026-02-04 11:48:16
>>int_19+Zx2
Given that it was modeled on gun control legislation from pre-WWII Germany, it's _not_ something which they want looked at too closely.
[go to top]