NY State Assembly Bill 2023-A8132
www.nysenate.gov
Requires a criminal history background check for the purchase of a three-dimensional printer capable of creating firearms; prohibits sale to a person who would be disqualified on the basis of criminal history from being granted a license to possess a firearm.

cross-posted from: https://ttrpg.network/post/4222671

Want a 3D printer in New York? Get ready for fingerprinting and a 15 day wait

Assembly Bill A8132 has been assigned a “Same As” bill in the Senate: S8586 [NYSenate.gov] [A8132 - 2023]

I don’t own a gun, I never have and I don’t plan to at any time in the future. But if these pass in the NYS Senate and Congress, it would be required to submit fingerprints for a background check then wait 15 days, before you could own any “COMPUTER OR COMPUTER-DRIVEN MACHINE OR DEVICE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM A DIGITAL MODEL.”

This isn’t even going to stop any crimes from happening, for pity sakes regular guns end up in criminal charges all the time, regardless of background check laws. How about some real change and effective measures, rather then virtue-signaling and theater illusion for a constituency?

  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    31·
    10 months ago

    basically made it impossible to regulate the purchase of actual guns.

    Currently, the purchase of actual guns is still federally regulated, so it seems possible. What they keep striking down is meaningless feature bans and the states that want to lock carrying only to the rich and famous, which imo is also removeded up.

    • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
      2·
      10 months ago

      What I’m talking about specifically is NY v. Bruen. The supreme Court ruled that states can’t pass gun restrictions that aren’t reflective of historical tradition.

      As you can imagine, that makes drafting gun restrictions that are permitted under this reading of the construction nearly impossible.

      This kind of ban on 3d printers is an terrible but not unsurprising consequence of this really batremoved ruling.

      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/supreme-court-ruling-creates-turmoil-over-gun-laws-in-lower-courts

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        10 months ago

        Ehhhh tbh the pointless feature bans and denial of the ability to carry through “will only issue if you’re rich” permits ala CA and NY were in turn responsible for Bruen even being a case. The anti self defense crowd played with fire and got burned, and they still continue attempting the same thing. If there was proposed legislation that would:

        A) Actually make a meaningful impact,

        AND

        B) Not be easily (or by design) abused to deny rights to as many people as humanly possible because “gun bad,”

        AND

        C) Come from a place of understanding about guns rather than always sounding like Kevin De Leon, or Rep. Diana DeGette who believes magazines aren’t reloadable. If anyone proposing legislation had any credibility beyond “guns scary,” it’d probably be easier to convince those who do have guns and some knowledge about how they function.

        AND

        D) Don’t just go after “assault weapons” which are responsible for 500/60,000 gun deaths/yr. We’re smart enough to do the math on it. We don’t believe “all we want to do is ban the scary black rifles, the wooden ones that function identically are fine, because they’re slightly less comfortable to hold and have a harder time taking flashlights.”

        Unfortunately the literal opposite of that is happening, just pointless feature bans and “only the rich can carry” taxes or extra approval because “the poor don’t need to protect themselves as much as the rich.” (Which we can see by the 1% being the largest economic section victimized in violent crimes, definitely not the poor. /s)