NY bill would require a criminal history background check for the purchase of a 3D printer::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.
You can’t buy a car in most states without insurance. You can’t get insurance without a license. You cannot get a license… and so on. So that’s not a good example.
Private party car sales have no burden on the seller to verify the buyer has car insurance.
At the end of the day you need insurance to drive it on the road.
On a public road sure, but there’s no requirement for licensing a vehicle operated entirely on private land.
Need it yes but not everyone gets it
deleted by creator
My understanding was that insurance was typically only a prerequisite for operating on public roadways not ownership. So you can drive a car on your own property if you say had a farm without paying for insurance.
If you buy private sure, but I’m not sure how liability works then. Typically medical insurance will refuse to cover vehicle related injuries, so if you or someone else is injured while operating their car on your own property you may be SOL.
You might not be able to register it without insurance but you can certainly buy it. Plus a significant number of drivers on the road don’t have insurance because they only pay for it long enough to register the car and then never again. There’s a reason those of us with insurance usually have the option for coverage if the other driver doesn’t.
The ability to break the law isn’t an argument for not having the law. My point is only that using cars can be used as a weapon is a terrible example. Cars are far far more regulated than guns, and you can’t sneak a car in through a medal detector into a school, airport, etc and start running people over with it inside. I’m not even attempting to justify the background check.
I’m not the person you replied to, but it’s an okay comparison. It’s not perfect - 3D printers are way less dangerous than cars - but it conveys the same point.
Like cars and unlike guns, 3D printers are tools. The federal government prevents a convicted felon from owning a gun, but not from driving; generally speaking, states only prohibit this if you were convicted of reckless driving or some other vehicle related offense.
Also, once I have a license I can walk into any car dealer and drive out with a car a couple hours later. This law has an up-to-15 day turn around for the background check and no means of attesting that you are licensed and permitted to purchase a 3D printer without waiting. That’s gonna be a pain for everyone who’s interested in a 3D printer. If my car is taken out of service and I need it to get to work, I can buy another. I don’t have to wait 15 days. If my business involves 3D printing and one of my printers breaks down and needs replaced, having to wait an extra 15 days for a replacement is ridiculous.
If the law said “Felons who were convicted of crimes involving 3D printers may not purchase or own a 3D printer” then that would be more appropriate and closer to how cars are handled.
IMO a more apt comparison would be to other consumer grade tools, like drills, circular saws, etc… Just because I can theoretically make something dangerous with such a tool doesn’t mean the tool needs to be restricted.
Afaik NY doesn’t prohibit felons from buying an “80 percent” Glock frame, a Glock slide, and a Dremel, nor does it prevent them from buying a CNC that can mill a full metal gun. (NJ prohibits the first of those (for everyone) and it’s illegal there to construct a gun at home if you aren’t legally permitted to own one, but that’s harder to enforce.) Either of those legal purchase sets enable you to create a gun at home that’s a much more effective firearm than can be 3D printed. Prohibiting them from buying a 3D printer (when technically even an Ender 3 can print a “gun”) is just silly.
Some stats: in the USA, there were:
this works out to:
If that one unverified one is the one I’m thinking out of Rhode Island from Jan 2020 that was a polymer 80 not a 3D printed gun.
Sure was, and that’s what I thought as well.
I looked into it a while ago one news site had pictures he’d posted on FB with it in the background if I remember correctly.
I disagree that it conveys the same point unless your point is that criminals don’t follow laws, so why have laws. Cars are very regulated. You also can’t sneak a car through a metal detector in your pocket and run individuals over indoors. Completely different threats, with completely different availability.
This bill was just introduced, there’s little detail yet on how this could be accomplished.
Is that really the point that you took away from my comment? Let me simplify it for you:
Did you follow the link and read the bill? It lays it all out.
In this case a neutral effect is better than a negative one. Preventative legislation on something that is a foregone conclusion is relevant. These guns already exist, and printers are getting better. At some point someone will use one to kill someone. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to get out ahead of it. Is this bill it? I don’t know.
Those Negative effects are not large burdens.
Yes I read it. It’s not gone through any review yet and is simply written to piggy back on an existing system. The Drone community went through the same thing worth FAA licensing.
Wait, ex-cons can’t even get cars in the US? Are you serious?
No? Where did you get that from? Maybe if they’ve lost their license for DUI’s or something.