Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


mlmp08 posted:

I’m no mod, but the discussion you’re looking for is more likely to be had in the gun control / mass shooting thread: [will try to edit a link in here, mobile hard]. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3867020&perpage=40&noseen=1

This thread is more about legal current events, process, explainers than it is about activism and/or what should be done.
I'd say this is accurate, though not a mod.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Somebody Awful
Nov 27, 2011

BORN TO DIE
HAIG IS A FUCK
Kill Em All 1917
I am trench man
410,757,864,530 SHELLS FIRED




mlmp08 posted:

I’m no mod, but the discussion you’re looking for is more likely to be had in the gun control / mass shooting thread:

This thread is more about legal current events, process, explainers than it is about activism and/or what should be done.

Yep.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011


Akion posted:

My guess is it'll get appealed to the SCOTUS who will ignore it unless there is a circuit split. IDK if there is any precedent on concealed carry being a right, just on having a gun in your home.
The 9th already ruled that there was no right to carry a concealed firearm outside your home back in Peruta v. San Diego County (2016) but did a wink-wink-nudge-nudge that perhaps there was a right to open carry, unfortunately the litigation was confined to the narrow question of concealed carry, so they wouldn't address what a "right to bear arms" means. Too bad, so sad.

In this case, Young v. State of Hawaii, they ruled that there is no right to open carry either, and therefore absolutely no right to carry a firearm outside your home/property unless the government deigns to grant you that privilege, which can be based on whatever the government wants. This again raises the question of exactly what "bear arms" means.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Dead Reckoning posted:

In this case, Young v. State of Hawaii, they ruled that there is no right to open carry either, and therefore absolutely no right to carry a firearm outside your home/property unless the government deigns to grant you that privilege, which can be based on whatever the government wants. This again raises the question of exactly what "bear arms" means.

This is not the ruling as written. The court limited scope to weapons that could be carried concealed, whether they were concealed or not. So long guns etc are explicitly not addressed. The ruling also finds there are places outside of your home/property one may carry and travel while armed. The court also states that the government may NOT base licensing on just whatever it wants. The court makes a point of all of this leading up to conclusion.

This can be gleaned by reading the decision. It’s probably not necessary to read 80-100 pages of history citations in the decision. But by reading through the summation and response to the dissent as wrll as the dissent, which is less than 20-30 minutes of reading, one will find that... it’s complicated and has a shitload of history and it cites Heller throughout. Dissent may win the day at SCOTUS if it makes it there. But DR’s summary is plainly incorrect and highly misleading.

astropika
Jul 5, 2007
no, not really

Notably they used procedural reasons (the plaintiff not exhausting all possible methods of appeal of the sheriff's decision and some structural failures in his original complaint) to decline to address whether Hawaii county not actually issuing any of these permits infringed, the decision as ruled basically says "licensing for carrying arms in public is ok under the 2nd amendment", without it mattering if any of those licenses ever get issued.

astropika fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Mar 25, 2021

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011


mlmp08 posted:

But DR’s summary is plainly incorrect and highly misleading.
LMAO. The county definitely does not allow citizens to open carry long guns for personal protection. Being allowed to have a long gun at the range is not the same thing and you know it. I continue to be amazed at your insistence that the 9th Circuit's "Oh, looks like the gun rights marble wasn't under this cup either. Now, *maybe* there's a right to carry long guns for self defense out there? We just don't know, it's outside the scope of this case! Care to play again?" shell game is completely on the level and that examining their decisions in light of the actual facts on the ground and prior jurisprudence is somehow deceptive or bad faith.

Pham Nuwen
Oct 30, 2010




Dead Reckoning posted:

LMAO. The county definitely does not allow citizens to open carry long guns for personal protection. Being allowed to have a long gun at the range is not the same thing and you know it. I continue to be amazed at your insistence that the 9th Circuit's "Oh, looks like the gun rights marble wasn't under this cup either. Now, *maybe* there's a right to carry long guns for self defense out there? We just don't know, it's outside the scope of this case! Care to play again?" shell game is completely on the level and that examining their decisions in light of the actual facts on the ground and prior jurisprudence is somehow deceptive or bad faith.

Mosin-Nagant M91/30 open carry: when you're out of ammo, it's still a pretty good club

Capn Beeb
Jun 29, 2003

Enter the woods, find a friend!


Pham Nuwen posted:

Mosin-Nagant M91/30 open carry: when you're out of ammo, it's still a pretty good club

Why carry one extremely long and cumbersome 91/30 when you could chop two down, link them together with a bit of chain, and have four weapons in a smaller package?



Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011


at anyone seriously arguing that a federal circuit court panel (of the 9th Circuit no less) being unable to find a hook to reach the merits of a case is just an honest exercise of judicial restraint, rather than a conscious choice to duck an uncomfortable merits decision while still effectively endorsing the status quo.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

I will put the tl;dr up front (edit: DR, your new post immediately above is accurate. This case upholds the status quo and answers none of the ever-ongoing thorny questions)

tl;dr - Yes, it is another court finding that “may issue” is an acceptable state law. At the heart of the case, Young was challenging the legality of may-issue and lost.

Dead Reckoning posted:

LMAO. The county definitely does not allow citizens to open carry long guns for personal protection. Being allowed to have a long gun at the range is not the same thing and you know it. I continue to be amazed at your insistence that the 9th Circuit's "Oh, looks like the gun rights marble wasn't under this cup either. Now, *maybe* there's a right to carry long guns for self defense out there? We just don't know, it's outside the scope of this case! Care to play again?" shell game is completely on the level and that examining their decisions in light of the actual facts on the ground and prior jurisprudence is somehow deceptive or bad faith.

Your description of the court finding is objectively incorrect. Do not take or misrepresent my pointing this out as a judgment on the 9th circuit or some moral argument. This thread tends to cover legal news. Your post was an inaccurate description of the finding. Anyone who reads the finding will see that.

This, specifically, is plain wrong:

Dead Reckoning posted:

In this case, Young v. State of Hawaii, they ruled that there is no right to open carry either, and therefore absolutely no right to carry a firearm outside your home/property unless the government deigns to grant you that privilege, which can be based on whatever the government wants.

However, that is in a way good news for gun owners. It would be alarming as hell if the 9th circuit had ruled as broadly and openly hostile to bearing arms as your summary makes out. If the 9th had found that broadly, that would open the doors for any state that wants to banish all personal firearm carry and transport without a license from the state, issuable for any or no reason at government whim. But the court did not do that!

If the 9th had, as you wrote, ruled that there is zero ability to carry a firearm without a 100% arbitrary government ruling that you may apply for a permit they can deny for any reason, well... it would probably at least make for an extremely easy SCOTUS case.

The fact that their ruling is not so open and shut and poorly written is because of a couple of things:

1. They’re simply not that stupid/lazy, regardless of whatever philosophy or ideology they may or may not have.
2. If they are ideologically driven and just hate guns more than laws, they would be dumb to rule so broadly anyway.
3. One of the greatest outs the court has left unanswered is that this ruling does not answer at all where the line of government permitting actually starts or stops. They simply have said that there is no 2A right to open carry handguns into public spaces with the reason given as “just want to.”

To expand on three, first they deliberately do not cover long arms. Second, and far more pertinent to the average bearing of arms via handgun etc, the courts continue to not define what is overly burdensome rules about who can carry. Hawaii does not think “just want to,” is sufficient cause to carry a handgun through public spaces. And the 9th agrees that the states may ask for more justification than “just want to.” Some people may disagree!

Now let’s say your reason hoes from “just want to,” to “self defense.” Now we’ve got a more interesting argument! How much can a state ask of an individual to justify caring handguns into public spaces for personal defense? Is a person simply saying “I am doing this for lawful self defense” good enough? If so, that certainly passes accepted muster based on historical record and Heller. Or does the person need to prove further circumstances? How special and bespoke do those have to be? And how enduring fo these circumstances need to be? And so on? Those questions are very hard and probably will continue to be a major point of legal contention for a long time. As Heller also made clear.

So this ruling is bad news for open carry rights purists, who believe in open carry of handguns purely for the purpose of open carry, and do not believe self defense is the lynchpin of open carry.

It is not good news for those who support self defense carry who do not believe in any gatekeeping beyond saying “this is for self defense.” The finding is in line with the US norm of saying that states may require permits and regulatory hoops to carry (not just transport) handguns in public spaces. But how much? Big ole shrug.

It’s neutral or even good for those who want to be able to carry but want hurdles. So your cops and private security and folks who just like licenses and the like.

It’s bad news regardless of one’s gun views if another “kick the can down the road” court case is frustrating!

mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Mar 25, 2021

Akion
May 7, 2006


Grimey Drawer

Sixth Circuit just ruled that bump stocks aren't Machineguns.

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


Opinion (A nice link was included in the article!): https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BumpStockOp.pdf

Here's the District Court Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docke...=&order_by=desc
And the Appeals Court Docket... which won't be updated because Court Listener doesn't handle appeals well: https://www.courtlistener.com/docke...=&order_by=desc

Capn Beeb
Jun 29, 2003

Enter the woods, find a friend!


Biden wants to poo poo on 3D printed guns and imported firearms.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-guns/biden-looks-into-taking-action-on-3d-printer-guns-imported-firearms-idUSKBN2BI384

Pretty sure the epidemic of covid, inaccessible/unavailable/outright non-existent health care, stagnant wages well below the cost of living index in every state in the entire god drat country, houselessness, police violence, and hate crimes spiking are taking more lives than the Epidemic of Gun Violence, but lol Common Sense™ you see. Treating gun violence like a disease and address the root causes? Nah, just legislate away.

Morshu
Sep 30, 2009

Attack monkey! Monkey attack!


Capn Beeb posted:

Biden wants to poo poo on 3D printed guns and imported firearms.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-guns/biden-looks-into-taking-action-on-3d-printer-guns-imported-firearms-idUSKBN2BI384

Pretty sure the epidemic of covid, inaccessible/unavailable/outright non-existent health care, stagnant wages well below the cost of living index in every state in the entire god drat country, houselessness, police violence, and hate crimes spiking are taking more lives than the Epidemic of Gun Violence, but lol Common Sense™ you see. Treating gun violence like a disease and address the root causes? Nah, just legislate away.

Is... is anyone gonna tell him that evil scary assault weapons are already import banned or is he seriously going to try banning all firearms imports?

Ophidian
Jan 12, 2005

Woo WOO, Look a Parrot...
LOOK AT IT!


The goal is to garner the most emotional support, not fix actual problems.

Akion
May 7, 2006


Grimey Drawer

Trying to ban 3D printed guns feels like the 2021 version of Napster.

lite_sleepr
Jun 3, 2003




Akion posted:

Trying to ban 3D printed guns feels like the 2021 version of Napster.

Oh man that reminds me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


Akion posted:

Trying to ban 3D printed guns feels like the 2021 version of Napster.

To me it feels like trying to performatively put a genie back in the bottle.

There is essentially no feasible way to control what people construct with a 3D printer and as a technology its only going to get more capable and more accessible as time goes on.

Edit: Which I suppose describes what happened with Napster pretty well, too.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Mar 27, 2021

pantslesswithwolves
Oct 27, 2008

Ba-dam ba-DUMMMMMM


My guess would be attempting a restriction on the circulation of 3D printed gun schematics but I would think that would run up on a slam dunk 1A lawsuit.

Akion
May 7, 2006


Grimey Drawer

Didn't they already try that and lose?

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


Warbadger posted:

To me it feels like trying to performatively put a genie back in the bottle.

There is essentially no feasible way to control what people construct with a 3D printer and as a technology its only going to get more capable and more accessible as time goes on.

Edit: Which I suppose describes what happened with Napster pretty well, too.

They could require that 3D Printers sold in the US are to only work when connected to the internet, that when items are printed that they the information on the print job (along with an identifier) be sent to a central server owned by the manufacturer or designated by the manufacturer, and that the FBI/LEOs have access to that server. This gives gov't further surveillance, is performative enough to look like they're doing something, and may be enough evidence to catch the stupidest "criminals" (i.e. felons who register with their info), and sets a precedent of regulating said printers to require a license in the future, as a licensing scheme criminalizing current owners now is probably too far of a stretch.

Of course this won't stop dedicated individuals who are specifically using 3D printers to pump out parts for illegal markets.

Brackit
Jan 23, 2019


BeAuMaN posted:

They could require that 3D Printers sold in the US are to only work when connected to the internet, that when items are printed that they the information on the print job (along with an identifier) be sent to a central server owned by the manufacturer or designated by the manufacturer, and that the FBI/LEOs have access to that server. This gives gov't further surveillance, is performative enough to look like they're doing something, and may be enough evidence to catch the stupidest "criminals" (i.e. felons who register with their info), and sets a precedent of regulating said printers to require a license in the future, as a licensing scheme criminalizing current owners now is probably too far of a stretch.

Of course this won't stop dedicated individuals who are specifically using 3D printers to pump out parts for illegal markets.

This makes me think of the "Eurion" constellation they use on paper money, so that scanners can detect someone trying to make a counterfeit bill. I bet they could try a similar detection method with the fire control group holes on an AR receiver, or the trigger pin holes on a Glock frame. Of course, it would be a pain in the rear end to try and reconstruct a model from g-code files, and wouldn't work on printers that accept commands over serial (without buffering the entire file, I guess). But, it might stop the most lazy and casual criminal from printing their ghost guns.

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


BeAuMaN posted:

They could require that 3D Printers sold in the US are to only work when connected to the internet, that when items are printed that they the information on the print job (along with an identifier) be sent to a central server owned by the manufacturer or designated by the manufacturer, and that the FBI/LEOs have access to that server. This gives gov't further surveillance, is performative enough to look like they're doing something, and may be enough evidence to catch the stupidest "criminals" (i.e. felons who register with their info), and sets a precedent of regulating said printers to require a license in the future, as a licensing scheme criminalizing current owners now is probably too far of a stretch.

Of course this won't stop dedicated individuals who are specifically using 3D printers to pump out parts for illegal markets.

So once you get it all stored on a database who gets to review -everything ever printed- to spot a gun part? Who gets to deal with cases of file corruption or bad connections preventing the upload (or reading) of their file?

At best that would be the sort of system used to tack on extra charges after a printed gun is found by the cops.

Akion
May 7, 2006


Grimey Drawer

I feel like that would be a pretty interesting 4A case.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

It would also be a setup designed to have all sorts of industry types and other hobbyists who don’t remotely care about guns just dig their heels in hard.

ADINSX
Sep 9, 2003

Wanna run with my crew huh? Rule cyberspace and crunch numbers like I do?



BeAuMaN posted:

They could require that 3D Printers sold in the US are to only work when connected to the internet, that when items are printed that they the information on the print job (along with an identifier) be sent to a central server owned by the manufacturer or designated by the manufacturer, and that the FBI/LEOs have access to that server. This gives gov't further surveillance, is performative enough to look like they're doing something, and may be enough evidence to catch the stupidest "criminals" (i.e. felons who register with their info), and sets a precedent of regulating said printers to require a license in the future, as a licensing scheme criminalizing current owners now is probably too far of a stretch.

Of course this won't stop dedicated individuals who are specifically using 3D printers to pump out parts for illegal markets.

As a software developer this sounds like it would be a staggering challenge. It would be really difficult to define which parts of a kit are the "Printer". I just bought a CNC router kit, my guess is 90% of the parts are the same, or should routers be added to the list as well (After all, I could cut out an AR Receiver instead of printing one up). I think every control board (Printer, Router, whatever, anything that handles GCode) would need some way to compare a set of G-Code commands with some token from the government (issued specifically for that set) and verify that only the government could have said this is approved, somehow... Then you'd need some serious penalties for the import of unlocked control boards because these things seem dirt cheap, my entire kit was 220 dollars and that included the motors, spindle, frame, control board, etc.

Then even if you could do all of that, what does a gun part look like? I admit I had never heard of the EURion constellation, that sounds pretty slick, but now you're adding a third dimension to the problem, and that algorithm only looks for very specific markers that are present in bank notes, what if I'm making a brand new design? Or a variation on an existing design with some dimensions altered if I'm printing a gun from whole cloth? All of this from the government who couldn't handle the comparatively simple task of "putting a bunch of healthcare plans online" without a lot of drama.

Capn Beeb
Jun 29, 2003

Enter the woods, find a friend!


This all sounds like a real cool way to create black markets on top of black markets, which would be used to further stifle technological privacy and would be defended by the If You Have Nothing To Hide crowd.

BeAuMaN
Feb 18, 2014

I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERFUCKER!


Warbadger posted:

So once you get it all stored on a database who gets to review -everything ever printed- to spot a gun part? Who gets to deal with cases of file corruption or bad connections preventing the upload (or reading) of their file?

At best that would be the sort of system used to tack on extra charges after a printed gun is found by the cops.
In practice I think it would be used as additional evidence to secure charges after the fact, yes. I think to some extent it could be used as predictive if they developed a tool to somehow auto-detect common "gun part" looking shapes from the files; Then it gets flagged for manual review. They could either run all submissions through the system or do spot checks of chunks of submissions. Additionally it opens it up to being searched after the fact, as mentioned previously. Said tool could be circumvented by creative designs that use more parts or do unusual shapes for the receiver. I think it's mostly performative but there's enough there that I could see it being done given enough political capital. Plus the way I proposed above the feds get access while the manufacturers have to maintain the servers. This creates an issue when a manufacturer goes out of business though.

No matter what the upside for the feds is that they get more access to more information, which they seem ever hungry for. I'm not saying this -should- be a thing (I ardently oppose such a scheme), but I can imagine such a thing coming into being, especially as someone living in California and watching bills being proposed and developed every session.

Brackit posted:

But, it might stop the most lazy and casual criminal from printing their ghost guns.
That's describing gun control laws in general, except for after the fact when they're stacking additional charges on someone they already apprehended

Akion posted:

I feel like that would be a pretty interesting 4A case.
I don't think it would be... as proposed it's the company being forced via statute to store the users info; your complying with a regulations for a device that's not specifically (in theory) constitutionally protected; you're submitted that info for a company, and the government is getting that info from the company, and not directly from you. So they aren't violating your 4A more than when FBI or whoever gets phone records or website records (Isn't there a legally mandated amount of time that various websites have to keep traffic records post-9/11 in the US?) or any other info from said companies, who may even volunteer that info without a warrant or subpoena if they set it out in their privacy policy.

What also comes to mind are the people who get visits from the ATF or DHS for buying "fuel filters" or "oil filters" online, even from just aliexpress instead of the rando pop-up fly-by-night websites that setup ads on facebook. This video for example (I saw this posted somewhere; no idea who this is): It's rambling overly long but documents a DHS agent coming to his house to ask questions about fuel/oil filter purchases with printouts of his online purchases. But right here this gives LEOs an avenue by which if there's a lot of potential "gun printing" activity recorded that LEOs now have probable cause to drop by to conduct an investigation and just "ask some questions", and most people are easily coerced into answering questions from LEOs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=270sLN5WL2I#t=255s

mlmp08 posted:

It would also be a setup designed to have all sorts of industry types and other hobbyists who don’t remotely care about guns just dig their heels in hard.
I would hope so, but given the right context (Kids die to a mass murderer who specifically had firearms that were 3D printed with no serialized receivers) I could imagine enough being either supportive or at least neutral on it, especially given how much personal data is hoovered up as-is.

ADINSX posted:

As a software developer this sounds like it would be a staggering challenge. It would be really difficult to define which parts of a kit are the "Printer". I just bought a CNC router kit, my guess is 90% of the parts are the same, or should routers be added to the list as well (After all, I could cut out an AR Receiver instead of printing one up). I think every control board (Printer, Router, whatever, anything that handles GCode) would need some way to compare a set of G-Code commands with some token from the government (issued specifically for that set) and verify that only the government could have said this is approved, somehow... Then you'd need some serious penalties for the import of unlocked control boards because these things seem dirt cheap, my entire kit was 220 dollars and that included the motors, spindle, frame, control board, etc.

Then even if you could do all of that, what does a gun part look like? I admit I had never heard of the EURion constellation, that sounds pretty slick, but now you're adding a third dimension to the problem, and that algorithm only looks for very specific markers that are present in bank notes, what if I'm making a brand new design? Or a variation on an existing design with some dimensions altered if I'm printing a gun from whole cloth? All of this from the government who couldn't handle the comparatively simple task of "putting a bunch of healthcare plans online" without a lot of drama.
I think there's a lot of ways that it could be bypassed; I wouldn't be surprised if there would, under this theoretical system, be an import ban. And I could definitely see a prosecutor, after the fact, asking why the person evaded the safe and "sensible" laws (the apply to businesses/distributors, not person) to get an unregistered printer or parts. Sure, there's no crime for possession, but it would be considered not ordinary and probably suspicious! At least that's how the prosecutor would likely lay it out; then it'll be up to the jury to decide if the person buying grey-market parts from illicit "Chinese" (need verbal scare quote emphasis for that in the courtroom) sources is suspicious or not, though more than likely if it's a fed prosecutor they also have more evidence than that and it's about setting how many years they can tack on for the charge and how many years they're offering for an immediate settlement.
Not a lawyer though.

I am very suspicious of an expansive police state though.

Edit: Finally, from a legislator's point of view, the system doesn't need to be perfect, all that matters is that they get it created, put in place, funded, and then get to add it to their list of achievements for the next campaign; it can then be further developed through more bills which fix the "Aliexpress Control Board" loophole, etc. etc.

BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Mar 29, 2021

ADINSX
Sep 9, 2003

Wanna run with my crew huh? Rule cyberspace and crunch numbers like I do?



I think we're a long way off from that level of oversight. Even if there was somehow a ban on the controllers, it really doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to control the motors directly from your computer with some kind of even simpler circuit: All these controller boards do (as far as I can tell) is take G-Code commands (which are really simple: Move the extruder/drill to this x/y/z coordinates) and send the right voltages to the specific motors.

I'm more concerned about the larger trend of software leaving our desktops and laptops and becoming subscription based. There are a bunch of CAD suites that run entirely in the browser where I guess the heavy lifting is done on the company servers, and its not hard to imagine that in this situation, the government could require these companies to scan for "suspicious" drawings. Lots of people don't even have desktops/laptops anymore, and get by with just a tablet or phone, maybe in some nightmare future the simple act of owning an actual computer will be suspicious, who KNOWS what they're using it for.

Still though, I don't know how I would even begin to identify a firearms part if it were split into different files and glued together by the user, etc.

Capn Beeb
Jun 29, 2003

Enter the woods, find a friend!


ADINSX posted:

maybe in some nightmare future the simple act of owning an actual computer will be suspicious, who KNOWS what they're using it for



It really does feel like we're heading this way some times.

Yond Cassius
May 22, 2010

horny is prohibited

Brackit posted:

I bet they could try a similar detection method with the fire control group holes on an AR receiver, or the trigger pin holes on a Glock frame.

Design and publish printer files for ten thousand fantasy dildos with pilot dimples in the right arrangement. Let them figure it out from there.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011


Yond Cassius posted:

Design and publish printer files for ten thousand fantasy dildos with pilot dimples in the right arrangement. Let them figure it out from there.

Attn: Firearms technology branch
Re: New "grip zone" texture

Captain Log
Oct 2, 2006

Captain Log posted:

"I AINT DYING! Choo choo motherfucker!"




Dead Reckoning posted:

Attn: Firearms technology branch
Re: New "grip zone" texture


Ok, I get it now.

Ban everything.

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


BeAuMaN posted:

In practice I think it would be used as additional evidence to secure charges after the fact, yes. I think to some extent it could be used as predictive if they developed a tool to somehow auto-detect common "gun part" looking shapes from the files; Then it gets flagged for manual review. They could either run all submissions through the system or do spot checks of chunks of submissions. Additionally it opens it up to being searched after the fact, as mentioned previously. Said tool could be circumvented by creative designs that use more parts or do unusual shapes for the receiver. I think it's mostly performative but there's enough there that I could see it being done given enough political capital. Plus the way I proposed above the feds get access while the manufacturers have to maintain the servers. This creates an issue when a manufacturer goes out of business though.

No matter what the upside for the feds is that they get more access to more information, which they seem ever hungry for. I'm not saying this -should- be a thing (I ardently oppose such a scheme), but I can imagine such a thing coming into being, especially as someone living in California and watching bills being proposed and developed every session.

That's describing gun control laws in general, except for after the fact when they're stacking additional charges on someone they already apprehended

I don't think it would be... as proposed it's the company being forced via statute to store the users info; your complying with a regulations for a device that's not specifically (in theory) constitutionally protected; you're submitted that info for a company, and the government is getting that info from the company, and not directly from you. So they aren't violating your 4A more than when FBI or whoever gets phone records or website records (Isn't there a legally mandated amount of time that various websites have to keep traffic records post-9/11 in the US?) or any other info from said companies, who may even volunteer that info without a warrant or subpoena if they set it out in their privacy policy.

What also comes to mind are the people who get visits from the ATF or DHS for buying "fuel filters" or "oil filters" online, even from just aliexpress instead of the rando pop-up fly-by-night websites that setup ads on facebook. This video for example (I saw this posted somewhere; no idea who this is): It's rambling overly long but documents a DHS agent coming to his house to ask questions about fuel/oil filter purchases with printouts of his online purchases. But right here this gives LEOs an avenue by which if there's a lot of potential "gun printing" activity recorded that LEOs now have probable cause to drop by to conduct an investigation and just "ask some questions", and most people are easily coerced into answering questions from LEOs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=270sLN5WL2I#t=255s

I would hope so, but given the right context (Kids die to a mass murderer who specifically had firearms that were 3D printed with no serialized receivers) I could imagine enough being either supportive or at least neutral on it, especially given how much personal data is hoovered up as-is.

I think there's a lot of ways that it could be bypassed; I wouldn't be surprised if there would, under this theoretical system, be an import ban. And I could definitely see a prosecutor, after the fact, asking why the person evaded the safe and "sensible" laws (the apply to businesses/distributors, not person) to get an unregistered printer or parts. Sure, there's no crime for possession, but it would be considered not ordinary and probably suspicious! At least that's how the prosecutor would likely lay it out; then it'll be up to the jury to decide if the person buying grey-market parts from illicit "Chinese" (need verbal scare quote emphasis for that in the courtroom) sources is suspicious or not, though more than likely if it's a fed prosecutor they also have more evidence than that and it's about setting how many years they can tack on for the charge and how many years they're offering for an immediate settlement.
Not a lawyer though.

I am very suspicious of an expansive police state though.

Edit: Finally, from a legislator's point of view, the system doesn't need to be perfect, all that matters is that they get it created, put in place, funded, and then get to add it to their list of achievements for the next campaign; it can then be further developed through more bills which fix the "Aliexpress Control Board" loophole, etc. etc.

Tell me - do you think it's currently difficult or uncommon for people to buy import-banned things or even outright illegal to possess things (both physical and software) over the internet without their government finding out about it? You can basically just peruse the list of things Bitcoin is useful for to answer this question.

Even assuming you can manage to figure out all the technical issues to collect and identify all gun parts (which seems incredibly unlikely, btw) this all only works if nobody can figure out how to do the equivalent of jailbreaking their phone, downloading warez, or ordering a powerful laser off Alibaba.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Mar 29, 2021

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Warbadger posted:

Tell me - do you think it's currently difficult or uncommon for people to buy import-banned things or even outright illegal to possess things (both physical and software) over the internet without their government finding out about it?

This question is very open ended such that you can make the answer whatever you want.

Is it hard to buy cocaine in America? No.

Is it hard to buy malware? No.

Is it hard to buy a rocket propelled grenade? Yes.

Is it hard to buy a MANPADS? The seller and his partner and his cousin and the guy who linked you up with the cousin are all FBI, and that MANPADS never existed anyway.

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


mlmp08 posted:

This question is very open ended such that you can make the answer whatever you want.

Is it hard to buy cocaine in America? No.

Is it hard to buy malware? No.

Is it hard to buy a rocket propelled grenade? Yes.

Is it hard to buy a MANPADS? The seller and his partner and his cousin and the guy who linked you up with the cousin are all FBI, and that MANPADS never existed anyway.

So you just need to control $10 circuit boards (and any software to modify them) the same way you control RPGs and MANPADS. Then convince every other country with internet access to do the same.
That doesn't seem to be even remotely similar to what the poster I was replying to had suggested.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Mar 29, 2021

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Warbadger posted:

So you just need to control $10 circuit boards (and any software to modify them) the same way you control RPGs and MANPADS. Then convince every other country with internet access to do the same.
That doesn't seem to be even remotely similar to what the poster I was replying to had suggested.

Beauman’s entire post reads like they think an attempt to ban 3D printing would be heavily flawed and and mostly used after the fact and would have ways around it.

Akion
May 7, 2006


Grimey Drawer

BeAuMaN posted:


I don't think it would be... as proposed it's the company being forced via statute to store the users info; your complying with a regulations for a device that's not specifically (in theory) constitutionally protected; you're submitted that info for a company, and the government is getting that info from the company, and not directly from you. So they aren't violating your 4A more than when FBI or whoever gets phone records or website records (Isn't there a legally mandated amount of time that various websites have to keep traffic records post-9/11 in the US?) or any other info from said companies, who may even volunteer that info without a warrant or subpoena if they set it out in their privacy policy.



I'd think the government having access to a database of stuff you are printing in your own home and the ability to just kind of look at will, without a warrant would be a pretty easy 4A case. Doesn't matter if they use a middle man.

In 10 years we're going to be watching the government try and define "Precursor parts" for 3D printers.

Akion fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Mar 29, 2021

infrared35
Jan 12, 2005

border patrol qt


Plaster Town Cop

Dead Reckoning posted:

Attn: Firearms technology branch
Re: New "grip zone" texture


I'm down. plz link.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dick Burglar
Mar 6, 2006
Check out my hot takes because I'm a straight white male

Countdown til ATF decides that's a foregrip and he gets hosed harder than those anime babes oh right ir is a cop he'll be fine

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply