I understand the intent, but feel that there are so many other loopholes that put much worse weapons on the street than a printer. Besides, my prints can barely sustain normal use, much less a bullet being fired from them. I would think that this is more of a risk to the person holding the gun than who it’s pointing at.
Removed by mod
I agree that this is a boogeyman law.
I don’t understand the threat to revenue streams. From gun manufacturers? Would anybody who is allowed to purchase a gun bother with a 3D printed one other than for the novelty of it?
My biggest gripe is that I feel that politicians usually don’t get involved in creating laws until way late. Think laws around the regulation of AI or cloning or genetically modifying humans. Is there a credible threat related to printed weaponry? I seriously doubt it.
I saw something similar a few weeks ago on the national news to allow local police to shoot drones around regulated airspaces. In this case it’s a football game. The stadium security said that a drone flew in and distributed pamphlets but could have easily carried in a bomb. Again, this is a theoretical threat, but they’re more likely concerned about illegal filming of a sporting event.
3d printed guns are an excellent boogey man for manufacturers of not-gun things that 3d printers can make much better than guns.
Removed by mod