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.
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.
It doesn’t have to be from gun manufacturers. Any manufacturer can go to the politician they own and say “People are making open source versions of our highest profit margin widget, find a way to make it stop.” Then politician says, “Well, New Yorkers want more gun laws, we can abuse that…”