I used to. Now, they keep changing.
The downside is how do you tell a 3D printer not to print a file? The file is just a set of instructions. For example, "The Anarchists Cookbook" is available in a PDF. How would you tell a printer not to print that book?CDFingers wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:06 am There is no downside to following the law on this issue.
CDF
I posted that the way around a ban on printed receivers is to add a serial number. There is no downside to making that proposal, and there is no reason it would not be accepted; there is a downside to printing a receiver and getting caught after a ban. That was the second post on this thread.BKinzey wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 3:03 pmThe downside is how do you tell a 3D printer not to print a file? The file is just a set of instructions. For example, "The Anarchists Cookbook" is available in a PDF. How would you tell a printer not to print that book?CDFingers wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:06 am There is no downside to following the law on this issue.
CDF
Maybe I am misconstruing your comment here. Since it is legal for a non prohibited person to manufacture a firearm, what do you mean by "following the law"?
the opening post was a proposal about making it illegal to 3D print parts and receivers. I proposed it would be OK if a serial number were added like with a 4473. I suggested that that should be accepted. There was lots of chin music that muddied the waters. So: it should be OK to 3D print a receiver if a serial number also was printed on it. I say the ATF should accept that. What do you think?
I say the ATF should not make law. Tech will outpace legislation, which will be made irrelevant by the time it's passed, by the next new evil. We still hold on to guns and religion (same old evils) as if there are no alternatives. The Genie is out and the bottle smashed.CDFingers wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 6:42 pmthe opening post was a proposal about making it illegal to 3D print parts and receivers. I proposed it would be OK if a serial number were added like with a 4473. I suggested that that should be accepted. There was lots of chin music that muddied the waters. So: it should be OK to 3D print a receiver if a serial number also was printed on it. I say the ATF should accept that. What do you think?
CDF
Yep: hardware laws are as ineffective as hardware bans. But there is no reason not to propose the serial number thing in order to preserve hobbyists' desires to print their own guns.papajim2jordan wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 8:26 pmI say the ATF should not make law. Tech will outpace legislation, which will be made irrelevant by the time it's passed, by the next new evil. We still hold on to guns and religion (same old evils) as if there are no alternatives. The Genie is out and the bottle smashed.CDFingers wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 6:42 pmthe opening post was a proposal about making it illegal to 3D print parts and receivers. I proposed it would be OK if a serial number were added like with a 4473. I suggested that that should be accepted. There was lots of chin music that muddied the waters. So: it should be OK to 3D print a receiver if a serial number also was printed on it. I say the ATF should accept that. What do you think?
CDF
Oh my gosh! I can't shoot you, this thing is serialized. Let's go down to the pub and have a beer.
Yeah: the ATF gets to decide that. This is one of the reasons I quoted David Yamane's book _Gun Curious_. He's an academic liberal gun owner who has jumped through the hoops as well as knowing how how things work. And this is the origin of my observation that the state is "deciding" these things, that they are bigger than we are. If they say a plastic receiver is a firearm, then we have to accept that. If we want to make one of those "firearms" and they say it's a firearm and that they want to ban that kind of construction, then we have an opportunity to provide a counter proposal to a ban--which of course cannot be enforced without the state controlling all online 3D printers, checking whether a receiver is being printed, and then disabling that print job. We don't want that.
We already have the right to make our own guns, except in states with would-be-Stalinist government officials like the ones currently running California. Here in Virginia, it's no problem, unless you sell the gun to someone; only then is a serial number required.CDFingers wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2024 9:38 amYep: hardware laws are as ineffective as hardware bans. But there is no reason not to propose the serial number thing in order to preserve hobbyists' desires to print their own guns.papajim2jordan wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 8:26 pmI say the ATF should not make law. Tech will outpace legislation, which will be made irrelevant by the time it's passed, by the next new evil. We still hold on to guns and religion (same old evils) as if there are no alternatives. The Genie is out and the bottle smashed.CDFingers wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 6:42 pmthe opening post was a proposal about making it illegal to 3D print parts and receivers. I proposed it would be OK if a serial number were added like with a 4473. I suggested that that should be accepted. There was lots of chin music that muddied the waters. So: it should be OK to 3D print a receiver if a serial number also was printed on it. I say the ATF should accept that. What do you think?
CDF
Oh my gosh! I can't shoot you, this thing is serialized. Let's go down to the pub and have a beer.
CDF
We had the right to 3D print receivers and things before their proposal to deny. That's why I put that quote from Yamane's book in there. Whether or not we like it, the state gets to decide, by design--and the state, due to the Patriot Act [sic], they can tap, listen, watch, or juggle all our transmissions. Rather than take it lying down, I suggest the above counter proposal. They're big, really big. But they're not stupid, just legal.CowboyT wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2024 8:58 pmWe already have the right to make our own guns, except in states with would-be-Stalinist government officials like the ones currently running California. Here in Virginia, it's no problem, unless you sell the gun to someone; only then is a serial number required.CDFingers wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2024 9:38 amYep: hardware laws are as ineffective as hardware bans. But there is no reason not to propose the serial number thing in order to preserve hobbyists' desires to print their own guns.papajim2jordan wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 8:26 pmI say the ATF should not make law. Tech will outpace legislation, which will be made irrelevant by the time it's passed, by the next new evil. We still hold on to guns and religion (same old evils) as if there are no alternatives. The Genie is out and the bottle smashed.CDFingers wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 6:42 pm
the opening post was a proposal about making it illegal to 3D print parts and receivers. I proposed it would be OK if a serial number were added like with a 4473. I suggested that that should be accepted. There was lots of chin music that muddied the waters. So: it should be OK to 3D print a receiver if a serial number also was printed on it. I say the ATF should accept that. What do you think?
CDF
Oh my gosh! I can't shoot you, this thing is serialized. Let's go down to the pub and have a beer.
CDF
The difference here, that I'm seeing generally, is that you prefer what we call in the IT business, a "default deny" to the use of rights. I, by contrast, prefer a "default allow". This is, presumably, why we don't agree on this issue. If someone wants to put a serial number on his or her homemade firearm, then fine, but I see no need to require it by law. I call it a "pro-choice" argument. :-)
When we recall Eisenhower's statement that "plans are nothing; planning is everything" we have to remind ourselves that saying "they can't do that" is nothing, because "they" can. The ATF is set up to do that very thing. When "they" post a proposal about doing that very thing, saying they can't is not planning. It is preparing for defeat. But planning to counter the proposal is the proper course of action.CowboyT wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:27 pm No, we *HAVE* the right to 3D-print receivers, present tense. There are those who want to take this right away from us. Might as well take away the right of freedom of publishing, too. No, thanks.
We're basically saying the same thing, conceptually. The difference is the suggested course of action. It appears that you want to capitulate to them, even if only gradually, step by step. I, by contrast, want to vote the motherfuckers out who put those asshats there, so that those asshats can be replaced by people who actually respect our rights. That part is our responsibility. Remember that our system of government, as the old saying goes, is suitable only for a virtuous people and that means people who actually care and do their critical research on candidates before voting for them, "party" or not.CDFingers wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:08 amWhen we recall Eisenhower's statement that "plans are nothing; planning is everything" we have to remind ourselves that saying "they can't do that" is nothing, because "they" can. The ATF is set up to do that very thing. When "they" post a proposal about doing that very thing, saying they can't is not planning. It is preparing for defeat. But planning to counter the proposal is the proper course of action.CowboyT wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:27 pm No, we *HAVE* the right to 3D-print receivers, present tense. There are those who want to take this right away from us. Might as well take away the right of freedom of publishing, too. No, thanks.
When we think Tesla should not be allowed to disable a warlord's cyber truck and then it's disabled, we find a case in point.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/20/business ... index.html
Planning is everything. Planning seeks to anticipate moves by the enemy. Plans are the first things that die in actual battle. Do not give up: anticipate the opponent's moves and seek to counter them. Check out Yamane's chapter that I mentioned above. Or not. Not all paths are clearly marked.
CDF
https://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/corn ... fe2ff.htmlCORNING, Calif. - Four juveniles were taken into custody by Corning Police Friday after a witness reported seeing them handling multiple firearms.
--snrps--
Officers conducted a search of the vehicle, where a 9mm ghost gun was found concealed underneath clothing on the front seat, along with a high-capacity pistol magazine.
Authorities say that officers made contact with the three juveniles who had entered the apartment.
During their search of the juveniles, officers were able to locate another ghost gun that was concealed on one of the juveniles.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/08/nx-s1-51 ... ghost-gunsThe conservative Supreme Court, largely hostile to gun regulations in recent years, seemed tentatively supportive of the Biden administration’s effort to curb “ghost guns.”
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/08/nx-s1-51 ... ghost-gunsThe 1968 law “was passed in part to stop the problem of that day, which was the mail order shipment of firearms across state lines like the one that was used by Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate JFK,” he says. “These kits present the modern-day version of the mail order firearms that were a problem back in 1968.”
--snrp--
The government claims that if gun kit manufacturers are permitted to continue selling their unmarked products, it would transform the central definition of the Gun Control Act into an invitation for evasion.
Law enforcement groups have expressed alarm, too, pointing to a proliferation of untraceable ghost guns found at crime scenes in the last few years. In briefs filed in this case, police chiefs in 70 major cities, prosecutors, national security officers, and leading intelligence officials from Republican and Democratic administrations assert that bad actors are drawn to ghost guns “for the very reasons that the government wants to regulate them: they are untraceable and they are readily available to those who would not otherwise pass background checks.”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
