this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)

TechNews

4140 readers
1 users here now

Aggregated tech news.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

[ comments | sourced from HackerNews ]

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

So creality will soon have a 3 axis laser cutter, complete with Optional extruder kit to let your laser cutter also use filament to print

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A recently-submitted bill in the New York State assembly would require anyone who buys a 3D printer to undergo a criminal background check which could take up to 15 days to complete.

While the goal of bill A8132 seems to be preventing the manufacture of so-called ghost guns — unregistered firearms made at home —  it actually would restrict the sale of pretty much any consumer 3D printer in the state.

The law says "For purposes of this section, 'three-dimensional printer' means a computer or computer-driven machine or device capable of producing a three-dimensional object from a digital model."

Imagine walking up to the counter at Micro Center with your new Bambu Lab P1S and being told that you have to fill out a form, show ID and wait for your background check to clear.

Back in May, Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal introduced Bill A7489, which makes it illegal to manufacture ghost guns or to distribute the 3D models for them.

Those laws are also backed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., who framed them as part of "comprehensive anti-gun legistlation."


The original article contains 573 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 68%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

The 3d models bit sounds difficult to enforce properly, especially if it's a state level law, what if someone from outside of the state is publicly distributing the files? And for that matter, doesn't restricting the sharing of such information raise first amendment issues?