386
New California ghost gun lawsuit takes aim at company that sells 3-D printer filament
(www.latimes.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2026
386 points (98.7% liked)
3DPrinting
24080 readers
21 users here now
3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.
The r/functionalprint community is now located at: or !functionalprint@fedia.io
There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml
Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
-
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
-
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
-
Do not create links to reddit
-
If you see an issue please flag it
-
No guns
-
No injury gore posts
If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe/ may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is 
Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
under the second amendment, and under the ATF's ruling, citizens are allowed to manufacture their own firearms. this is getting struck down..... if it were in Texas and not the gun-stealing California. I hope to the gods it gets struck down, because this would be a travesty for all my brothers, sisters and non binary pals in California... my heart goes out to y'all.
States are allowed to add some restrictions to gun laws. So the new ATF rules likely won't be decisive in this case.
If this goes up to the federal court level, it's almost certainly getting struck down. It's a pretty clear infringement upon the 2nd amendment.
It's a miracle that the CA gun laws haven't been struck down at the federal level yet.... By the gods, I hope they do. The situation in CA is utterly miserable for y'all.
2A is already abused to hell, but I see no way to make an argument to say it protects manufacturing a firearm. It, at best, protects possession. There are other reasons this is illegal, but please read the second amendment before you say dumb shit about it.
This is a direct quote from the ATF Director, Rob Cekada:
https://youtu.be/1h_wRotsHTw?t=390
The interview starts at 390 seconds.
the voice-to-text transcription wasn't entirely accurate, but it should be good enough to get the point across.
That transcript says that, if it isn't illegal to build a firearm, then it's legal to build a firearm. No shit. Obviously. It says nothing about 2A protections.
Also, he is not a lawyer. Do you think everything the director of ICE says is supported by the law?
Again, read the second amendment. Please. It's very short.
....Have you ever thought critically about what "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." actually means..?
It's not a plaintext right to manufacture firearms, yes. It is, however, an --implied-- right. In order to keep and bear arms, citizens must also obviously have the right to -make- their own arms.
In fact, there have already been court cases on this very issue in other states.
Defense Distributed v. Blanche, comes to mind, though there may have been others.Dude, yes, I have. Have you?
How did most nations at the time defend themselves? It wasn't standing armies. Only the richest nations could afford those, and the US was not one of them. It was expected that militias would be risen when a threat appeared.
Ok, now how did those militias operate? Did they store weapons in their homes? Did they manufacture them? No, to both of these. Weapons were kept in armories, and the militias drilled with them. They were well regulated, not just random people with guns calling themselves a militia. They were actual organizations trained and prepared for an attack, and their weapons and ammunition were organized in armories, where you had to go to muster.
Ok, now how does any of this imply the right to manufacture? You have a right to obtain at best, though ideally, in those early days, your militia organization would be obtaining them, not you as an individual.
Please, critically read it and think about it for yourself. What does the text actually say, and what were the customs of the time?
I'm all for people having the rights to weapons. Hell, I'd even agree the right to manufacture is held, to a limited extent, by the people. However, the 2nd Amendment does not provide this. The 9th does. I'm tired of the 2nd being used by people to try to cover everything. It's made weaker by this. The 9th does cover everything though.