Technology

Frankly it seems more like a mild inconvenience then actual prevention. I don't really care how smart a software gets, it can't predict and prevent all possible configurations of prints that could possibly be used to create functioning guns without being so overly restrictive that even perfectly innocent prints would get flagged constantly in which case they simple won't sell to normal users.

It would be a constant game of whack a mole with new creative designs, using multiple printers or with non-printed parts in the design. But no hardware or software that a smart enough engineer has their hands on is impervious to mods either, especially if they're motivated like someone seeking to produce firearms would be.

It's an overreaching law that will likely solve little to nothing, but might make 3d printers in general a bit more annoying to work with. "Sorry, you can't make your dice tower because they're a 16 percent change that it could be capable of firing an RPG out of the dragon's mouth. Please make your design at least 12 percent less gun-ish and try again."

They are essentially trying to regulate technology they know very little about.

That's not surprising, that's just what politicians do. Especially politicians who are 65+ years old and completely out of touch with technology.

This is why politicians should be automatically retired at 65. We shouldn't be allowing people who grew up without seatbelts to make any decisions involving technology.

So in other words, what else is new?

The danger if this passes isn't that someone will be able to successfully implement some manner of system for identifying gun parts which will, apparently, rely on pixie dust and magic. In reality this will effectively prohibit 3D printer sales in California entirely because compliance is literally impossible. And it'll and give overreaching cops and prosecutors yet another nonsense charge they can arbitrarily slap people with over "circumventing" this mystical technology which does not in fact exist if they, ye gods forbid, build their own printer.

It's the same horseshit rationale as the spent casing "microstamping" fantasy that legislators have been salivating about for decades. It doesn't work, it'll never work, but that's not going to stop them from wishing it does and therefore turning it into a defacto ban.

Keep in mind, California also has the precedent of their infamous approved handguns list, which notoriously does things like arbitrarily declaring that the black version of some model of gun is legal, but possession of the stainless version of the exact same gun is a felony. We're not dealing with people in possession of any type of rationality, here.

They are essentially trying to regulate technology they know very little about.

You're surprised that law makers are trying to regulate things they know nothing about? Oh....oh I have like 2000 years worth of news for you....

Great points, I think you're on to something.
I think the old saying "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" doesn't apply when malice and corporate interests are in alignment. Now I'm curious to dig into who actually wrote the bill, and who are they financially supported by...

"3d printing guns" isn't about the pressure holding parts, it's about the traceable serial number holding parts. On most firearms the "lower assembly" or "receiver" (frame, trigger group, feeding assy) is legally considered the firearm and is what bears the serial. Most of those can be printed and use off the shelf hardware to work, albeit with a much lower lifespan.
Pressure containing wear parts that are meant to be exchanged (barrel and breech bolt) typically do not carry serials and are thus not normally traceable. If you eliminate the serialized, traceable part of the firearm, then any collection of parts could be used.

That said, eliminating an entire hobby and industry because gun serialization laws haven't been updated in a hundred years is probably not the right way to do it.

Which unfortunately means the base price for a California-legal 3d printer is going to be exorbitant.

It’s not law yet, and may never be.

I was going to say, I thought open source 3D Printer designs/kits have been a thing for awhile. My friend just built his own last year using his original 3D printer to help in the process, lol

No, realistically what we're looking at is a full ban on 3D printing as a whole because anything the printer does "might" be a gun part.

And then shortly after, a ban on property rights as a whole, because anything you own with a circuit board or a stepper motor in it "might" be modified to create an illegal 3D printer.

They'll do anything but adopt firearm laws that are relevant and sensible.

Prusa or Qidi. Avoid Bambu.

You can still get an Ender 3 (essentially the end result of RepRap). Every vendor has their own.

That said? If you buy a printer in 2025 (let alone 2026) and it does not have an integrated enclosure, you are opening yourself up to a world of hurt. The price difference isn't that much anymore and even just having a box to hold the waste heat in solves like 90% of print problems.

Bambu are, above and beyond, the best bang for your buck. They ALSO are ahead of the curve on locking things down to support only their networked slicers. Which... is a huge concern with stuff like this.

Personally? I love the Qidi printers. I have a Q1 something or another and convinced a friend to get a different model. They use a semi-open fork of Klipper so you can theoretically make something work when it is abandoned. Which is good because the various CoreXY printers are no longer all based on the same standard so part kits aren't (easily) interchangeable. And, of course, you can use Orcaslicer or whatever else you want.

Keep in mind that is all FDM. For Resin (SLA?), the ship has already sailed and people are genuinely happy to run slicers with literal fucking ads in them. Assuming the vendor doesn't lock them out of even that garbage.