this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2026
386 points (98.7% liked)

3DPrinting

24076 readers
25 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

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 ![](URL)

Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

San Diego County jumped into California’s sprawling ghost gun fight this week, suing a 3-D printing filament manufacturer it says hocks material for homespun firearms in violation of state law.

Working with the Giffords Law Center, the county counsel sued manufacturer Polymaker, alleging the company made a “strategic business choice” to market and sell 3-D printer filament to Californians for the express purpose of building illegal weapons. The polymer filament is sold in spools that feed into 3-D printers, allowing the devices to form designs created by their owners.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 149 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Don't tell them about pipes.

[–] Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 77 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I believe they'll eventually come for those too.

IMO the real end goal of these laws isn't to ban ghost guns, it's to ban plebs from being able to build or create anything at all. 3D printing a plastic piece to fix a broken tab in some gizmo cuts into corporate profits so a manufactured moral panic about ghost guns appears. I'm sure they'll eventually get to a pipe rifle moral panic at some point to lock down DIY plumbing.

[–] LongLive@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

" Oi, you got a licence for that sewage mate? "

I am skeptical about that, though the visual is funny.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 117 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

hold on let me go sue home depot for selling black iron pipe and nails because someone made a pipe bomb. Nowhere has poly-maker ever advertised or suggested their speciality filaments could make firearms.

Someone's looking for a payout settlement, fuck California

[–] terranoid@lemmy.cafe 37 points 1 week ago (2 children)

you could literally make a shotgun with that too. Saw a YouTube video. Two pipes, one fit in the other, small one was the right size to hold a shell, and a nail at the end of the closed pipe triggered it if you used your hands to hit it.

Super effective and easy one shot shotgun. there's no real way to regulate guns IMO. They're not complicated devices.

[–] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago

Guns are just a slight evolution of the sling, just us throwing rocks further and faster.

Same as it ever was.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 98 points 1 week ago

They used fear of guns to attack Right to Repair and small manufacturing. It was never about guns.

[–] ShutUpWesley@piefed.zip 72 points 1 week ago

That is completely bizarre.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 65 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

This is getting a bit fucking ridiculous. They're suing filament manufacturers now.

A video I posted a few months ago about this bullshit: https://youtu.be/E1B2cWEaWDw

[–] Timpostma@mastodon.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@jballs that’s like suing a hardware store for someone hit with a piece of wood my point is filaments are legal it is the end-product that is meant to be perceived
#3DPrinting

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yeah, and they also want to make it illegal to print something without a magic algorithm sitting between your computer and printer determining if it's a gun part or not. I can't help but feel like these people don't know the first thing about how 3d printing actually works.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 59 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sue the steel mills for guns too while you're at it.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hol up, those guns are made by corporations. What are you thinking?

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Anyone with machining knowledge can turn a block of metal into a working gun part

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Americans can order guns to their doors, but the 3d printers are the issues you choose to tackle...

[–] tinyvoltron@discuss.online 29 points 1 week ago (4 children)

No, they can't. Guns can only be legally shipped to a federally licensed gun dealer. The dealer cannot transfer it to the buyer without the mandated background check.

The gun laws are already fucked up enough. You don't have to make shit up.

[–] historicaldocuments@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (4 children)

You can have long guns purchased through the Civilian Marksmanship Program shipped directly to your door. Those are a drop in the bucket compared to most firearm purchases in the US, though.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cknight@fedinsfw.app 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Can order black powder revolvers to your door, and can buy replacement parts that allow them to fire cowboy cartridges, which are just low FPS lead rounds, like 800fps. They'll kill a fella, but don't have quite the same force as modern rounds. They also burn a lower grade powder and are a bit more smokey.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Trump is trying to pass that law right now, a bit of hyperbole in my statement, but it reinforces my point

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12725

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alph4d0g@piefed.social 27 points 1 week ago

Maybe they should sue steel manufacturers too since that’s the main material used for most fire arms.

This seems awfully familiar to the gun crackdowns after the Black Panthers started using them for self defense.

[–] BigTrout75@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is this filament specifically designed for guns?

[–] Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz 32 points 1 week ago (2 children)

No, polymaker just have a big range of engineering friendly filament, just as they have pretty artsy ones, and low cost workhorse filament for makers

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 25 points 1 week ago

Jfc these people are out of their minds

[–] grillgamesh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

huh. who knew the answer to gun violence in the US was to regulate 3D printers!

[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This will get tossed. But here's why it's actually happening:

Gatalog and Polymaker both market through a network of influencers “specializing in 3D printed ghost gun content, as well as companies and individuals that illegally distribute [digital firearm manufacturing codes],” according to the suits.

Both also directly target state residents: Gatalog advertises a “California Compliant Glock 19-based Carbine kit,” while Polymakers’ website features Proposition 65 warnings and state-specific privacy opt-out features.

I mean yea, advertise your filament with YouTubers making guns, and you put yourself in the...oof.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 19 points 1 week ago

For fucks sake.

[–] terabyterex@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

i hope.polymaker fights this. this law ia wrong and should be challenged in court

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The specifics revolve around a 3d-printed-gun advocate named Sean Aranda, whose youtube channel focuses on the subject. According to him, when youtube demonetized the channel in 2023 Polymaker approached him with a sponsorship offer. A couple months later Polymaker announced Aranda was a new member of its marketing team.

So regardless of where you stand on the Calif anti-3d-gun law, this isn't a simple case of going after egg farmers because of illegal omelets.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

You've got some point there, but doesn't demonstrate the uselessness of the law? Unless of course they are going after every producer of technical filaments, which is like going after anyone with a lathe or a CNC machine.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] the16bitgamer@programming.dev 17 points 1 week ago

Pfffffff hahahaha, are you also going to go after weed walker too?

The USA is a joke

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You can make a crude firearm/hand held pipe bomb with a pipe and lighter. A lot less effort than 3d printing one.

Are they going to go after builders merchants now?

[–] Le_Roi_Est_Mort@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

They can arrest Home Depot for intent to distribute.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Next they'll be looking at the violent motherfucker that invented 3d printing. Plus fishing supply companies that produce a different kind of, but still a, filament. /s

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Might as well go after the smelters for making the metal that goes into knives and guns.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 15 points 1 week ago

They're trying to make this a case over marketing and intent rather than materials.

The actual types of filament they're concerned with are carbon fiber nylon (sold by many brands) and "PLA Pro" which is just a bit better regular PLA.

These are sold by tons of brands all across the internet.

[–] myyass@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FoxAlive@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago (12 children)

I'm not a gun guy but from my understanding of ghost guns you pretty much buy the whole gun online in parts, and you just 3d print a handle.

So I don't understand why people are so afraid of 3d printing when it really has minimal to do with the final product. From what I can tell you can't just 3d print a gun from start to finish like its a llm. You still have to buy the actual gun parts from the manufacturer. To me this sounds completely unrelated and like a issue with regulating gun parts.

You can carve a handle out of soap, wood, or buy a solid chunk of plastic and its the same result.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] percent@infosec.pub 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Polymaker did not respond to requests for comment.

Statements like these always seem deceiving to me. Like, how much time did you give them? Some of these people race to get their story out too quickly, without giving a reasonable amount of time for a response.

What if they respond later? I guess they could update the article, but that's still after people have already read it and formed their opinions based on the original contents.

[–] jake_jake_jake_@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is very normal, and not meant to be deceiving. If the group who didn't respond to the request does respond after the article was published, that will be removed and a statement that reads something like "Polymaker (insert title or department) responded after initial publishing with this statement" and that statement will follow after. From a journalistic integrity standpoint it shows that they wanted to get both sides of a story, especially if one side was interviewed or quoted. The alternative of not stating that comment was requested is we read the article and wonder if Polymaker ever got a chance to speak their side.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh my God! America could end up having a real problem with gun violence...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bitflip@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Seems the safe option for others is to cease all shipments and sales of printers and filament to California.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Steve@startrek.website 7 points 1 week ago

Good thing this is the only problem we have in the world

load more comments
view more: next ›