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.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        No I think this is an example of the opposite - it’s not an action against the filament industry or the 3d printing community in general, it’s against an individual company for allegedly marketing filament specifically to print guns, not just because filament could or might be used to print guns. Whether the law itself is right or wrong is a different issue.

        • Jiral@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Which makes the law useless. People with nefarious plans don’t need ads. There really are just two possibilities, either it is repressive and overreaching or it is useless.

          • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Ok whatever. I won’t try to argue over the validity of your definition of “useless” since you clearly think it’s absolute.

            • Jiral@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              It is not absolute, you are free to argue in which way it is useful, in practical terms. Have you done so?

              Do you think any follower of mentioned channel has difficulties finding functional FDM filaments without ads on the channel? If not, whats the point of the law’s application in this example?