Washington house bill 2321 regarding 3d printers: Difference between revisions
Added archive URLs for 2 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot |
Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
Governor Kathy Hochul announced comparable proposals on January 7, 2026, as part of her 2026 State of the State agenda. Her proposals would require manufacturers to include blocking software on 3D printers sold in New York, criminalize unlicensed possession or distribution of firearm CAD files, and mandate reporting of recovered 3D-printed guns to state police databases.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces-nation-leading-proposals-crack-down-3d |title=Keeping New Yorkers Safe: Governor Hochul Announces Nation-Leading Proposals to Crack Down on 3D-Printed Guns and Other Illegal Firearms |website=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul |date=2026-01-07 |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260222105105/https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces-nation-leading-proposals-crack-down-3d |archive-date=22 Feb 2026}}</ref> | Governor Kathy Hochul announced comparable proposals on January 7, 2026, as part of her 2026 State of the State agenda. Her proposals would require manufacturers to include blocking software on 3D printers sold in New York, criminalize unlicensed possession or distribution of firearm CAD files, and mandate reporting of recovered 3D-printed guns to state police databases.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces-nation-leading-proposals-crack-down-3d |title=Keeping New Yorkers Safe: Governor Hochul Announces Nation-Leading Proposals to Crack Down on 3D-Printed Guns and Other Illegal Firearms |website=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul |date=2026-01-07 |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260222105105/https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces-nation-leading-proposals-crack-down-3d |archive-date=22 Feb 2026}}</ref> | ||
Hochul stated: <blockquote>"We will require all 3D printers sold in the State of New York to include software that blocks the production of guns and their components. You cannot sell one of those in the State of New York when we pass these laws."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/b-roll-video-audio-photos-rush-transcript-keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces |title=B-Roll, Video, Audio, Photos & Rush Transcript |website=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul |date=2026-01-07 |access-date=2026-01-21}}</ref></blockquote> | Hochul stated: <blockquote>"We will require all 3D printers sold in the State of New York to include software that blocks the production of guns and their components. You cannot sell one of those in the State of New York when we pass these laws."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/b-roll-video-audio-photos-rush-transcript-keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces |title=B-Roll, Video, Audio, Photos & Rush Transcript |website=Office of Governor Kathy Hochul |date=2026-01-07 |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260224101225/https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/b-roll-video-audio-photos-rush-transcript-keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces |archive-date=24 Feb 2026}}</ref></blockquote> | ||
Governor Hochul has termed the proliferation of homemade weapons the "Plastic Pipeline." | Governor Hochul has termed the proliferation of homemade weapons the "Plastic Pipeline." | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
The question of whether computer code constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment remains partially unresolved. In 2016, during the ''Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State'' litigation, the Fifth Circuit declined to rule on the merits of the First Amendment claims, instead deciding the preliminary injunction on non-merits requirements. In her dissent, Judge Edith Jones wrote that the State Department ''"barely disputes that computer-related files and other technical data are speech protected by the First Amendment."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf |title=Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State |website=United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |date=2016-09-20 |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250222140857/https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf |archive-date=22 Feb 2025}}</ref> | The question of whether computer code constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment remains partially unresolved. In 2016, during the ''Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State'' litigation, the Fifth Circuit declined to rule on the merits of the First Amendment claims, instead deciding the preliminary injunction on non-merits requirements. In her dissent, Judge Edith Jones wrote that the State Department ''"barely disputes that computer-related files and other technical data are speech protected by the First Amendment."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf |title=Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State |website=United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |date=2016-09-20 |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250222140857/https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf |archive-date=22 Feb 2025}}</ref> | ||
The case settled in July 2018 with the State Department waiving prior restraint against Defense Distributed and paying approximately $40,000 in legal fees. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert stated the government ''"would have lost this case in court, or would have likely lost this case in court, based on First Amendment grounds."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available |title=Judge temporarily blocks posting of blueprints for 3D printed guns |website=National Post |date=2018-08-01 |access-date=2026-01-22}}</ref> | The case settled in July 2018 with the State Department waiving prior restraint against Defense Distributed and paying approximately $40,000 in legal fees. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert stated the government ''"would have lost this case in court, or would have likely lost this case in court, based on First Amendment grounds."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available |title=Judge temporarily blocks posting of blueprints for 3D printed guns |website=National Post |date=2018-08-01 |access-date=2026-01-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260224120151/https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available |archive-date=24 Feb 2026}}</ref> | ||
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Defense Distributed litigation arguing that "publishing computer files that communicate information, even in an esoteric format, is speech protected by the First Amendment."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state |title=Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004840/https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state |archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref> | The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Defense Distributed litigation arguing that "publishing computer files that communicate information, even in an esoteric format, is speech protected by the First Amendment."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state |title=Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004840/https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state |archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref> | ||