Arguments to Use when Discussing 3D Printer Blocking Legislation
This page is meant to act as a reference for arguments or talking points that can be used on the subject of 3D printer blocking technology bills.
While most people assume that model scanning would happen in the form of a service which prints are sent to for approval, you should also be prepared to argue against the less egregious version where some sort of AI/ML model is downloaded locally and used to scan the model
Tip Before You Say Anything: Read The Room
Know who you are up against. For example, a 2A argument would likely work in a red state, but would fall flat or even be counter-productive in a blue state. Don't use overly technical points on a less technical audience.
Ownership/Right-to-Repair Talking Points
You can compare 3d printer lockdowns to locked-down vehicles or phones, and make parallels to existing RtR laws if you are arguing in a state where such a thing exists. You can point out how 3D printers are very simple devices at their core - four stepper motors and two heating elements - and how it should be incredibly easy to maintain, repair, and customize them. A printer with blocking technology is effectively mandatory enshittification (NOT the word to use in public hearings). If a manufacturer chooses to stop supporting a device, then the printer may become unable to print despite physically working perfectly, as it would no longer be able to send models to the scanning service, or download new databases of blocked models. You can also use this as an environmental/e-waste argument, as it would result in otherwise perfectly working printers being unusable when a manufacturer pulls support.
Open Source
TODO
Unreliability
You can talk about how businesses rely on 3D printers. Some bills, such as the failed WA HB 2320, would have also included traditional CNC machines in addition to additive manufacturing.
A business which relies on 3D printers (or other technology covered by the specifically bill you are arguing against) cannot afford to have prints randomly start to trigger false positives. This is especially true when you consider that the various bills introduced so far outline no remediation path for false positives - you just don't get to print. This means that a manufacturing business could have an assembly line shut down with no recourse. The Physna salesman in the CA hearings even mentioned that they would try to get an acceptable false positive rate - but the acceptable rate is zero, when there is no way to challenge it.
You can use an analogy, like how someone who drives a rideshare car for a living cannot afford to have their car's ignition become a slot machine. They need it to reliably start, or they would lose their livelihood.
Privacy and Security
TODO
The Actual Danger of a Law Like This
It's important to consider that if a bill like this is characterized as something that "wouldn't work", or "doesn't matter", why do we care? If it's a nothing-burger, just let it happen! Right?
Consequences of Misidentified Geometries
For a program to have a chance at identifying anything, it wouldn't be able to run on the 3D printer. It likely wouldn't be able to run in a slicer program, and CAD programs are already beefy. A program such as this is destined to run in the cloud. (Pro tip: "Cloud" in networking is just a term for "someone else's server".) If the iterative manufacturing of a product are going through third party systems, there's no privacy. Literally everything going through the printer is being surveilled. (This can be better explained using the arguments in the section "analogous Situation" below)
Costs
Talk about costs to 3d printer manufacturers. Given that the technology does not exist, we do not know how much it would cost to implement. You can work in the open-source argument here - if 3D printer manufacturers are forced to lock down their printers, they may be unable to use the open source software they previously relied on as a basis, and would have to re-develop much of their software stack from scratch.
Talk about how smaller manufacturers might simply not have a way forward here, since they wouldn't be able to sufficiently lock down their hardware to make this viable in the first place. It would also mean that all printers would need to have internet connections, eliminating low-cost printers that only offer printing via USB drives or SD cards.
Difficulty/Impossibility of Implementation
G-code vs Mesh vs CAD file
This is a more technical argument, so it might fall flat on non-technical people. Printers deal with g-code, but you don't typically write g-code by hand. Instead, you use a CAD program, and export into STEP or STL files, and then use a slicer program to turn that into g-code for the printer.
Printers (and CNC machines) deal in G-code, which conveys only tool movements rather than an actual model. This adds one layer of difficulty - converting from G-code back to a mesh is not trivial. This is more difficult on CNC machines, because the actual end result depends on the specific tool in use (e.g. the radius of the bit) as well as what cuts have already been performed on the workpiece (unlike 3D printers, CNC machines do not need to start from scratch). Small differences in the slicer program - such as layer height, object orientation, and support material style will all massively change the resulting g-code. Different slicers will also produce different g-code.
An analogy you might use is that if you wanted to install a blocking program in someone's hand to prevent them from writing a specific word, it would be very difficult because the hand doesn't know what letters it is writing - it only understands movements transmitted from the brain to the hand muscles.
One solution on the market - "3D Gun't" - uses CAD file model analysis. But a 3D printer would generally not have any knowledge of the CAD file. By the time the file reaches the printer, it is no longer in CAD format. This means that it is fundamentally an unworkable solution. Furthermore, no public demo of this exists.
Support Material and Other Differences Between Mesh and G-code
The slicer software may add support material, brims, and other features which are meant to be removed from the final product. The printer does not understand whether a particular area of the print is meant to be part of the final product or is to be disposed of when the print is done. Furthermore, there are other features such as infill which are not normally visible from the outside, but would still result in g-code movements.
The printer also does not understand any manual finishing steps. For example, it could be viable for a printer to detect a firearm silencer printed in one piece - baffles and all - but would have a much more difficult time detecting the same silencer with the baffles printed separately, or with the suppressor and baffles simply needing a hole drilled through them to complete them (analogous to the "solvent trap").
Unremarkable Nature of Many Firearm Components
Many frames/receivers of firearms (which are legally considered to be "the firearm" itself) are rather unremarkable and would not be readily identified as "firearms" or parts thereof. For example, a stripped RXM or P320 FCU would almost certainly not be recognized as a firearm part, especially if printed in an unfinished state and the necessary holes drilled manually. Some firearms may have a receiver which is little more than a cylinder with some holes in it. It also must be considered that 3D printed firearm designs that
Any recognizable firearm shape coming out of a 3D printer is more likely destined as an analog in a self-defense class, used as prop in a film, or turned into a NERF toy or water squirter. Any shape potentially flagged as dangerous is easily altered to appear mundane.
The Market for Voluntary Use of Such an Algorithm Already Exists
Pro-block lobbyists have argued that when 3D printers are in use at schools or public maker spaces, that it would be disastrous if someone were able to print a firearm. This demonstrates that there are plenty of institutions that would voluntarily purchase such systems if they existed. The fact that they have not already done so should be a solid indication that such technology is not market-viable, at least not at this time.
Analogous Situation
Use an analogous situation to highlight some of the more esoteric/technical aspects of your argument.
Programmatically finding a firearm is like legally defining what smut is
We have rules not to distribute smut to under-aged people. If we make a new rule expanding this that says that you can’t print books with "smut content" in them, nobody would be able to comply. Books of all kinds have been banned for “sexual content” despite little to none being present. If we start trying to define what “smut” is, we quickly get into an argument about art vs objectionable. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart in the 1964 case “Jacobellis v. Ohio”, I'd say, "I can’t define what the blueprint of a firearm is, but I usually know it when I see it." Considering this, if a living person has difficulty with this object recognition, how can we expect an algorithm to be any better?
Consider doing the same thing for car parts
An analog to this would be disallowing the home-manufacture of car parts. To accomplish that you need to catalog every potentially printable part, every iteration of printing it in sections, and every potential parameter for a precursor, for every possible make, model, and car-like machine. It’s literally an infinite list of possibilities.
Consider also that the “dangerous parts” relevant to this law that would get printed on a 3D printer are literally simple geometric shapes. That’s not an exaggeration! These things look silly in real life. More like toys than weapons.
3D-Printed Gun Violence is Virtually Nonexistent
There are currently no homicide deaths attributable to a fully 3d-printed firearm. The term "3d-printed firearm" is colloquially used to refer to a firearm where the frame or receiver (the "gun" as far as the law is concerned) is printed, but the pressure-bearing components such as the barrel and bolt face are traditionally manufactured out of metal. The alleged Luigi Mangione case is one confirmed case - and other cases are nonexistent or very difficult to find.
Everytown/Giffords/MDA lobbyists will often point to vague figures such as "recoveries", but the fact that they do not mention actual homicide numbers is telling. If there is a drum, they will beat it - the fact that they don't in this case is great evidence against their position.
In the June 29th letter from Prosecutors Against Gun Violence to Flashforge founder Wenjian Pei, PAGV was unable to cite a single homicide across the entire country.
Furthermore, CA Already Restricts Components Needed to Finish The Gun, And More
If you were to print a frame or receiver in California, then you would still need to pass a separate background check to purchase a standalone barrel (SB 704). Background checks were also previously required for ammunition purchases, but this was found to be unconstitutional (Rhode v. Bonta). Despite the latter, this means that one still cannot fully finish a 3d-printed frame or receiver into a full firearm without being able to pass a background check.
SB704 - Requires ID for gun barrels potentially used in 3D printed guns.
CA Penal Code section 29030 outlines that a person can manufacture under 100 firearms per year without a permit. This directly conflicts with a law that seeks to diminish manufacturing capabilities.
“Undetectable firearm laws” already exists requiring guns to be detectable by metal detectors and x-ray machines. CA Penal Code §§ 24610, 17280(a); 18 U.S.C. § 922(p)(1)(A)
“Zip Guns” are managed by CA Penal Code §§ 17700-17745. This is expanded in 2A arguments.
2A Arguments
As mentioned in the intro, this section is not particularly applicable to legislatures that are not 2A-friendly, as it will only serve to give them a reason to disregard your points.
California does not outright prohibit the manufacture of a privately-made firearm, which is legal under federal law, but does require you to apply for a serial number and such prior to manufacture. This means that the blocking technology would also impact lawful PMF manufacturing.
Under Bruen, it is unlikely that a state could argue that requiring blocking technology targeting the creation of a firearm at home is constitutionally sound, as there is unlikely to be an appropriate historical analog to such a restriction. With the first amendment, there are ways to express speech even if every social media platform and newspaper wants nothing to do with you. With the second, if no firearms retailer wants to deal with you, you must have some recourse. The concept of purchasing parts of a firearm elsewhere and producing the remaining parts yourself is a practice that dates back to the American Revolutionary War. Given that serial numbers were not required on firearms until 1968 as part of the Gun Control Act, it is even less likely to stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
Most "3d printed gun enthusiasts" are actually the same type of people that would build a car from parts at a junkyard - not to evade background checks or to make it harder to pin crimes on them, but to tinker with designs or create new designs that otherwise would not have been possible. Many designs would not be useless for crime - for example, "the hitchhiker" is a single-shot 22LR.
Expanding on California's "Zip Guns" law
Though arguments exist that 3D printed guns aren't technically zip guns under CA Penal Code §§ 17700-17745, one could argue the opposite. To be considered a "zip gun" an item must be (1) not imported as a firearm, (2) not originally manufactured as a firearm, (3) no tax paid on the original device, and (4) made to expel a projectile by combustive force (see the actual legal language for specifics). Because the company Distributed Defense created a printable file for a 3D firearm, it can be considered "originally manufactured as a firearm". As a counterpoint, Distributed Defense hasn't actually manufactured anything but a set of instructions. Manufacturing happens on the printer. Depending on the context, this can be a very important distinction.