Despite the tech-cool factor of the project, Tom’s Hardware does not condone making your own weapons system at home.

    • FatherPeanut@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Washington state already started making moves against it, as an attempt to prevent 3D printed firearm components. Specifically, it requires 3D printers sold within the state to have firmware-based scanning to cancel prints it suspects are used for firearms, alongside criminalizing the possession of files ruled as ‘firearm compoments’.

      One bill is in the House, the other passed into law. Gonna make it a real rough ride ahead for tinkerers into 3D printing, especially if we’ve gotta design around “Oh boy, I sure hope my pencil holder doesnt get flagged as an illegal item.”

      Edit: One of two bills passed: HB2320 and HB2321. HB2320 is currently law, and HB2321 is awaiting presentation to the House.

      • NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        California is joining in too with AB-2047 and New York has AB-2228 requiring a criminal background check for buying a 3D printer.

        • FatherPeanut@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          One passed, the other has yet to be presented. These legislators have no clue how they’d even do it, but circumventing the scan is also made illegal.

          So yeah, flashing Open-Source firmware is something they dont like either, but fingers crossed they just choose to not allocate resources to enforcement. Wouldn’t be surprised if this 3D printed missile mentioned in the article above comes up ad a taking point during the legislative hearings.

          • Nasan@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Sounds like something that wouldn’t be worth going out of the way to enforce. But rather used to tack on extra charges when someone commits another crime where the extra level of investigation would uncover the flashed firmware. Not that it would do much to deter or prevent what they’re afraid of from happening.