NY State Assembly Bill 2023-A8132
www.nysenate.gov
Requires a criminal history background check for the purchase of a three-dimensional printer capable of creating firearms; prohibits sale to a person who would be disqualified on the basis of criminal history from being granted a license to possess a firearm.

cross-posted from: https://ttrpg.network/post/4222671

Want a 3D printer in New York? Get ready for fingerprinting and a 15 day wait

Assembly Bill A8132 has been assigned a “Same As” bill in the Senate: S8586 [NYSenate.gov] [A8132 - 2023]

I don’t own a gun, I never have and I don’t plan to at any time in the future. But if these pass in the NYS Senate and Congress, it would be required to submit fingerprints for a background check then wait 15 days, before you could own any “COMPUTER OR COMPUTER-DRIVEN MACHINE OR DEVICE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM A DIGITAL MODEL.”

This isn’t even going to stop any crimes from happening, for pity sakes regular guns end up in criminal charges all the time, regardless of background check laws. How about some real change and effective measures, rather then virtue-signaling and theater illusion for a constituency?

  • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    I think the reason is because legislators are looking for gun restrictions that can pass, and the combination of legislative obstruction and the Supreme Courts recent ruling against pretty much any gun law written after 1860 or something has basically made it impossible to regulate the purchase of actual guns. So now they’re looking for whatever law they can pass regardless of whether it makes sense.

    It’s fucked up.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      Illinois has the foid system. You get a card that basically says that you’re legally allowed to own a gun. You need this card to buy ammunition and guns and to possess a gun. It’s not a bad system, problem is that Indiana and Wisconsin are so close to Chicago.

      • GooseFinger@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        10 months ago

        Just to clarify, the FOID approval process is effectively performed in every state for any gun purchase. It’s not like the FOID background check carries more scrutiny or anything. If a Texan resident can buy guns in Texas, they could get a FOID card if they lived in Illinois.

        And it’s federally illegal to sell guns to non-residents of the state the sale is made in, so Chicago residents can’t buy guns in neighboring states. Indiana and Wisconsin residents could bring guns into Chicago, but that alone is highly illegal too.

      • hglman@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        10 months ago

        Sounds like chicago needs to do something about how close those other states are.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        10 months ago

        It is federally illegal to buy a handgun outside your home state, and many states include rifles in this. They can be purchased technically, but they have to be shipped to an FFL dealer in your state for the NICs check. Even in states that will sell rifles to out of state IDs, the rifle still has to be legal in their home state and they have to follow all the laws of that state. IL specifically, if you go into any FFL in the country, you’ll be told “we’re sorry, can’t help you” because of their laws.

        I know the news pretends that none of that is true, but it is. Not likely people will know that though unless they have either tried it as a customer or worked in an FFL, I’m just informing not talking shit (sometimes intent gets lost through text, just clarifying.)

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      basically made it impossible to regulate the purchase of actual guns.

      Currently, the purchase of actual guns is still federally regulated, so it seems possible. What they keep striking down is meaningless feature bans and the states that want to lock carrying only to the rich and famous, which imo is also fucked up.

      • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
        0·
        10 months ago

        What I’m talking about specifically is NY v. Bruen. The supreme Court ruled that states can’t pass gun restrictions that aren’t reflective of historical tradition.

        As you can imagine, that makes drafting gun restrictions that are permitted under this reading of the construction nearly impossible.

        This kind of ban on 3d printers is an terrible but not unsurprising consequence of this really batshit ruling.

        https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/supreme-court-ruling-creates-turmoil-over-gun-laws-in-lower-courts

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          10 months ago

          Ehhhh tbh the pointless feature bans and denial of the ability to carry through “will only issue if you’re rich” permits ala CA and NY were in turn responsible for Bruen even being a case. The anti self defense crowd played with fire and got burned, and they still continue attempting the same thing. If there was proposed legislation that would:

          A) Actually make a meaningful impact,

          AND

          B) Not be easily (or by design) abused to deny rights to as many people as humanly possible because “gun bad,”

          AND

          C) Come from a place of understanding about guns rather than always sounding like Kevin De Leon, or Rep. Diana DeGette who believes magazines aren’t reloadable. If anyone proposing legislation had any credibility beyond “guns scary,” it’d probably be easier to convince those who do have guns and some knowledge about how they function.

          AND

          D) Don’t just go after “assault weapons” which are responsible for 500/60,000 gun deaths/yr. We’re smart enough to do the math on it. We don’t believe “all we want to do is ban the scary black rifles, the wooden ones that function identically are fine, because they’re slightly less comfortable to hold and have a harder time taking flashlights.”

          Unfortunately the literal opposite of that is happening, just pointless feature bans and “only the rich can carry” taxes or extra approval because “the poor don’t need to protect themselves as much as the rich.” (Which we can see by the 1% being the largest economic section victimized in violent crimes, definitely not the poor. /s)