696
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
696 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
85138 readers
5950 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
to comply, vendors would need to require printers sold in california to be locked (presumably by encryption) to a proprietary slicer with ai vision that could try to determine if the thing being printed looked like a gun. Maybe if there was a bullet sized barrel and access around the striker area.
Makerbot more or less did this. It was a pain in the ass to use a non-makerbot-desktop slicer with a 2/2x series.
But that actually wouldn't meet the law. The law requires the printer to do the check.
The software becomes part of the printer. They are linked in a way that one cannot operate without the other.
I didn't say the law was well written, I find the the most likely way to comply.
I wouldn't be that hard to read the g-code and reconstruct the model programatically checking for bores and firing pin access, feed that data into a model with some RAG about internal gun dimensions, but the printers are generally too underpowered to do such a calculation.
it's all a fools errand really, guns can be made out of a handfull of hardware store parts and a drill.