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.

NY bill would require a criminal history background check for the purchase of a 3D printer::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.

  • Sigilos@ttrpg.networkEnglish
    533·
    1 年前

    The logic of this is nonexistent. An argument could be made very convincingly that cars are dangerous to allow in the hands of criminals. 2 tons of metal, well known for and capable of ending a life, with the ability to aid criminal enterprises and avoidance of law enforcement. So should car sales now require a criminal background check? All this would do is further disenfranchise convicted felons, regardless of the actual crime committed, and create new difficulties for a group that includes a very high percentage of people already proven to give no shits about the law who will find and exploit ways to continue activities despite any laws attempting to restrict them.

    • phillaholic@lemm.eeEnglish
      1312·
      1 年前

      You can’t buy a car in most states without insurance. You can’t get insurance without a license. You cannot get a license… and so on. So that’s not a good example.

      • CountryBoy001@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        11·
        1 年前

        You might not be able to register it without insurance but you can certainly buy it. Plus a significant number of drivers on the road don’t have insurance because they only pay for it long enough to register the car and then never again. There’s a reason those of us with insurance usually have the option for coverage if the other driver doesn’t.

        • phillaholic@lemm.eeEnglish
          23·
          1 年前

          The ability to break the law isn’t an argument for not having the law. My point is only that using cars can be used as a weapon is a terrible example. Cars are far far more regulated than guns, and you can’t sneak a car in through a medal detector into a school, airport, etc and start running people over with it inside. I’m not even attempting to justify the background check.

      • FireTower@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        1 年前

        My understanding was that insurance was typically only a prerequisite for operating on public roadways not ownership. So you can drive a car on your own property if you say had a farm without paying for insurance.

        • phillaholic@lemm.eeEnglish
          34·
          1 年前

          If you buy private sure, but I’m not sure how liability works then. Typically medical insurance will refuse to cover vehicle related injuries, so if you or someone else is injured while operating their car on your own property you may be SOL.

      • hedgehog@ttrpg.networkEnglish
        7·
        1 年前

        I’m not the person you replied to, but it’s an okay comparison. It’s not perfect - 3D printers are way less dangerous than cars - but it conveys the same point.

        Like cars and unlike guns, 3D printers are tools. The federal government prevents a convicted felon from owning a gun, but not from driving; generally speaking, states only prohibit this if you were convicted of reckless driving or some other vehicle related offense.

        Also, once I have a license I can walk into any car dealer and drive out with a car a couple hours later. This law has an up-to-15 day turn around for the background check and no means of attesting that you are licensed and permitted to purchase a 3D printer without waiting. That’s gonna be a pain for everyone who’s interested in a 3D printer. If my car is taken out of service and I need it to get to work, I can buy another. I don’t have to wait 15 days. If my business involves 3D printing and one of my printers breaks down and needs replaced, having to wait an extra 15 days for a replacement is ridiculous.

        If the law said “Felons who were convicted of crimes involving 3D printers may not purchase or own a 3D printer” then that would be more appropriate and closer to how cars are handled.

        IMO a more apt comparison would be to other consumer grade tools, like drills, circular saws, etc… Just because I can theoretically make something dangerous with such a tool doesn’t mean the tool needs to be restricted.

        Afaik NY doesn’t prohibit felons from buying an “80 percent” Glock frame, a Glock slide, and a Dremel, nor does it prevent them from buying a CNC that can mill a full metal gun. (NJ prohibits the first of those (for everyone) and it’s illegal there to construct a gun at home if you aren’t legally permitted to own one, but that’s harder to enforce.) Either of those legal purchase sets enable you to create a gun at home that’s a much more effective firearm than can be 3D printed. Prohibiting them from buying a 3D printer (when technically even an Ender 3 can print a “gun”) is just silly.

        Some stats: in the USA, there were:

        • 1.2 guns per capita in 2017.
        • 333 million residents in 2022
        • estimating 400 million guns in 2022
        • 20k deaths by gun violence in 2022 (and slightly more deaths by suicide involving a gun)
        • 422k or so 3d printers in the US (according to this site in 2020); this number is probably triple or more now, though
        • 0 people killed with guns verified to have been created by 3d printers ever in the US (I found one unverified account)
        • 264 million registered vehicles in 2015
        • 35,485 deaths due to motor vehicle collisions in 2015

        this works out to:

        • 1 homicide per 20k guns in 2022
        • 2.7 deaths per 20k cars in 2015
        • 0 deaths per 20k 3D printers in every year
        • FireTower@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          1 年前

          If that one unverified one is the one I’m thinking out of Rhode Island from Jan 2020 that was a polymer 80 not a 3D printed gun.

        • phillaholic@lemm.eeEnglish
          22·
          1 年前

          I disagree that it conveys the same point unless your point is that criminals don’t follow laws, so why have laws. Cars are very regulated. You also can’t sneak a car through a metal detector in your pocket and run individuals over indoors. Completely different threats, with completely different availability.

          This bill was just introduced, there’s little detail yet on how this could be accomplished.

          • hedgehog@ttrpg.networkEnglish
            1·
            1 年前

            Is that really the point that you took away from my comment? Let me simplify it for you:

            • The law cannot possibly have a positive effect. It cannot reduce deaths no matter how effective it is because there have been no deaths.
            • The law will have an outsized negative effect. It prevents and delays access to tools that are used by businesses, schools, and hobbyists. That’s not even accounting for the cost to review the background checks.

            This bill was just introduced, there’s little detail yet on how this could be accomplished.

            Did you follow the link and read the bill? It lays it all out.

            1 Section 1. The general business law is amended by adding a new section
2 398-g to read as follows:
3 § 398-g. Sale of certain three-dimensional printers. 1. Any retailer
4 of a three-dimensional printer sold in this state which is capable of
5 printing a firearm, or any components of a firearm, is required and
6 authorized to request and receive criminal history information concern-
7 ing such purchaser from the division of criminal justice services in
8 accordance with the provisions of section eight hundred forty-five-b of
9 the executive law. Access to and the use of such information shall be
10 governed by the provisions of such section. The division of criminal
11 justice services is authorized to submit fingerprints to the federal
12 bureau of investigation for a national criminal history record check.
13 2. Within fifteen business days after receiving a request for criminal
14 history information pursuant to this section, the commissioner of the
15 division of criminal justice services shall review such criminal history
16 information and determine whether such purchaser has been convicted
17 anywhere of a felony or a serious offense or who is not the subject of
18 an outstanding warrant of arrest issued upon the alleged commission of a
19 felony or serious offense which would disqualify such individual from
20 being licensed to carry or possess a firearm under section 400.00 of the
21 penal law. Such commissioner shall promptly notify the seller of his or
22 her determination in this regard. No retailer shall sell any three-di-
23 mensional printer capable of printing a firearm unless the division of
    NEXT PAGE IN PDF
1 criminal justice services provides written notification of the determi-
2 nation under this subdivision.
3 3. For purposes of this section, "three-dimensional printer" means a
4 computer or computer-driven machine or device capable of producing a
5 three-dimensional object from a digital model.
            • Lines 3-9 - Any retailer of a 3d printer must request and receive a criminal background history for the purchaser from NY criminal justice services.
            • Lines 13-22 - it will take up to 15 business days to review and provide a response.
            • phillaholic@lemm.eeEnglish
              14·
              1 年前

              In this case a neutral effect is better than a negative one. Preventative legislation on something that is a foregone conclusion is relevant. These guns already exist, and printers are getting better. At some point someone will use one to kill someone. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to get out ahead of it. Is this bill it? I don’t know.

              Those Negative effects are not large burdens.

              Yes I read it. It’s not gone through any review yet and is simply written to piggy back on an existing system. The Drone community went through the same thing worth FAA licensing.

        • phillaholic@lemm.eeEnglish
          42·
          1 年前

          No? Where did you get that from? Maybe if they’ve lost their license for DUI’s or something.