387
New California ghost gun lawsuit takes aim at company that sells 3-D printer filament (www.latimes.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/3dprinting@lemmy.world
130 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

San Diego County jumped into California’s sprawling ghost gun fight this week, suing a 3-D printing filament manufacturer it says hocks material for homespun firearms in violation of state law.

Working with the Giffords Law Center, the county counsel sued manufacturer Polymaker, alleging the company made a “strategic business choice” to market and sell 3-D printer filament to Californians for the express purpose of building illegal weapons. The polymer filament is sold in spools that feed into 3-D printers, allowing the devices to form designs created by their owners.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

all firearms are legal.

the difference, is that some firearms require certain permits to possess under the 1986 Hughes amendment to the NFA.

for possession of a machine gun, you either need a transferrable (any registered MG pre May 1986, extremely rare, and this in good condition are literally worth more than most houses), or an FFL-31-SOT, which allows you to manufacture "dealer samples".

Suppressors (AKA Silencers), and Short Barrel Rifles/Shotguns are now fully transferrable under a form 4473; due to the recent Texas ruling against the NFA.

the requirement for Form 4473s; however, are likely to change due to the semi recent elimination of most of the tax stamp requirements for transferring NFA items; which was only allowed (per the supreme court) because congress has the constitutional power to enact and enforce taxes, but they do not have the power to regulate firearm circulation. the NFA is on its last legs. I will celebrate the day it is finally killed. The victims of the ATF's enforcement over the years deserve renumeration... or at the very least, an apology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I can’t possess some firearms legally, therefore many firearms are effectively not legal. How it came to be like that is largely irrelevant.

    I’ll be surprised if that changes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Getting your FFL-31-SOT is pretty easy. It's just some paperwork. The tricky part is the taxes and license fees; which are admittedly pretty stupidly high. IIRC they're somewhere in the range of 4 digits - 5 digits.

    using what the ATF classifies as "Destructive Devices" (40mm grenades, mortars, etc) requires tax stamps still, and some paperwork, registering who has it and where it is, etc... but they are legal.

    If you're a convicted Federal Felon who has served their sentence, you can petition the courts to have your right to possess firearms reinstated. Of those who petition, most get their right reinstated; in the pro-gun areas. You only get one shot though IIRC; so you should go to a court in a heavily red state to have the best chance. It's a federal-level decision, so pretty much any federal court should do.

    With the way the current administration is going; as much as I disagree with some of their decisions, the NFA is well and truly on its way to the grave.

    Every law abiding citizen should be able to possess and operate any firearm, regardless of fire rate, caliber, or form factor.

    Good luck, brother.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •