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
129 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
[–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

....Have you ever thought critically about what "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." actually means..?

It's not a plaintext right to manufacture firearms, yes. It is, however, an --implied-- right. In order to keep and bear arms, citizens must also obviously have the right to -make- their own arms.

In fact, there have already been court cases on this very issue in other states. Defense Distributed v. Blanche, comes to mind, though there may have been others.

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

    Dude, yes, I have. Have you?

    How did most nations at the time defend themselves? It wasn't standing armies. Only the richest nations could afford those, and the US was not one of them. It was expected that militias would be risen when a threat appeared.

    Ok, now how did those militias operate? Did they store weapons in their homes? Did they manufacture them? No, to both of these. Weapons were kept in armories, and the militias drilled with them. They were well regulated, not just random people with guns calling themselves a militia. They were actual organizations trained and prepared for an attack, and their weapons and ammunition were organized in armories, where you had to go to muster.

    Ok, now how does any of this imply the right to manufacture? You have a right to obtain at best, though ideally, in those early days, your militia organization would be obtaining them, not you as an individual.

    Please, critically read it and think about it for yourself. What does the text actually say, and what were the customs of the time?

    I'm all for people having the rights to weapons. Hell, I'd even agree the right to manufacture is held, to a limited extent, by the people. However, the 2nd Amendment does not provide this. The 9th does. I'm tired of the 2nd being used by people to try to cover everything. It's made weaker by this. The 9th does cover everything though.

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