Background Checks For 3D Printers?

[dilligaf]

Another Demonrat has gone off the deep end trying to violate Americans' rights. 

This bitch is evil or crazy ........... you decide.

www.nraila.org/articles/20231023/never-enough-new-york-lawmaker-wants-background-checks-for-3d-printers

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 23, 2023 18:15:55 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Another Demonrat has gone off the deep end trying to violate Americans' rights. 

This bitch is evil or crazy ........... you decide.

www.nraila.org/articles/20231023/never-enough-new-york-lawmaker-wants-background-checks-for-3d-printers

Where in the Constitution do you have the right to buy and own a 3D printer without a background check?

[daleko]

Oct 25, 2023 7:59:27 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 23, 2023 18:15:55 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Another Demonrat has gone off the deep end trying to violate Americans' rights. 

This bitch is evil or crazy ........... you decide.

www.nraila.org/articles/20231023/never-enough-new-york-lawmaker-wants-background-checks-for-3d-printers

Where in the Constitution do you have the right to buy and own a 3D printer without a background check?

I'll assume nowhere. But could it apply by extension?

If you were an attorney defending someone and had sig experience w the GCA, could you argue a reasonable challenge to BC involving 3D printers? Of and by itself, perhaps not but it is clear to me they are aiming the law at FA mfg, by individuals, for that individual's use only, which today are very legal.  Nothing in the GCA prohibits individuals from making guns for their own personal use. A person without an FLL may make a firearm for personal use without undergoing a background check, as long as the person isn't otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms.

To my original Q, could one then make a reasoned argument, that would be judged in one's favor, either directly or on appeal, that the proposed legislation is really an attempt to control firearms rather than 3D printers? And because I am not any kind of attorney, though you could find holes in my simplistic argument, I'd ask that you not pick my uninformed holes but sit on the other side for a moment.

FTWIW, registration is a separate issue. 

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 25, 2023 13:01:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 25, 2023 7:59:27 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Where in the Constitution do you have the right to buy and own a 3D printer without a background check?

I'll assume nowhere. But could it apply by extension?

If you were an attorney defending someone and had sig experience w the GCA, could you argue a reasonable challenge to BC involving 3D printers? Of and by itself, perhaps not but it is clear to me they are aiming the law at FA mfg, by individuals, for that individual's use only, which today are very legal.  Nothing in the GCA prohibits individuals from making guns for their own personal use. A person without an FLL may make a firearm for personal use without undergoing a background check, as long as the person isn't otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms.

To my original Q, could one then make a reasoned argument, that would be judged in one's favor, either directly or on appeal, that the proposed legislation is really an attempt to control firearms rather than 3D printers? And because I am not any kind of attorney, though you could find holes in my simplistic argument, I'd ask that you not pick my uninformed holes but sit on the other side for a moment.

FTWIW, registration is a separate issue. 

Could one? IMO no. The fact that a machine that can theoretically produce hundreds of thousands of items that are not firearm related is somehow exempt from background checks due to a tangential relationship to the Second Amendment doesn’t somehow afford it exemption. In theory, the government could require a BC for the purchase of any product and that’s within its authority. The only reason guns are afforded a certain level of oversight is due to the SA.

[daleko]

Oct 25, 2023 13:37:47 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 25, 2023 13:01:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

I'll assume nowhere. But could it apply by extension?

If you were an attorney defending someone and had sig experience w the GCA, could you argue a reasonable challenge to BC involving 3D printers? Of and by itself, perhaps not but it is clear to me they are aiming the law at FA mfg, by individuals, for that individual's use only, which today are very legal.  Nothing in the GCA prohibits individuals from making guns for their own personal use. A person without an FLL may make a firearm for personal use without undergoing a background check, as long as the person isn't otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms.

To my original Q, could one then make a reasoned argument, that would be judged in one's favor, either directly or on appeal, that the proposed legislation is really an attempt to control firearms rather than 3D printers? And because I am not any kind of attorney, though you could find holes in my simplistic argument, I'd ask that you not pick my uninformed holes but sit on the other side for a moment.

FTWIW, registration is a separate issue. 

Could one? IMO no. The fact that a machine that can theoretically produce hundreds of thousands of items that are not firearm related is somehow exempt from background checks due to a tangential relationship to the Second Amendment doesn’t somehow afford it exemption. In theory, the government could require a BC for the purchase of any product and that’s within its authority. The only reason guns are afforded a certain level of oversight is due to the SA.

Thanks for the opinion. Though I still wonder the legality of how one application and by application, a minor one, can infect the whole universe. In theory, all pieces of machinery should, by extension, require a BC, including hammers. But perhaps you might then say, they should but the fact that this legislation didn't, doesn't make it illegal.

Thanks, again. Always informative.

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 25, 2023 13:49:38 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 25, 2023 13:37:47 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Could one? IMO no. The fact that a machine that can theoretically produce hundreds of thousands of items that are not firearm related is somehow exempt from background checks due to a tangential relationship to the Second Amendment doesn’t somehow afford it exemption. In theory, the government could require a BC for the purchase of any product and that’s within its authority. The only reason guns are afforded a certain level of oversight is due to the SA.

Thanks for the opinion. Though I still wonder the legality of how one application and by application, a minor one, can infect the whole universe. In theory, all pieces of machinery should, by extension, require a BC, including hammers. But perhaps you might then say, they should but the fact that this legislation didn't, doesn't make it illegal.

Thanks, again. Always informative.

That was my point, kind of. The reality is, by virtue of the commerce clause, the government has general authority and can regulate pretty much anything it wants unless it is specifically restricted from doing so (in this case…the argument being the SA).

If the inverse is true, and the government doesn’t have the authority as a general rule, then it vitiates pretty much any authority under the commerce clause because it might be somehow tangentially related to the Second Amendment.

[AlaCowboy]

Oct 25, 2023 13:37:47 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 25, 2023 13:01:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

I'll assume nowhere. But could it apply by extension?

If you were an attorney defending someone and had sig experience w the GCA, could you argue a reasonable challenge to BC involving 3D printers? Of and by itself, perhaps not but it is clear to me they are aiming the law at FA mfg, by individuals, for that individual's use only, which today are very legal.  Nothing in the GCA prohibits individuals from making guns for their own personal use. A person without an FLL may make a firearm for personal use without undergoing a background check, as long as the person isn't otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms.

To my original Q, could one then make a reasoned argument, that would be judged in one's favor, either directly or on appeal, that the proposed legislation is really an attempt to control firearms rather than 3D printers? And because I am not any kind of attorney, though you could find holes in my simplistic argument, I'd ask that you not pick my uninformed holes but sit on the other side for a moment.

FTWIW, registration is a separate issue. 

Could one? IMO no. The fact that a machine that can theoretically produce hundreds of thousands of items that are not firearm related is somehow exempt from background checks due to a tangential relationship to the Second Amendment doesn’t somehow afford it exemption. In theory, the government could require a BC for the purchase of any product and that’s within its authority. The only reason guns are afforded a certain level of oversight is due to the SA.

So how about a background check at the grocery store for anyone buying any product with sugar in it? Include a weight/height check and body mass calculation and anyone with a body mass index over 15 cannot legally buy any product with sugar in it. Obesity cured in America!

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 25, 2023 15:46:29 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Oct 25, 2023 13:37:47 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Could one? IMO no. The fact that a machine that can theoretically produce hundreds of thousands of items that are not firearm related is somehow exempt from background checks due to a tangential relationship to the Second Amendment doesn’t somehow afford it exemption. In theory, the government could require a BC for the purchase of any product and that’s within its authority. The only reason guns are afforded a certain level of oversight is due to the SA.

So how about a background check at the grocery store for anyone buying any product with sugar in it? Include a weight/height check and body mass calculation and anyone with a body mass index over 15 cannot legally buy any product with sugar in it. Obesity cured in America!

What about it? Sadly enough, I’d say that the government probably has the authority to do that. There’s nothing preventing it, and the commerce clause probably would authorize it.

Here’s hoping the government wouldn’t be quite so stupid.

[AlaCowboy]

Oct 25, 2023 15:56:16 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 25, 2023 15:46:29 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

So how about a background check at the grocery store for anyone buying any product with sugar in it? Include a weight/height check and body mass calculation and anyone with a body mass index over 15 cannot legally buy any product with sugar in it. Obesity cured in America!

What about it? Sadly enough, I’d say that the government probably has the authority to do that. There’s nothing preventing it, and the commerce clause probably would authorize it.

Here’s hoping the government wouldn’t be quite so stupid.

If they think like you do, it is.

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 25, 2023 17:29:07 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Oct 25, 2023 15:56:16 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

What about it? Sadly enough, I’d say that the government probably has the authority to do that. There’s nothing preventing it, and the commerce clause probably would authorize it.

Here’s hoping the government wouldn’t be quite so stupid.

If they think like you do, it is.

Thanks for confirming that you’re a prick in addition to being ignorant on the subject.

[dilligaf]

Oct 25, 2023 13:01:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 25, 2023 7:59:27 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Where in the Constitution do you have the right to buy and own a 3D printer without a background check?

I'll assume nowhere. But could it apply by extension?

If you were an attorney defending someone and had sig experience w the GCA, could you argue a reasonable challenge to BC involving 3D printers? Of and by itself, perhaps not but it is clear to me they are aiming the law at FA mfg, by individuals, for that individual's use only, which today are very legal.  Nothing in the GCA prohibits individuals from making guns for their own personal use. A person without an FLL may make a firearm for personal use without undergoing a background check, as long as the person isn't otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms.

To my original Q, could one then make a reasoned argument, that would be judged in one's favor, either directly or on appeal, that the proposed legislation is really an attempt to control firearms rather than 3D printers? And because I am not any kind of attorney, though you could find holes in my simplistic argument, I'd ask that you not pick my uninformed holes but sit on the other side for a moment.

FTWIW, registration is a separate issue. 

Did that dumbass REALLY ask such a stupid question?

When we require background checks in order to purchase ANY consumer product at all, THEN we could claim it is constitutional.
A 3D printer is not a danger to the public in any way imaginable.   I don't believe they contain any toxic, flammable, or explosive materials.

TRNcoat, as usual, is an idiot.

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 25, 2023 20:26:18 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Oct 25, 2023 13:01:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

I'll assume nowhere. But could it apply by extension?

If you were an attorney defending someone and had sig experience w the GCA, could you argue a reasonable challenge to BC involving 3D printers? Of and by itself, perhaps not but it is clear to me they are aiming the law at FA mfg, by individuals, for that individual's use only, which today are very legal.  Nothing in the GCA prohibits individuals from making guns for their own personal use. A person without an FLL may make a firearm for personal use without undergoing a background check, as long as the person isn't otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms.

To my original Q, could one then make a reasoned argument, that would be judged in one's favor, either directly or on appeal, that the proposed legislation is really an attempt to control firearms rather than 3D printers? And because I am not any kind of attorney, though you could find holes in my simplistic argument, I'd ask that you not pick my uninformed holes but sit on the other side for a moment.

FTWIW, registration is a separate issue. 

Did that dumbass REALLY ask such a stupid question?

When we require background checks in order to purchase ANY consumer product at all, THEN we could claim it is constitutional.
A 3D printer is not a danger to the public in any way imaginable.   I don't believe they contain any toxic, flammable, or explosive materials.

TRNcoat, as usual, is an idiot.

Where in the constitution is a background check unconstitutional?

You wanna discuss the law in this area, then discuss it with me. Don’t cast pot shots from the sideline, coward.

[dilligaf]

Oct 26, 2023 6:43:37 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 25, 2023 20:26:18 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Did that dumbass REALLY ask such a stupid question?

When we require background checks in order to purchase ANY consumer product at all, THEN we could claim it is constitutional.
A 3D printer is not a danger to the public in any way imaginable.   I don't believe they contain any toxic, flammable, or explosive materials.

TRNcoat, as usual, is an idiot.

Where in the constitution is a background check unconstitutional?

You wanna discuss the law in this area, then discuss it with me. Don’t cast pot shots from the sideline, coward.

There IS no law in this area, and there is absolutely NO reason to try and demand background checks on the purchases of common business tools.

Sharpened pencils and common ink pens are more deadly than a 3D printer.
I can kill you with an ink pen, which would be much easier than trying to bash you over the head with a 3D printer.

It is impossible to make an all-plastic gun.   The chamber pressure of even the lowly .25ACP would blow apart a plastic chamber, likely injuring the shooter, NOT the target.   The parts of a gun that actually make it shootable are made of STEEL, and easily discovered by any metal detector.
Lieberals once again are looking for a despotic solution to a problem that does not exist.

Do you just ENJOY being contrary and anti-Constitutional?

[trnyerheadncough]

Oct 26, 2023 10:03:32 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Oct 26, 2023 6:43:37 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Where in the constitution is a background check unconstitutional?

You wanna discuss the law in this area, then discuss it with me. Don’t cast pot shots from the sideline, coward.

There IS no law in this area, and there is absolutely NO reason to try and demand background checks on the purchases of common business tools.

I never said there was a law. I said the government had the authority to pass one (because it does) but would be stupid to (which it would).

Sharpened pencils and common ink pens are more deadly than a 3D printer.
I can kill you with an ink pen, which would be much easier than trying to bash you over the head with a 3D printer.

It is impossible to make an all-plastic gun.   The chamber pressure of even the lowly .25ACP would blow apart a plastic chamber, likely injuring the shooter, NOT the target.   The parts of a gun that actually make it shootable are made of STEEL, and easily discovered by any metal detector.
Lieberals once again are looking for a despotic solution to a problem that does not exist.

Do you just ENJOY being contrary and anti-Constitutional?

Me schooling you on what the government has the authority to do is “anti-constitutional”? Lol

I specifically said it would be dumb to exert its authority to the extent it can, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

[dilligaf]

Oct 26, 2023 11:08:37 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Oct 26, 2023 10:03:32 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

There IS no law in this area, and there is absolutely NO reason to try and demand background checks on the purchases of common business tools.

I never said there was a law. I said the government had the authority to pass one (because it does) but would be stupid to (which it would).

Sharpened pencils and common ink pens are more deadly than a 3D printer.
I can kill you with an ink pen, which would be much easier than trying to bash you over the head with a 3D printer.

It is impossible to make an all-plastic gun.   The chamber pressure of even the lowly .25ACP would blow apart a plastic chamber, likely injuring the shooter, NOT the target.   The parts of a gun that actually make it shootable are made of STEEL, and easily discovered by any metal detector.
Lieberals once again are looking for a despotic solution to a problem that does not exist.

Do you just ENJOY being contrary and anti-Constitutional?

Me schooling you on what the government has the authority to do is “anti-constitutional”? Lol

I specifically said it would be dumb to exert its authority to the extent it can, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

When did the gov't get the authority to violate the constitution?
You haven't "schooled" me on anything.

Such a law would never pass SCOTUS muster.   You know it and I know it.