From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   shawn   wrote:   
   >On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 06:11:56 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>shawn   wrote:   
   >>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 05:46:11 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>BTR1701  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Gavin Newsom's Mini-Me, Attorney General Rob Bonta, has filed   
   >lawsuits against   
   >>>>>several out-of-state companies and individuals for daring to exercise   
   their   
   >>>>>1st and 2nd Amendment rights by hosting 3d-print files for gun parts   
   >on their   
   >>>>>websites. This violates a California law (which itself is being   
   >challenged for   
   >>>>>violating the Constitution) prohibiting the possession and distribution of   
   >>>>>digital files that can be used to produce "ghost guns". Bonta's exciting   
   new   
   >>>>>legal theory is that if California makes a thing illegal, no citizen of   
   any   
   >>>>>other state can legally do that thing if it allows Californians to skirt   
   >>>>>California law.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Not only does this violate the 1st and 2nd Amendments, it's   
   >unenforceable as a   
   >>>>>practical matter, because the internet is worldwide. Even if California   
   >>>>>somehow manages to reach its tentacles into other states, it can't   
   >reach into   
   >>>>>other countries, so these digital files can be distributed around the   
   world   
   >>>>>with impunity and Rob Bonta can't do anything about it. A website in   
   Romania   
   >>>>>can host "ghost gun" 3d-print files and anyone in California can access   
   them   
   >>>>>and Mini-Newsom, has no power to stop it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>It occurs to me that the federal law shielding gun manufacturers from   
   >>>>P.I. and class action lawsuits for injury and death from use of guns in   
   >>>>a shooting if they can prove no manufacturing defects shouldn't shield   
   >>>>the manufacture of 3D-printed guns, all of which are defective.   
   >>>   
   >>>Except that they just made the original design. They didn't make/print   
   >>>the gun. They didn't choose the material that went into the making of   
   >>>the gun. So it seems like the responsibility lies with the person who   
   >>>actually made/printed the gun and not the designer.   
   >>   
   >>What are you talking about? These are designs for 3D printing at home.   
   >>The raw material for such 3D printers is known. The designer and the   
   >>person operating the printer were both integral parts of the   
   >>manufacturing process. When the gun fails, they both get to defend the   
   >>lawsuit.   
   >   
   >There are many options when printing out something on a 3D printer.   
   >Some plastics are great for something soft and pliable, other plastics   
   >are stiffer. So the person printing out the weapon can choose what   
   >type of plastic they want to use. Hell, it may even be possible to use   
   >one of the very expensive printers that allows the user to print using   
   >metal.   
      
   I don't understand your position, "They didn't choose the material that   
   went into the making of the gun." The designer does indeed choose the   
   material from raw materials available for the specific type of printer   
   he has in mind. It's called a specification. Is there a plastic that can   
   withstand the heat and explosive force of firing ammunition? I have no   
   idea, but unless the designer so specifies, he gets to defend the   
   lawsuit as well.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)