US Prosecutors sent an official letter to major 3D printer manufacturers calling for blocking technology.
The letter was sent by the PAGV, or “Prosecutors Against Gun Violence” group. This is a non-partisan organization of prosecutors across the US that focuses on gun violence prevention strategies. They recommend policies and advocate enforcement.
Recently, they’ve been involved with the blocking technology proposals. Quick recap: Several US states are working on legislation that would require any 3D printers sold to include “blocking technology” that would somehow stop firearms from being 3D printed.
The problem is that this is technically infeasible and would cause dramatic problems for 3D printer sales, use, and future development in the US. Even worse, it would not have any significant effect on the original problem.
So far, only New York has passed such legislation, but two other states are working on doing pretty much the same thing. This is a very serious issue for the 3D print community, at least in the US.
The news today is that PAGV sent an official letter to Bambu Lab, Creality, and Flashforge requesting they “take swift action” towards implementing the requested changes. They write:
“We recognize 3D-printing technology has immense potential for innovation, design, and creative expression. But the unmitigated spread of these untraceable weapons represents a direct threat to our communities and your customers. The risk your product creates, as 3D printers become increasingly commonplace, is unacceptable. We urge your company to take immediate concrete actions towards adopting minimum safety standards consistent with New York’s landmark legislation by equipping all 3D printers sold in the United States with blocking technology to prevent the unlicensed and illegal production of firearms and firearm parts.”
Unfortunately, the letter reads as if they literally believe that these desktop 3D printers can print firearms, which they cannot. They can print some parts that, when combined with other kit parts not made with 3D printers, might produce a weapon.
The PAGV also requests a meeting with company representatives to convey their message directly. If such a meeting takes place, I hope that the companies explain to them in plain language that what they request is literally impossible to implement: the geometry of a weapon part cannot reliably be distinguished from the geometry of an innocuous part.
Via PAGV and PAGV (the letter, PDF)
