No, polymaker just have a big range of engineering friendly filament, just as they have pretty artsy ones, and low cost workhorse filament for makers

Well, doesn't that just show how useless that ban is?

Trump is trying to pass that law right now, a bit of hyperbole in my statement, but it reinforces my point

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12725

Then lil' Petey Hegseth ran out of guns and all this shit was suddenly legal. /s

Can order black powder revolvers to your door, and can buy replacement parts that allow them to fire cowboy cartridges, which are just low FPS lead rounds, like 800fps. They'll kill a fella, but don't have quite the same force as modern rounds. They also burn a lower grade powder and are a bit more smokey.

I don't remember seeing them do any specific sponsored content, though they may and probably have, but that have a very open affiliate program that every 3d printer youtuber I've seen is in. They also give out codes for streaming channels to give away filament.

All this I'm saying is I don't think they're "choosing" these channels but I doubt they care what the content in on any channel.

Freedom doesn't include asking for permission and paying for the privilege to do so.

Shall not be infringed!

Pfffffff hahahaha, are you also going to go after weed walker too?

The USA is a joke

Guns are just a slight evolution of the sling, just us throwing rocks further and faster.

Same as it ever was.

You can have long guns purchased through the Civilian Marksmanship Program shipped directly to your door. Those are a drop in the bucket compared to most firearm purchases in the US, though.

This also didn't solve anything, if you look at the statistics.

Actually, those conversion cylinders are perfectly happy with modern smokeless powders suitable for their caliber. Though it's more about velocities than pressure. I can load any smokeless .45 Colt for my cylinder that is listed for the standard pressures, (about 11,000psi). But it is highly recommended to keep your velocities no more than 850fps, (the original velocity for the Colt SAA). Frame stretching is the issue. Those cap and ball revolvers are made from a bit softer metal than modern revolvers. Remington's are stronger than the open top Colts.

As an old toolmaker, that's not as true as you think. It requires a lot of other knowledge besides running a lathe or mill. I speak from experience, having had to learn how to make repair parts for antique and collectable firearms at times.

So it seems the legal question is "was polymaker advertising their filament specifically for printing working firearms?"

Them having a couple military style colors for printing toy guns seems pretty far from a specific gun use filament. I was expecting a specific blend of herbs and spices specifically for withstanding the rigors of shooting real ammo or something, not a fucking color that is "military".

Also, good luck trying to probe that they used specific advertising channels to market directly to the ghost gun groups. Flimsy reasoning at best.

If your goal is to make a working gun, it's pretty achievable, repairing or restoring existing one is obviously quite a bit harder.

" Oi, you got a licence for that sewage mate? "

I am skeptical about that, though the visual is funny.

I think you mean "hawks" as in selling, not "hocks" as in loogies.

The shit shovel too AK guide is still on my favorite guides that were floating around on the interwebz

The specifics revolve around a 3d-printed-gun advocate named Sean Aranda, whose youtube channel focuses on the subject. According to him, when youtube demonetized the channel in 2023 Polymaker approached him with a sponsorship offer. A couple months later Polymaker announced Aranda was a new member of its marketing team.

So regardless of where you stand on the Calif anti-3d-gun law, this isn't a simple case of going after egg farmers because of illegal omelets.

You've got some point there, but doesn't demonstrate the uselessness of the law? Unless of course they are going after every producer of technical filaments, which is like going after anyone with a lathe or a CNC machine.

We've been there before.

I didn't write the article

They're trying to make this a case over marketing and intent rather than materials.

The actual types of filament they're concerned with are carbon fiber nylon (sold by many brands) and "PLA Pro" which is just a bit better regular PLA.

These are sold by tons of brands all across the internet.

CMP can't do that in states like California or any of the other states with decent gun laws.

Sounds like the lawsuit is on thin ice, then.

False.

Residents of CA, CT, IL, NJ, NY, OR and WA must have the rifles shipped to an FFL dealer. You must provide a copy of the dealer’s license with your order form. NJ and IL Residents must also provide their FOID card. WA Residents must also provide the I-1639 training certificate.

https://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/eligibility-requirements/

Both are correct. Hock also means to pawn. Hawk can also mean to offer to sell, specifically by calling out in the street.

So they'll make black iron pipe illegal and require it to be replaced with plastic flex hose.

maybe we should be printing these

2A is already abused to hell, but I see no way to make an argument to say it protects manufacturing a firearm. It, at best, protects possession. There are other reasons this is illegal, but please read the second amendment before you say dumb shit about it.

It's like saying steel is specifically designed for guns. For plastics, stronger is a nice property for many applications.

This is a direct quote from the ATF Director, Rob Cekada:

https://youtu.be/1h_wRotsHTw?t=390

The interview starts at 390 seconds.

the voice-to-text transcription wasn't entirely accurate, but it should be good enough to get the point across.

Yeah, I think uh again, as long as folks are in compliance with their state laws, they're in good shape. Uh the only thing that people need to remember uh even even prior to uh this uh guidance coming out uh as an American citizen if you weren't prohibited and there was no state laws uh that prevented you from doing so [music] you were allowed to build your own firearm

Polymaker did not respond to requests for comment.

Statements like these always seem deceiving to me. Like, how much time did you give them? Some of these people race to get their story out too quickly, without giving a reasonable amount of time for a response.

What if they respond later? I guess they could update the article, but that's still after people have already read it and formed their opinions based on the original contents.

I’ve only been threatened with a gun by the government and I bet that is the case for the vast majority of us.

But you want them to regulate it.

This is very normal, and not meant to be deceiving. If the group who didn't respond to the request does respond after the article was published, that will be removed and a statement that reads something like "Polymaker (insert title or department) responded after initial publishing with this statement" and that statement will follow after. From a journalistic integrity standpoint it shows that they wanted to get both sides of a story, especially if one side was interviewed or quoted. The alternative of not stating that comment was requested is we read the article and wonder if Polymaker ever got a chance to speak their side.

That transcript says that, if it isn't illegal to build a firearm, then it's legal to build a firearm. No shit. Obviously. It says nothing about 2A protections.

Also, he is not a lawyer. Do you think everything the director of ICE says is supported by the law?

Again, read the second amendment. Please. It's very short.

The alternative of not stating that comment was requested is we read the article and wonder if Polymaker ever got a chance to speak their side.

But that's kinda my point: I still don't know if they had a chance to speak their side before the article was published, nor do I know if they will.

It's really just a nitpick on my part. If they plan to publish a follow-up article about the response, then it would seem a bit more honest to just add one word: "yet"

....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.

They apparently sponsored a maker who prints guns, which is the justification.

Still stupid for a mountain of reasons, not least of which is that 3D printing guns is perfectly legal in many places.

Saudi Arabia can't go after the companies that sell oak barrels to Jack Daniels because alcohol is illegal there.

I'm not a gun guy but from my understanding of ghost guns you pretty much buy the whole gun online in parts, and you just 3d print a handle.

So I don't understand why people are so afraid of 3d printing when it really has minimal to do with the final product. From what I can tell you can't just 3d print a gun from start to finish like its a llm. You still have to buy the actual gun parts from the manufacturer. To me this sounds completely unrelated and like a issue with regulating gun parts.

You can carve a handle out of soap, wood, or buy a solid chunk of plastic and its the same result.

You can print all sorts of gun parts though, like suppressors and modifications to allow a gun to shoot faster than normal.

With that being said, trying to ban 3d printing or sue filament manufacturers is monumentally stupid.

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.

If things goes the way I think it will, California will need more guns to fight off the Trump Regime during the opening years of the 2nd American Civil War.

I hope this lawsuit fails.

They used to make guns out of umbrella parts.

Gonna have to stop all sales of lead and brass in any form (don't want to have access for people to melt things down). Gunpowder of course, including all the elements needed to make gunpowder. You know, just to cover all the bases. /s

I don't know how impactful those are, and I think a person with access to a decent metal shop could pose more danger.

What is it just the access that's scary then? As a guy that doesn't know guns, you often hear things like a potato or a water bottle can be made into a makeshift surpressor or turning a single fire into a sensative rapid fire trigger is trival. So I'm just not understanding why 3d printers are almost entirely linked to making guns in everyone's minds. When I first got a elgoo that was the first thing people would jokingly ask if I was going to make one.

Like maybe I can understand the argument that access is so low anyone can do it, but even then you can't just download a gun. The person who is doing this already bought gun parts and knows how to assemble them. This is not going to stop that kind of person from building a gun in any form. The gun is still the metal parts you buy online. A silencer, a trigger mod, whatever is useless until you handle ghost guns.

Yeah going after printing and/or filament is dumb. I'm I guess what some would call a "gun guy". 3D printing in this space is less practical and more just for fun.

You can use a metal coat hanger to full auto an AR. A printed suppressor is going to be so weak it'll probably break on first use. Oil filters work tho. If you want to illegal things the better way to do most often doesnt involve printing.

The suit accuses the company of selling not pawning, so I'm pretty sure it should be "hawk".

No I think this is an example of the opposite - it's not an action against the filament industry or the 3d printing community in general, it's against an individual company for allegedly marketing filament specifically to print guns, not just because filament could or might be used to print guns. Whether the law itself is right or wrong is a different issue.