https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-QtwGfILTo
https://twitter.com/3dprintgeneralhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPOOzgKaAEAhttps://youtu.be/C4dBuPJ9p7A
edit: title word
A new California law was just passed which made "ghost guns" illegal. He was involved in ghost guns, at some level. It wasn't illegal before. Now it is. So now is when he got the boot.
CA doesn't control the Internet Plus he had none of that content on his channel save for one video on the history of printed guns which got him dinged just over a year ago and he removed it
Ghost guns are unregulated firearms that anyone — including minors and prohibited purchasers — can buy and build without a background check.
3D printed guns fall solidly into this category.
The 1968 Firearms Act encased in law the right to make your own firearms and made it illegal to sell them So, Printed or Milled it was always illegal to sell legally made homemade firearms
You can buy the plans as long as they are sold by a licensed company. That's where the buying part comes in but yes the sale or even transfer of the physical item is illegal.
If by SCOTUS you mean Trump, then he did say it was okay.
in 2015 Defense Distributed sued the government for the right to sell their blueprints for their 3d printable guns. They lost in the federal courts and their appeal failed under the ruling that it was a violation of current firearm export laws.
In 2018 the Trump administration settled with Defense Distributed and allowed them to share their blueprints as well as giving them $40,000 in compensation for previous legal fees. Side note: The founder of Defense Distributed left 3 months after the payment and was then arrested in Taiwan after having sex with an underage minor in Texas.
in 2019 the attorney general filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration and the federal courts reversed the Trump decision once again making it illegal to share files without a license.
As far as I am aware, I am not aware of any changes since then.
If you want to read it, here is the legislation that explicitly states online posting of plans for 3D-printed firearms requires a license under the Export Administration Regulations issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security. Note the section where it says ANY file in ANY format is included in the legislation and that you can receive up to 20 years imprisonment and $1 million in fines.
Because you probably won't read all 69 (nice) pages here relevant information under the section of "3D Printing of Firearms"
Under section 734.7(c), such “technology” or “software” may not be posted on the Internet without authorization from the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).
Q.34: I am planning to post technology or software that meets the criteria in section 734.7(c). Do I require a license or other prior approval from BIS before posting the “technology” or “software” on the Internet?
A.34: Yes, a BIS license is required under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) prior to posting on the Internet of “technology” or “software” that meets the criteria under section 734.7(c). No EAR license exceptions are available for such postings.
Q.35: I understand that section 734.7(c) applies to Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) files, such as in G-code or AMF format, as executable code to produce the items described in paragraph (c). However, can you confirm whether the criteria in section 734.7(c) would also to apply to Computer Aided Design (CAD) files?
A.35: Section 734.7(c) covers “technology” and “software” for the production of a firearm frame or receiver or complete firearm, controlled under ECCN 0A501, that is made available by posting on the Internet in an electronic format, such as AMF or G-code, and is ready for insertion into a computer numerically controlled machine tool, additive manufacturing equipment, or any other equipment that makes use of the ‘‘software’’ or ‘‘technology’’ to produce the firearm frame or receiver or complete firearm. Any file meeting that criteria is covered regardless of name, including CAD files. Moreover, this includes any file, including any CAD file, that can be processed by a software program into an electronic format, such as a CAM file, with no or minimal additional information or manipulation from the operator(s), and that the file once converted will be in an executable code for the production of a firearm frame or receiver or complete firearm.
Q.36: If I do not obtain a BIS license prior to posting “technology” or “software” that meets the criteria in section 734.7(c), will I be subject to penalties under the EAR? A.36: Yes. This would be a violation of the EAR and may result in significant administrative and criminal penalties under the EAR. Under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, criminal penalties can reach 20 years imprisonment and $1 million per violation. Administrative monetary penalties can reach $308,901 per violation (subject to adjustment in accordance with U.S. law, e.g., the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114 -74, sec. 701)) or twice the value of the transaction, whichever is greater. Violations of the EAR may also lead to the denial of certain export privileges, potentially for a lengthy period of time.
Why are these an issue though? It is not like people can just print the ammunition too. So they can only buy them with a gun license anyways.
Yep, if you're a criminal making ghost guns to commit crimes because you can't pass a background check to buy a gun (and then scratch the serial number off), then it's already a crime for you to have that ghost gun because you're a prohibited person.
Requiring a serial number changes nothing and only affects nerds, not criminals.
And this right here is why the "Ghost Gun" thing is largely just a scare like the Halloween drug thing that happens every year. Because it's generally cheaper and easier to go one state over to the state with lax gun laws and buy a gun there for the price of an Ender 3 instead of going through all the effort of buying a printer and learning how to use it. Same reason why the Mexican cartels smuggle guns out of the US and into Mexico, and not the other way around. Guns are cheap and plentiful in the US, and they're not hard to get.
There's some "teh gubernment is cummin fer muh gunz!1!" chuds out there 3d printing guns, but there's plenty of those people with guns they bought legally as well. The biggest large scale ghost gun manufacturing I've heard about is the Burmese resistance fighters who have been printing en masse a design to fight back against a genocidal military coup in Myanmar because the international community has largely ignored what's going on there and they can't get guns any other way, which is exactly the sort of situation that design was created for.
But for that you need all the parts, including the gunpowder. And for the gunpowder you need a special permission for handling explosives, at least in my country. So you just move into areas of even more difficult to procure things. it seems far easier to just buy a gun and ammunition somewhere else and take it over the border into California.
In America you MIGHT need to show ID for age verification purposes in most states when purchasing gunpowder.
There is no country wide law requiring a permit to purchase everything you need to make bullets.
The exception might be buying a large amount(like 50lbs) but low pounds(<10lbs) is legal without a permit.
If 50 pounds or less of commercially manufactured black powder is being purchased, and the powder is intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16) or in antique devices exempt from the term "destructive device" in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4), no form is required. However, if the black powder is being purchased for any other purpose (regardless of quantity), the purchaser or other transferee must possess a federal explosives license or permit.
[18 U.S.C. 845(a)(5); 18 U.S.C. 926(c); 27 CFR 555.141(b), 555.26(a)]
I'm not a lawyer, but what I heard is 3d guns somehow does not fall under definition of firearm in US.
A couple of things regarding this:
Federally there is no law that says you can't print and carry your own gun, no serial number required.
However several states have strict laws and there are weird caveats. It has to be for personal use, cannot be sold or transferred and under the Undetectable Firearms Act any firearm that cannot be detected by a metal detector is illegal to manufacture, so legal designs for firearms such as 3d printed guns require a metal plate to be inserted into the printed body. Also online posting of plans for 3D-printed firearms require a license under the Export Administration Regulations issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security.
So if you design your own gun, or get one from a company that has an export license, print it and then ensure that it has enough metal in it to be detectable... Go for it, should be legal.
Guns with a serial number are generally also untraceable, since the serial number is not registered to anyone in most states.
Untraceable for what?
Almost all of them still use metal parts that can be x-rayed and still have barrels that leave ballistic fingerprints on bullets. Serial numbers don't make something GPS-tracked.
Untraceable in terms of ownership? There is no national firearm registry. Guns bought from FFLs require a NICS background check that is stored in an ATF database (of questionable legality), but private sale guns often don't require NICS so the database isn't an accurate registry of gun ownership.
And criminals scratch off serial numbers anyways.
And add on that any laws requiring serialization of privately-made firearms are only affecting nerds, not criminals. Criminals that are making guns because they can't pass a NICS background check will continue not adding serial numbers - because they're criminals.
Guns bought from FFLs require a NICS background check that is stored in an ATF database
NICS checks are not stored. Or at least they're not supposed to be. The firearms info is collected on a form 4473 in paper and kept at the FFL where the firearm is purchased.
But the ATF has been caught several times collecting these records and digitizing them in an attempt to create a registry.
No one really knows. It's a made-up term. But generally it consists of 3D-printed and "80% lower" receivers made at home. Firearms you build yourself don't legally require serial numbers.
Similar to "assault weapons"
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/wzwA1rzL7z8?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Sounds about right, I remember watching his content on that regards awhile ago when I was interested in the topic, before my state made them illegal that is.
Basically if you wanna operate a company hosted on servers in a specific place you're going to have to abide by the laws of that place. Or if you want the ability to do business in a specific place you'll need to abide by their laws even if you're not from that place.
3D Print General had one video where I recognized an AR-15 lower being printed in the background. The voice over was on the printer or filament (I forget).
Hoffman Tactical is still on YouTube. I was made aware of this channel when researching CF Nylon. HT has several promotional videos of his 80% printed AR rifle, and long discussions about which filament to use for which part of a rifle.
It's very inconsistent.
There are these periodic revolts against Youtube by creators who depend on them for their income due to Youtubes varous bullshit - which I agree with.
But, then they all just STFU and go back to continuing that dependence.
Why have none of these big creators banded to put their weight behind one of the fediverse alternatives? I am not ignorant with regard to the need for bandwidth, storage, and CPU to sustain these services, but I'm also not proposing anyone should just drop their lucrative Youtube situation and jump ship, either.
Get some of the big guys - especially the big tech Youtubers - to put their weight behind one of these alternatives, and I think it could build over time.
But it's not gonna happen until they do, so we just get a few dramatic events a year where everyone gets up in arms about how much Youtube sucks, and then returns to normal.
Edit: A bit disappointed how many replies seem to boil down to a belief that the Youtube business model is the only one that shall ever exist or ever could exist for content creators. Rome wasn't built in a day, ya'll. (And neither was youtube.)
To make a YouTube alternative you need a global ad platform, storage capacity for exabytes worth of data, a global network of CDNs, and a global payment system for creators. These all need to operate at a massive global scale delivering content to viewers.
No one but Google has this.
It's a sort of chicken-and-egg problem, also similar to the social media critical mass problem.
Creators won't move until the audience is there. Audience won't go until their favourite creators are there. Both won't move until the platform can handle the traffic, but the platform doesn't have the money to afford the required infrastructure until they have revenue coming in from large audiences...
Google is getting sued over that Global Ad Platform and teaming up with Facebook to control over 50% of the online Ad market
Google loses bid to keep Texas' ad tech lawsuit in New York https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/google-loses-bid-keep-texas-ad-tech-lawsuit-new-york-2023-10-04/
They are doing this with Nebula, even though that's not federated. Judging by the reviews of the Nebula app, they can't seem to get the usability of their app to an acceptable standard.
Nebula is great. The app certainly isnt streamlined, just a lot of clicks to get to the video(s) you want to watch
I wasn't aware of that, I'll check into it, thanks!
But, IMO, I think we're learning that services like that are inevitably going to be enshittified if not federated.
Why have none of these big creators banded to put their weight behind one of the fediverse alternatives?
Most alternatives, federated or otherwise, are shit.
If you've ever used PeerTube its nearly impossible to find any content because for some reason it is not federated like every other ActivityPub software.
Youtube lets you monetize videos - I'd assume you can make more (and earn a living) more easily there than via an alternative. I agree they should be looking at alternatives but until they can earn a living there I doubt much will change.
Nebula, Curiosity, Floatplane. The problem is not the videos, it's the revenue. Many popular YouTubers, don't actually make a living out of YouTube. But out of sponsored videos. Many more just live out of Patreon. For example, James Stephanie Sterling intentionally doesn't monetize the videos and intentionally break different copyrights with different litigious holders to avoid anyone monetizing the video (copyright lockdown). It's the ones who are way too small to live off of alternatives or don't fit other platform's brand that get left out to fend on their own against YTs gargantuan and irrational stranglehold monopoly on the space. There's simply not a large enough market of users willing to pay, Google made sure to make it that way.
For years YT has waged war against small niche channels. They don't bring enough ad revenue, unlike the MrBeasts and the Michael Brownlees level channels.
Even the biggest YouTubers don't make enough money to sustain something as large as YT. And if they wanted to, they would have to give seats and voice to the same type of undesirable stock bros that make Google the enshittified hellhole it is now.
Yeah. YouTube is a Stockholm syndrome type of addiction with them it seems. To my whine and bitch about YouTube’s shit policies, but continue to throw money at them.
I’ll never understand it.
Why have none of these big creators banded to put their weight behind one of the fediverse alternatives?
Because they can't make money from them. Are the fediverse alternatives going to have ads? Require a subscription plan? If their income will only come from in-video sponsors, then it doesn't matter if they don't have monetization on YouTube.
I just want to point this out: Louis Rossman is trying to fix this in a way, by allowing people to subscribe to a person and not one of their platforms, so if they get banned their new platform of choice will show up to all of their subscribers instead of them having to try and move their audience to a new nearly unused platform.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=R-QtwGfILTo
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What do you think public domain means? Cos I don't think it means what you think it means