3DPrinting

24001 readers

581 users here now

3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.

The r/functionalprint community is now located at: or !functionalprint@fedia.io

There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml

Rules

No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
Do not create links to reddit
If you see an issue please flag it
No guns
No injury gore posts

If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe/ may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is ![](URL)

Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

j4k3@lemmy.world

andypiper@lemmy.world

GrayBackgroundMusic@lemmy.zip

378

New California ghost gun lawsuit takes aim at company that sells 3-D printer filament (www.latimes.com)

submitted 1 day ago by jballs@sh.itjust.works to c/3dprinting@lemmy.world

126 comments fedilink hide all child comments

San Diego County jumped into California’s sprawling ghost gun fight this week, suing a 3-D printing filament manufacturer it says hocks material for homespun firearms in violation of state law.

Working with the Giffords Law Center, the county counsel sued manufacturer Polymaker, alleging the company made a “strategic business choice” to market and sell 3-D printer filament to Californians for the express purpose of building illegal weapons. The polymer filament is sold in spools that feed into 3-D printers, allowing the devices to form designs created by their owners.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] percent@infosec.pub 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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"

[–] Darkonion@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

I have seen sometimes where the author of the article will include the amount of time given for a response to give context. I like that quite a bit. On the other hand, some companies make it exceedingly difficult to contact them or throw you into a maze of powerless and uninformed underlings.