this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2026
342 points (99.1% liked)

3DPrinting

23993 readers
465 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

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
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

This will get tossed. But here's why it's actually happening:

Gatalog and Polymaker both market through a network of influencers “specializing in 3D printed ghost gun content, as well as companies and individuals that illegally distribute [digital firearm manufacturing codes],” according to the suits.

Both also directly target state residents: Gatalog advertises a “California Compliant Glock 19-based Carbine kit,” while Polymakers’ website features Proposition 65 warnings and state-specific privacy opt-out features.

I mean yea, advertise your filament with YouTubers making guns, and you put yourself in the...oof.

[–] myyass@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 9 hours ago

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.

[–] FoxAlive@lemmy.zip 6 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 3 points 9 hours ago

They used to make guns out of umbrella parts.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FoxAlive@lemmy.zip 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 1 points 40 minutes ago

Ive alwaya assumed 3D printers were new enough that Genie could be put back in the bottle

[–] liimnok@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 hours ago

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.

[–] percent@infosec.pub 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jake_jake_jake_@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] percent@infosec.pub 4 points 13 hours ago

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"

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 12 points 16 hours ago

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.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 14 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Which makes the law useless. People with nefarious plans don't need ads. There really are just two possibilities, either it is repressive and overreaching or it is useless.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 4 points 14 hours ago

maybe we should be printing these

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

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

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 17 hours ago

I didn't write the article

[–] the16bitgamer@programming.dev 17 points 1 day ago

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

The USA is a joke

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 97 points 1 day ago

They used fear of guns to attack Right to Repair and small manufacturing. It was never about guns.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 112 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

hold on let me go sue home depot for selling black iron pipe and nails because someone made a pipe bomb. Nowhere has poly-maker ever advertised or suggested their speciality filaments could make firearms.

Someone's looking for a payout settlement, fuck California

[–] terranoid@lemmy.cafe 36 points 1 day ago (2 children)

you could literally make a shotgun with that too. Saw a YouTube video. Two pipes, one fit in the other, small one was the right size to hold a shell, and a nail at the end of the closed pipe triggered it if you used your hands to hit it.

Super effective and easy one shot shotgun. there's no real way to regulate guns IMO. They're not complicated devices.

[–] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

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

Same as it ever was.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 17 hours ago

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

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 146 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't tell them about pipes.

[–] Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 77 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I believe they'll eventually come for those too.

IMO the real end goal of these laws isn't to ban ghost guns, it's to ban plebs from being able to build or create anything at all. 3D printing a plastic piece to fix a broken tab in some gizmo cuts into corporate profits so a manufactured moral panic about ghost guns appears. I'm sure they'll eventually get to a pipe rifle moral panic at some point to lock down DIY plumbing.

[–] LongLive@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

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

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

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

[–] moonshadow@slrpnk.net 4 points 17 hours ago

We've been there before.

[–] BigTrout75@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Is this filament specifically designed for guns?

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 7 points 14 hours ago

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

[–] Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] nanometer1625@thelemmy.club 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like the lawsuit is on thin ice, then.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago

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.

This seems awfully familiar to the gun crackdowns after the Black Panthers started using them for self defense.

load more comments
view more: next ›