California passes bill requiring gun-blocking software in 3D printers

[mbrowne5061]

A gun is not a one piece deal. A Gun is made of multiple pieces working together. As far as I know, the metal parts of the gun: barrel, firing pin, springs, etc are not printed / printable

At this point, the 3D printed gun technology has evolved to the point where pretty much everything except the barrel (and other pressure-containing parts) is printable.

Typically, these designs aren't clones of pre-existing "real" guns; you don't 3D scan a bunch of glock parts, print them, assemble them, and expect them to work. Instead, most people who are 3D printing guns are either designing them from scratch, or printing ones that were designed by someone else by scratch.

I have an Ultimaker 3D Printer. I would rather just buy a professionally made firearm than risk a plastic ghost gun exploding in my hands. The real question is what will happen when technology gets better and suppressors are easier to make.

This includes suppressors.

Rent unaffordability
Housing unaffordability
Disappearing job market
Romanceless, horrible dating market
High taxes
high insurance
inflation

None of those cause criminal violence.

Their point is if you address these issues, you reduce crime, which reduces violence, which reduces fatalities from gun violence. Its all connected. If people feel like they have a future, like they have already built something and will build more, they are far less likely to rock the boat, just in general.

So I've never owned a 3d printer, don't really have much use for it I think, but, it seems now might be the time to acquire one. any recommendations on a quality device, reasonably priced, fully open-source, that I can buy to flip the bird at our craven representatives?

LDO makes good Voron kits. Voron is entirely open source, and runs Klipper. And if Klipper ever stops being the 'latest hotness', you can pretty easily swap control boards to whatever the hardware/software moves to. Its a good place to start for fully-open source and reasonably priced.
Just keep in mind that when it comes to print volumes, while it is tempted to get a 350mm^2 monster of a Voron 2.4, that size chamber can be tricky to get above 60C (and 60C is right when filaments like ASA and ABS finally start getting just warm enough to get good layer adhesion). Don't overlook a printer with a bed around 250mm^2 or 300mm^2. Or even something smaller, like a Voron 0, at 150mm^2. Unless you need that print area, don't be afraid to go with the smaller volume printer.

The only single way this can work is with a database of parts files like how virus detection software works. You can only stop circulated files known to be an assembly for a weapon.

Any other circumstance is nothing but a waste of resources. Any 3D printer operator can just make new files to make their own gun and there is no detection that work other than barrel rifling that can suggest a part is weapons based. 3D printing is a craft for engineers guess what they like to do as a hobby if not a living? Construct a solution to a problem. This is a nearly 90% impossible task thats just putting people down at their own expense.

Except viruses are complex, compared to guns. And viruses are trying to exploit specific vulnerabilities; there is a defined "goal" to stick the "goalie" into. You could never keep that database up-to-date for guns.

 

[Gravitytr1]

When higher quality full color printers/copiers came along, people were printing fake money.
Now, with all of the "chips/software" inside, unless you copy forbidden items in b&w, enlarged,
or reduced, they won't print.
I remember about 20 years ago, I got a service call for a color copier at a local police department
in the "drug" unit. Copier threw a code, and it wasn't in our book. Hotline said were they copying
money. Turns out the undercover guys were going to make a drug buy and wanted to document
the money they were going to use.
Had to have a company guy come down from the east coast with a "secret software" update to
get the machine back up and running.
Today, they just refuse to copy.
And, even if you don't copy a prohibited item, there is still a tiny row of VERY light yellow dots along
the X & Y parts of the copy with a code that gives the date, time, serial number of the machine etc.

This seems to be no different.

Both should be illegal. Gov needs to stop shifting the burden of doing their jobs on to the people. And they keep adding new taxes.

 

[Endymio]

Between 2011 and 2021, only 1.9% of California's corporate headquarters left the state representing a microscopic 0.4% of the total State workforce.

Oops! That report from California's PPI actually stated 1.9% to 3% left the state by 2021-- and also stated that the trend had accelerated dramatically after 2021.

Companies headquartered in California are increasingly moving out of state, and fewer are relocating to California - Public Policy Institute of California

www.ppic.org

California is also now losing population for the first time in its entire history, despite millions of unskilled low-income, illegal immigrants flooding into the state.

 

[JMGuy]

Oops! That report from California's PPI actually stated 1.9% to 3% left the state by 2021-- and also stated that the trend had accelerated dramatically after 2021.

Companies headquartered in California are increasingly moving out of state, and fewer are relocating to California - Public Policy Institute of California

www.ppic.org

California is also now losing population for the first time in its entire history, despite millions of unskilled low-income, illegal immigrants flooding into the state.

I’m really not sure what your point is. You’re arguing a nuance that has, mathematically, zero baring on CAs market dominance as a whole.

Companies don't need to be headquartered in CA to be controlled by it. With a $3.9 trillion economy and 39 million consumers, it is the fifth-largest economy in the world.

No major corporation will walk away from a market that size. Because it is too expensive to manufacture two different versions of a product, companies simply default to CAs strict rules nationwide. Whether a CEO's mailbox is in Austin or Silicon Valley, they still have to build to CAs standards to sell to 12% of the US population. There aren’t so many people moving out of CA that it is changing that needle in any meaningful, market-leveraging way.

Moving a headquarters and a subset of people is just paperwork and tax revenue. The market leverage here is basic math.

 

[Endymio]

I’m really not sure what your point is. You’re arguing a nuance that has, mathematically, zero baring on CAs market dominance as a whole.

An exponentially-accelerating trend of corporations leaving the state is not a "mathematically zero" effect. Nor is data from more than five years ago relevant to what's happening today.

Companies don't need to be headquartered in CA to be controlled by it.

Companies headquartered outside California don't provide high-paying tech jobs in the state; they pay a far smaller amount of taxes into state coffers, and they must adhere to a far smaller subset of California laws and regulations. With California running the largest deficits in history, losing tax dollars and high-paying jobs is indeed a serious issue ... especially when they've added millions of illegals to state welfare rolls.

No major corporation will walk away from a market that size.

Except some major corporations already are. Look at the list of insurance companies, for instance, that refuse to do business in CA due to their inane regulatory policies.

You're also wrong that no companies will "manufacture two different versions of a product". There are already hundreds of CA-specific products for sale in the state; even some automobiles with CA-specific emission systems.

 

[bclaymiles]

Their point is if you address these issues, you reduce crime, which reduces violence, which reduces fatalities from gun violence. Its all connected. If people feel like they have a future, like they have already built something and will build more, they are far less likely to rock the boat, just in general.

Except that addressing those issues does not affect violent crime. Full stop. Violent crime has been trending downward in the US since 1991 - with a few obvious blips, like COVID. Contrarily, when the US went into recession consequent to the 2008 Credit Default Swap derivatives financial implosion - violent crime continued to drop. Unaffected by it. Those were harder times than they are now.

The connection between poverty and violent crime held until the last few decades. Violent crime is now largely a sociological issue, not addressed via the topics listed in OP's vague statement.

 

[bclaymiles]

LDO makes good Voron kits. Voron is entirely open source, and runs Klipper. And if Klipper ever stops being the 'latest hotness', you can pretty easily swap control boards to whatever the hardware/software moves to. Its a good place to start for fully-open source and reasonably priced.
Just keep in mind that when it comes to print volumes, while it is tempted to get a 350mm^2 monster of a Voron 2.4, that size chamber can be tricky to get above 60C (and 60C is right when filaments like ASA and ABS finally start getting just warm enough to get good layer adhesion). Don't overlook a printer with a bed around 250mm^2 or 300mm^2. Or even something smaller, like a Voron 0, at 150mm^2. Unless you need that print area, don't be afraid to go with the smaller volume printer.

Thanks.

 

[JMGuy]

An exponentially-accelerating trend of corporations leaving the state is not a "mathematically zero" effect. Nor is data from more than five years ago relevant to what's happening today.


Companies headquartered outside California don't provide high-paying tech jobs in the state; they pay a far smaller amount of taxes into state coffers, and they must adhere to a far smaller subset of California laws and regulations. With California running the largest deficits in history, losing tax dollars and high-paying jobs is indeed a serious issue ... especially when they've added millions of illegals to state welfare rolls.


Except some major corporations already are. Look at the list of insurance companies, for instance, that refuse to do business in CA due to their inane regulatory policies.

You're also wrong that no companies will "manufacture two different versions of a product". There are already hundreds of CA-specific products for sale in the state; even some automobiles with CA-specific emission systems.

Your entire argument relies on sensational headlines rather than actual macroeconomic math.

The Insurance False Equivalency: Insurance is a hyper-localized risk business. You cannot equate wildfire risk with the tech, retail, agriculture, or manufacturing sectors. Apple, Google, Walmart, and Toyota do not care about wildfire risk pools when selling iPhones, digital services, groceries, or cars to 39 million wealthy consumers.

The Product Customization Self-Own: Thank you for proving my point for me. Think about the astronomical cost of auto manufacturing. Re-engineering power trains, splitting assembly lines, and managing dual supply chains costs hundreds of millions. If California lacked market dominance, car companies would simply refuse to sell there.

The Real Math: Auto giants willingly swallow massive secondary manufacturing costs just to retain access to California's consumer base. That is the literal textbook definition of absolute market dominance. Furthermore, under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, 17 other states legally tether themselves to California's standards. CA doesn't just dominate its own borders; its consumer base dictates production for nearly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market.

You didn't disprove my point; your own examples perfectly illustrate it. Corporations will gladly swallow massive regulatory and manufacturing costs before they ever walk away from a market that big.

This argument is tired. Believe what you want.

 

[JMGuy]

An exponentially-accelerating trend of corporations leaving the state is not a "mathematically zero" effect. Nor is data from more than five years ago relevant to what's happening today.


Companies headquartered outside California don't provide high-paying tech jobs in the state; they pay a far smaller amount of taxes into state coffers, and they must adhere to a far smaller subset of California laws and regulations. With California running the largest deficits in history, losing tax dollars and high-paying jobs is indeed a serious issue ... especially when they've added millions of illegals to state welfare rolls.


Except some major corporations already are. Look at the list of insurance companies, for instance, that refuse to do business in CA due to their inane regulatory policies.

You're also wrong that no companies will "manufacture two different versions of a product". There are already hundreds of CA-specific products for sale in the state; even some automobiles with CA-specific emission systems.

Your entire argument relies on sensational headlines rather than actual macroeconomic math.

The Insurance False Equivalency: Insurance is a hyper-localized risk business. You cannot equate wildfire risk with the tech, retail, agriculture, or manufacturing sectors. Apple, Google, Walmart, and Toyota do not care about wildfire risk pools when selling iPhones, digital services, groceries, or cars to 39 million wealthy consumers.

The Product Customization Self-Own: Thank you for proving my point for me. Think about the astronomical cost of auto manufacturing. Re-engineering power trains, splitting assembly lines, and managing dual supply chains costs hundreds of millions. If California lacked market dominance, car companies would simply refuse to sell there.

The Real Math: Auto giants willingly swallow massive secondary manufacturing costs just to retain access to California's consumer base. That is the literal textbook definition of absolute market dominance. Furthermore, under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, 17 other states legally tether themselves to California's standards. CA doesn't just dominate its own borders; its consumer base dictates production for nearly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market.

You didn't disprove my point; your own examples perfectly illustrate it. Corporations will gladly swallow massive regulatory and manufacturing costs before they ever walk away from a market that big.

This argument is tired. Believe what you want.

 

[TooQik]

No. the 5 years afterwards had a higher average murder rate than the 5 years before. The only reason I used the rate from the 1950s was in counter to your reference to long-term trends, rather than the period immediately after the gun confiscations.

Rather than any more to and fro, I'm just going to post this link that shows the trend in homicide rates per 100,000 people for Australia between 1990 and 2021:

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/aus/australia/murder-homicide-rate

Unfortunately this particular graph doesn't go back to the 1950's, which is it did would show a rate over 1.0.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Except that addressing those issues does not affect violent crime. Full stop. Violent crime has been trending downward in the US since 1991 - with a few obvious blips, like COVID. Contrarily, when the US went into recession consequent to the 2008 Credit Default Swap derivatives financial implosion - violent crime continued to drop. Unaffected by it. Those were harder times than they are now.

The connection between poverty and violent crime held until the last few decades. Violent crime is now largely a sociological issue, not addressed via the topics listed in OP's vague statement.

What would you suggest it is affected by, then?

 

[Shaitan]

Another 1mb3c1l3 idea, following the "Linux verification age" one.
I thought that the Orange Dementia Don is the most st.. id human being in existence.
Thank God the Democrats are just as 1d10t1c.

 

[Endymio]

You didn't disprove my point; your own examples perfectly illustrate it.

You claim "no company will make CA-specific versions of products", I show examples otherwise, and you shout, "that proves my point!". You claim that a corporate HQ fleeing the state means losing "only a couple of CEO" jobs. I show these mean the loss of thousands, sometimes 10,000+ jobs, and you say "that proves my point!"

Whatever. It's not even relevant to my point, which is that California's hyper-regulatory government is eroding its tax base and causing its own citizens to flee in record numbers.

 

[JMGuy]

Whatever. It's not even relevant to my point, which is that California's hyper-regulatory government is eroding its tax base and causing its own citizens to flee in record numbers.

I never argued against this. It is irrelevant to point I was making. Both can be true. Moving on already.

 

[jeffbert]

Manufacturing your own gun is protected under the second amendment, so long as you follow all federally and locally applicable restrictions: e.g. can't print yourself a suppressor or assemble SBR without getting yourself an ATF tax stamp for it first, you can't make a gun that would fail any local 'feature test', you can't make a gun if you don't have a license to possess a gun and you live in a state/municipality that requires licensing, etc. The only time the federal government is if you start making guns with the intent to sell them, without getting an appropriate FFL first. Hell, you can even sell guns you make (I.e. make a gun, use it for a little while, decide you don't want it anymore, sell it), you just can't make ones solely to sell without doing the ATF paperwork first (I.e. someone commissions you to make them a gun that you will never use beyond basic QA testing).

So, pray tell: why is 3D printing special here? The ATF and even the most gun-restrictive states have said (up until now) that while 3D printing doesn't get you around gun regulations, printing a gun is still legal to do.

I actually went digging through Everytown's website, and man, do they love to bury their citations (most of which are just news stories about arrests, and not even news stories about convictions; and the rest are just legal citations that affirm "yes, a 3D printed gun is still a gun"). Here is what I found:

Their webpage on 3D printed guns:
https://everytownresearch.org/repor...actions-are-needed-to-combat-3d-printed-guns/

Their only scientific citation that I found on this page so far:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X24000111

Which reports only 110 cases for all of North America, the bulk of which were parts like grips and other accessories that aren't legally the "firearm" in most jurisdictions. It also mixes legal cases involving 3D printed firearms, buybacks, and sales - without making a distinction in whether the firearm itself violated any laws (e.g. not serialized when required, not registered when required, having features that are banned in the relevant jurisdiction, etc). It simply just said "how many unique 3D printed firearms can we find online?" Their own conclusion states:

"In conclusion, although it is apparent from this data that the production or use of 3D-printed firearms appears to be marginal, it nevertheless shows that it is a trend that is now widespread throughout the world."

All this is to say, globally speaking, cases of 3D printed 'anything' related to firearms went from around 5-10 in North America, to 110. That is where the "1,000% increase" came from. Always be skeptical of large percentages; small numbers lead to large percents.

Much ado about nothing. If this law passes, and CA actually tries to enforce it, I expect to see a federal case made of it that will go to SCOTUS, on the grounds of at least 1st and 2nd amendment violations, and possibly 4th (how is government scanning of files without a warrant not a 4th amendment violation?) It'll be a waste of tax dollars to enact this law.

Edit:
Put another way: why would a criminal spend thousands of dollars on a printer & materials, go through months or years of learning to use it well enough to print a functional & reliable gun, just to print a gun? They're not. They're just going to buy a gun from someone willing to ignore the laws around transfers and licensing. And anyone who is buying a printer to make guns to sell is already in violation of federal law, unless they have the appropriate FFLs to do so, and also follow the laws around transfers for their jurisdiction.

I.e. this "edge case" is not actually an edge case and is already covered by existing laws.

I would edit your post to replace "Can't" with "may not" if I could.

 

[Tantor]

Almost all crime rates are higher today than the 1950's. There was no such thing as 'school shooting'. A good friend said he and his friends used to bring their 22 rifles to school and store them in the lockers. After school they would go hunting. It was not an issue.

Crime rates went up dramatically during the 1960's and the Leftist inspired hippie era. Free sex, drugs, love, etc. That's the legacy of unrestrained Leftist mentality.

Black crime is especially bad now. Young black males commit over 50% of all homicides while being about 5% of the population.

 

[bclaymiles]

What would you suggest it is affected by, then?

Boys growing up in fatherless homes. Lack of education (far too many young people 'graduate' from K-12 unable to read). A culture of 'I'm a victim' coupled with 'It's all their fault'. Demonization of fundamentals of an orderly society. No foundation of empathy. Most prominently, the still going, still failed, War on Some Drugs.

The most important thing, that people routinely gloss over, is that the vast majority of people do not engage in violent crime - and this is regardless of whether they can pay the rent, buy a home, find a job, "a bad dating market" (that one is loopy), high taxes, high insurance, or high inflation.

Trying to stuff every structural shortcoming in society into being causes of violent crime is no more meaningful, useful, valid, or effective than banning 3d printed guns which have been around for more than a decade and appear in violent crime at a rate that falls in the noise.

 

[bclaymiles]

Almost all crime rates are higher today than the 1950's. There was no such thing as 'school shooting'. A good friend said he and his friends used to bring their 22 rifles to school and store them in the lockers. After school they would go hunting. It was not an issue.

Crime rates went up dramatically during the 1960's and the Leftist inspired hippie era. Free sex, drugs, love, etc. That's the legacy of unrestrained Leftist mentality.

Black crime is especially bad now. Young black males commit over 50% of all homicides while being about 5% of the population.

You left out a rather significant aspect of that, which informs the problem to some degree:

Yes, black males between the ages of 15 and 34 commit more than 50% of all homicides.

And who are their victims?

Black males between the ages of 15 and 34.

That nobody is 'allowed' to talk about that is madness. It's a damned self-inflicted holocaust, but no, nobody is allowed to discuss it because it's "a distraction".

 

[JamesBlond]

The dumbest people trying to make laws to stop guns being printed..LOL.the level of stupid in California is -100% less brains for democrats... laws don't stop people making using stealing robbing....People stop people

 

[sks9988]

If the California legis-morons wanted to do something about 3d printed guns, they should have simply regulated the sale of gun parts kits instead of 3d printers and increased the criminal penalties for manufacturing firearms. 99.9% of printed guns require currently unregulated standard parts kits in order to build, so they should have regulated sale of those parts kits to California residents. Problem solved.

Better yet, they should have just taken the more common-sense route that Colorado ended up with their legislation. Make manufacturing 3d printed guns an explicit crime and then actually deal with the criminals instead of trying to legislate something that can't be legislated with existing technology against everyone.

Unfortunately, though, common sense is completely and fatally absent in any way, shape, or form in California's legislature and governor's office.

 

[mbrowne5061]

I would edit your post to replace "Can't" with "may not" if I could.

Sure. That would be the more "legalese" way to phrase it. You "can" do anything, even when you "may not" be permitted to.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Boys growing up in fatherless homes. Lack of education (far too many young people 'graduate' from K-12 unable to read). A culture of 'I'm a victim' coupled with 'It's all their fault'. Demonization of fundamentals of an orderly society. No foundation of empathy. Most prominently, the still going, still failed, War on Some Drugs.

The most important thing, that people routinely gloss over, is that the vast majority of people do not engage in violent crime - and this is regardless of whether they can pay the rent, buy a home, find a job, "a bad dating market" (that one is loopy), high taxes, high insurance, or high inflation.

Trying to stuff every structural shortcoming in society into being causes of violent crime is no more meaningful, useful, valid, or effective than banning 3d printed guns which have been around for more than a decade and appear in violent crime at a rate that falls in the noise.

Sure - I can agree with all of what you said for the most part.

But I don't necessarily think the reasons you listed are mutually exclusive from things like affordability, economic opportunity, and social opportunity, either. If anything, they are all just different facets of each other. How many boys would see their social lives improve - including dating - if they had positive male role models/responsible fathers in their life? If you improved education - allowed teachers to actually fail students who didn't deserve to pass, because they didn't do the work - you would see their job prospects improve after graduation. As some examples.

"The War on Some Drugs" is an excellent way to put it, too. Crack down on the lower and middle classes for using weed, but give executives using cocaine a pass.

IMO, as you point out, the vast majority of people don't engage in crime. And of those that do, fewer engage in violent ones, and fewer still do so enthusiastically or even willingly. Crime is a result of fear and desperation. So if you can make people feel more secure in their lives and future, you should see a reduction in all anti-social behavior. It'll never go to zero, but you can get closer to zero.

All that is to say: going after guns, 3D printed or otherwise, is trying to treat the symptoms, not the causes, of violence.

 

[JMGuy]

Crime is a result of fear and desperation.

the vast majority of people do not engage in violent crime

Reducing all crime, and violent crime in particular, to just "fear and desperation" is an oversimplification that fails under scrutiny.

While those factors can certainly drive some survival-based offenses, violent crime quite often stems from an entirely different set of psychological and social roots. Many acts are driven by a pure desire for power, dominance, and control over other people.

Hate crimes, are often motivated by deep-seated malice, prejudice, and ideology rather than personal fear. Gang violence frequently stems from a culture of pride, reputation, and peer status. Even thrill-seeking and a lack of empathy play major roles in random acts of violent crime.

When we use blanket statements like this, we erase the many other distinct realities of why people engage in crime and/or violence. People, and the reasons they resort to crime/violence, are far too dynamic and complex to reduce to such simple narratives.

Most violent acts are not public, predictable events; they are premeditated or occur suddenly and impulsively, and behind closed doors where outside intervention cannot reach. Because it’s a small group operating outside typical human behavior—often driven by irrational rage, severe psychological traits, or a total lack of empathy—they are entirely unaffected by standard societal rules or deterrents.

We cannot speak realistically about addressing violent crime effectively without confronting the full spectrum of human malice and behavior. Reductionism, on this topic especially, is a siren song that’s easy to engage in but absolutely toxic to deploy in practice. IMHO.

 

[bclaymiles]

Sure - I can agree with all of what you said for the most part.

But I don't necessarily think the reasons you listed are mutually exclusive from things like affordability, economic opportunity, and social opportunity, either. If anything, they are all just different facets of each other.

I disagree, respectfully. I'm sorry, but people don't commit violent crimes due to high taxes. While structural shortcomings - inherent in any system governing people - may have influence on the behaviors of people, they're far divorced from being proximate causes. Too far removed.

In my lifetime I've paid high rent, didn't purchase our house until I was 42 years old due to the high cost, struggled finding work after being laid off six months after buying that house, I'll have to take a pass on the bad dating market idea, having been with my wife 36 years, have paid outrageous taxes, my home insurance and quake insurance alone approach $5k/year, and there's lots of other insurance necessary in the modern world, and inflation is an ever-present fact in any economy, healthy or otherwise.

None of that has ever inclined me to violence. I don't hold myself up as some shining exemplar of ethical living; instead, I'm like 99% of other people: violence is anathema.

How many boys would see their social lives improve - including dating - if they had positive male role models/responsible fathers in their life? If you improved education - allowed teachers to actually fail students who didn't deserve to pass, because they didn't do the work - you would see their job prospects improve after graduation. As some examples.

Sure - there are always interrelations amongst causes. I believe that collectivist ideologies are at the root of a lot of the rot, but the solution there is to unwind the collectivist tangle, not heaping on more of it.

"The War on Some Drugs" is an excellent way to put it, too. Crack down on the lower and middle classes for using weed, but give executives using cocaine a pass.

IMO, as you point out, the vast majority of people don't engage in crime. And of those that do, fewer engage in violent ones, and fewer still do so enthusiastically or even willingly. Crime is a result of fear and desperation. So if you can make people feel more secure in their lives and future, you should see a reduction in all anti-social behavior. It'll never go to zero, but you can get closer to zero.

I disagree that crime - or at least, violent crime which is the underlying issue discussed - is due to fear and desparation. As I said, cultural issues underly a lot of it, a simple disregard for human life, and greed (and not greed spawned by poverty) are real drivers. None of this stuff is easily fixed, but it's best to reach for the low hanging fruit, first. Stop incentivizing single-motherhood. Teach fundamentals, not gender ideology, to children. Incentivize mentoring those young men who lack a present father.

All that is to say: going after guns, 3D printed or otherwise, is trying to treat the symptoms, not the causes, of violence.

On that we agree. I think where we disagree is largely in nuances, not binary good/bad.

And techspot is the last place I'd expect to have had a thoughtful discussion.

 

[wizardB]

Just another insane California law that they will never be able to enforce. Californian politicians are like a bowl of bran cereal...what isn't fruit or flakes is just nuts.