Liberal lawmakers propose strict bill to control 3-D printer sales
Liberal Lawmakers Propose Draconian New Bill to Regulate, Restrict Purchase of 3-D Printers
Leave it to New York to come up with a new plan for governmental overreach.
A bill introduced in October and currently in the committee stage in the New York State Assembly would require criminal history background checks for the purchase of three-dimensional printers capable of creating firearms.
Sponsored by Democratic Assembly Member Jenifer Rajkumar, the bill is rooted in growing fears about the inability to track unlicensed “ghost guns” created by 3-D printers.
According to Rajkumar’s memorandum on her proposal, 3-D printers “allow people to buy, make, and sell untraceable guns without any background checks.” The new legislation will ensure that these phantom firearms won’t “get in the wrong hands,” she said.
However, 3-D printer owners who use them to create firearms are in the “extreme minority,” according to Ammoland.
While the bill is still far from becoming law, the fact that a New York state lawmaker even proposed this measure with a straight face is ludicrous.
Well, ludicrous, but not unexpected.
Liberal politicians have a long history of governmental overreach, especially in New York.
In 2013, then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg instituted a deeply unpopular ban on large sodas that was eventually reversed by the New York Court of Appeals, stating the Board of Health had “exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority,” according to The New York Times.
In 2020, along with its draconian COVID-19 restrictions, New York City banned plastic bags, and New York is still in the throes of intense debates regarding its proposed ban on stun guns.
Banning something, however, doesn’t necessarily make it go away. Banning plastic bags won’t magically save the environment, banning large sodas won’t magically cure obesity, and banning all firearms won’t magically cure the crime plaguing the largest city in the United States.
But the purpose of these bans has never been about curing our societal ills.
Whether our enlightened lawmakers admit it or not, these efforts have always been about exerting control.
Anyone who wants to kill will find a way regardless of the red tape in his way. For instance, the man who killed former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in “gun-free” Japan created a weapon with materials easily obtainable at an average hardware store.
Political violence is rare in Japan, a country with strict gun regulations. The gun used in the shooting of Shinzo Abe appeared to be a home-made firearm https://t.co/7yj5STgXit pic.twitter.com/PrxnqviU7G
— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) July 8, 2022
If someone is deranged enough to go on a killing spree, no legislation against specific kinds of weapons will hinder him.
Instead, this ban would only make life more difficult for ordinary people who just want a 3-D printer to easily replace common household objects, bring unique designs to life or play around with for their amusement and enrichment.
Imagine having to undergo a criminal background check to buy a set of chef knives or a baseball bat simply because some people have used those knives or a bat to kill or maim someone. If this bill passes, ordinary New Yorkers will face the same treatment for wanting to 3-D print a new fidget spinner.
As is all too common in the long history of liberals enacting sweeping plans for their imagined utopias, those in favor of the bill have overlooked or obscured its consequences.
Instead of deterring crime, they want to treat ordinary people like criminals while the criminals roam the streets unmolested.
Which, in liberal cities, is a depressing pattern we’ve seen far too many times before.
The post Liberal Lawmakers Propose Draconian New Bill to Regulate, Restrict Purchase of 3-D Printers appeared first on The Western Journal.
How effective have bans and restrictions been in addressing societal issues, such as plastic waste or obesity?
Lations. So when a former prime minister was assassinated with a homemade weapon, it was a shock. The incident serves as a reminder that determined individuals will find a way around any restrictions imposed on them. The proposed bill in New York to regulate and restrict the purchase of 3-D printers is just another example of misguided government overreach.
The primary argument behind the bill is the fear of untraceable “ghost guns” being created using 3-D printers. While this concern may have some validity, it is important to note that those who use 3-D printers to create firearms are an extreme minority. The vast majority of 3-D printer owners use their machines for legitimate purposes such as creating prototypes, models, or other non-lethal items. Placing burdensome regulations on the purchase of 3-D printers based on the actions of a few individuals is an unfair and unnecessary infringement on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
This proposed bill also raises the question of the effectiveness of bans and restrictions. History has shown us that simply banning something does not make it disappear. The ban on plastic bags in New York City did not magically solve the environmental issues related to plastic waste. Likewise, banning large sodas did not cure obesity. These measures are more about exerting control over the population than addressing the root causes of these problems.
The same can be said for the proposed ban on stun guns and the desire to regulate 3-D printers. These efforts are not about preventing crime or ensuring public safety. They are about imposing ideological agendas and asserting control over the citizens. Criminals and those with malicious intent will find a way to obtain weapons regardless of the regulations in place. The focus should be on addressing the underlying societal issues that lead to crime, rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Furthermore, the proposed bill is not only unnecessary, but it is also impractical. How does the government plan to enforce criminal background checks for the purchase of 3-D printers? Is every 3-D printer owner going to be subjected to a background check? Will this lead to a registry of 3-D printer owners? These logistical and privacy concerns are important to consider before implementing such a regulation.
It is important that lawmakers approach these issues with a balanced perspective, taking into consideration both the potential risks and the rights of the individuals involved. Instead of proposing draconian measures that restrict the purchase of 3-D printers, efforts should be focused on education, raising awareness about the potential risks associated with the creation of untraceable firearms, and promoting responsible use of this technology.
New York should not be leading the charge in implementing laws that infringe on the rights of its citizens. Instead, it should be promoting freedom, individual responsibility, and respect for the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The proposed bill to regulate and restrict the purchase of 3-D printers is an example of misguided government overreach and should be met with strong opposition by those who value their rights and freedoms.
Citizens should be vigilant in holding their elected officials accountable and ensuring that proposed legislation respects their rights and serves the best interests of the people. The fight against governmental overreach starts with awareness and active participation in the democratic process.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
