GPLv3 doesn't entitle you to signing keys or the ability to remove them: you can release, compile, and inspect the source which will ostensibly still be provided - but not practically use it on the hardware you purchased.
The SFC (the only GPL enforcers at the moment) disagree; they say that both GPLv2 and GPLv3 require the ability for users to install modified versions on their devices.
> “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
> If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
Ah yeah, maybe it's easier than they make it seem, but I've found PCBWay preferable for small batch assembly because they just take a list of MPNs and give you back a quote, which is the service that I really want. Preordering etc. is detail that I don't really want to care about.
This is exactly what I like about JLC - the fact that some human doesn't have to be involved in the quoting process and that I can select parts from LCSC. The software handles everything.
Getting a human involved in quoting makes it more expensive and it gives these vendors an opportunity to BOM substitute for cheaper Chinese alternative parts.
Totally fair that you prefer JLC's approach. There's clearly room in the market for different models.
Part substitution is mainly a question of trust. As far as I understand it, you preorder parts through JLC's website, so JLC could easily automatically sub out your passives if they wanted to. For all that people worry about this a lot, I'm not sure if the incentive to do it is really there for shops like JLC or PCBWay. The components that are easy to substitute are cheap anyway, and these companies can easily just pass on any additional cost to the customer. I'm not personally going to haggle with PCBWay over a few additional pennies for a chip resistor or ceramic capacitor, given that the entire service is mind-blowingly cheap.
From purely a technical standpoint: the printer indiscriminately adds tracking dots to all documents, the proposed 3D printer regulation requires the printer to phone home and make some dispositive call on what it's allowed to do.
Omitting subtractive methods makes it rather toothless, since there have been places you can go to push a button to start a mill making you a receiver (which is the part that is considered "the gun" to address ship-of-theseus questions aboug guns), then you can add the other parts yourself.
I believe these events/places where folks were pressing a button to go from billet to receiver were shut down by BATFE some years ago (see ATF Ruling 2015-1 - https://www.atf.gov/media/19161/download)
> An FFL or unlicensed machine shop may also desire to make available its machinery (e.g., a computer numeric control or "CNC" machine), tools, or equipment to individuals who bring in raw materials, blanks, unfinished frames or receivers and/or other firearm parts for the purpose of creating operable firearms. Under the instruction or supervision of the FFL or unlicensed machine shop, the customers would initiate and/or manipulate the machinery, tools, or equipment to complete the frame or receiver, or entire weapon. The FFL or unlicensed machine shop would typically charge a fee for such activity, or receive some other form of compensation or benefit. This activity may occur either at a fixed premises, such as a machine shop, or a temporary location, such as a gun show or event.
> A business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements under the GCA simply by allowing individuals to initiate or manipulate a CNC machine, or to use machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion or control to perform manufacturing processes on blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or incomplete weapons. In these cases, the business controls access to, and use of, its machinery, tools, and equipment. Following manufacture, the business "distributes" a firearm when it returns or otherwise disposes a finished frame or receiver, or complete weapon to its customer. Such individuals or entities are, therefore, "engaged in the business" of manufacturing firearms even though unlicensed individuals may have assisted them in the manufacturing process.
More importantly, what is the barrel made out of? Yes, I know there’s some fully printed guns… but my understanding is that those are basically 1-time use and even then it’s questionable how reliable that single use actually is…
If you want something resembling an actual gun (more than one shot, won’t blow up in your hand, some reasonable chance of accuracy, etc), then you’re going to be using multiple metal components (including the bullets of course) all of which would show up on a metal detector.
And I'd argue that shell casings are probably harder to manufacture than a fully working firearm. The equipment needed to manufacture working ammunition end-to-end is pretty serious.
[Primers are a legitimately difficult thing to manufacture]
thats a problem that may not endure. if a firearm is reengineered to use an electrode to detonate charge rather than a chemical primer, there is no need for murcury fulminate, just a piezo electric spark generator, and a few square cm of cerebral cortex.
Electronic primers are a thing that already exists commercially. In the early 2000s, Remington sold electronically primed hunting rifles next to their non-electronic equivalent (see: "EtronX").
It is a mature technology. The main issue is cost and simplicity, since it often requires adding electronics to weapons that normally would not require them. The military uses electronically primed cartridges for things like chain guns and autocannons, since those require electronics to fire regardless of how it is primed.
yes ive seen them they are called exotic by most people around me.
yes the very nature of a chain cannon, makes electronic priming,the easier way to go.
so far we can still go to the store with 20$ and come back with a 200pk of 209s,
someday that might be not so easy, and electronic is the better/only way.
It completely eliminates the physics and durability considerations of firing pin design.
For chemical primers there is a non-trivial lag between the trigger breaking and the firing pin being accelerated to sufficient velocity such that it ignites the primer. The mechanics of maximizing acceleration of the firing pin is adversarial to durability, reliability, and precision in a number of respects. In automatic weapons it is made worse because the same physics must run in reverse to support the desired rate of fire.
With electronic primers, you mostly only need to worry about switching electric power fast enough (trivial). The relatively fragile firing pin mechanics don't need to exist. But you do need electronics, which has its own issues.
its a good thing too, it not very stable, and mercury is not nice.
but its not difficult to manufacture, if we are in the scenario of shortage or absconderance of products.
lead styphnate is common use, but not everyone is happy with lead either.
i have a couple boxes of non lead primers, they smell different when they go off but i havnt encountered noticible difference compared to lead primers.
Ferrous metals aren't required for any modern security-screening metal detectors: these materials are still highly electrically conductive, and therefore easily-detectable eddy currents are still inducible.
I've always felt if you really want to impact election fraud, tax the hell out of votes. Like $1,000/vote. For those who believe in democracy, a handful of votes over a lifetime is all you need, and ideally the right candidate wins anyway.
Could probably create exceptions for local elections, so you can still participate in your community.
Tricky part would be general elections, but restricting such a tax to federal races is probably an 80% solution.
States that already have a voter ID law haven't had any issues. The bigger objections are to those who say that the ID you can use to drive, board an airplane, buy ammo, etc, aren't good enough for voting.
The states aren't very logically consistent on ID laws. Illinois requires an FOID to bear arms but not an ID to vote. Arizona requires an ID to vote but not one to bear arms. Vermont is probably the most consistent non-ID state, not requiring an ID to vote and also not requiring an ID even to conceal carry a gun.
I can sort of buy the ID argument from places like Vermont but the arguments in many/most states are just complete bullshit where they've worked backwards to rationalize it and that's why there is no consistency for ID gating of rights within even the same state.
The problem is that they aren't (yet) 1/4th as good for 1/10000th of the price. Patterning is just one part of the process - and not nearly the most difficult one.
- effectuate mass synthesis of illicit substances in commercial laboratories
- handle massive intercontinental logistics
- build semi-submersible boats
- hire and kidnap radio engineers to help with communications and electronic warfare
but gee, they just can't figure out how to buy a machine shop and hire or kidnap talent to make 100-year-old firearm designs - that's just too much for them?
How is this a counter argument? You are playing GOP vs. Dem games. All I am saying is that the USA is a major firearms manufacturer and exporter. That scandal just reinforced the point.
I think the point was: it might be a bit more expensive for them, but it wouldn't stop them from getting guns. Guns are important to their business, they would manufacture them themselves if they could not buy them.
Would it cost them more? yes. would it be the "number 1 priority" because it's so impactful? no, obviously not.
Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns. But I'm aware of zero conflicts in which small arms were manufactured in situ. Even in e.g. Myanmar/Burma. The fact that even remote conflicts go through the trouble of importing arms suggests this might be more difficult than you suggest.
They would be if it wasn't easy to import them. It's not like modern mass production has made gun violence possible because up until then it was too hard to manufacture guns.
It's similar to services: you can your own email server, but it's much more efficient to use some vendor and let them do it for you. But if all vendors cut you off, it won't be impossible for you to host your down email, it'll just be less efficient.
I'm fascinated by your point on Myanmar/Burma since I'm quite sure you used that point since it's common knowledge that is the most commonly cited example of the use of in situ firearms by militia. Maybe you're inviting a debate on why you think the reports on in situ firearms reported there are false, or maybe you just randomly came upon that, but it doesn't seem a coincedence.
Myanmar/Burma the strategy was build-to-capture: make improvised, unreliable firearms that could be used to ambush security forces and take their firearms.
Evidence against the point above that it's trivial to replace professionally manufactured small arms.
There are examples of all the above. Kachine state "army" for instance was making Chinese and AKM clones. Others were making FGC-9 for purpose of taking other firearms. Some were using FGC-9 for driveby without any goal to take firearms. And others were using "professionally" manufactured arms to take other arms.
There was some model named FGC2000 which was used with short unrifled 9mm tubes, meaning the range was low and could only be used as parent described. Saw this on a YouTube video but can't find it now.
> Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns
These are centuries-old objects. Manufacturing technology and materials science have advanced nearly 100 years since Ma Deuce first rolled off the line. Society didn't get dumber, and manufacturing has only gotten more accessible.
Just look at the current state of 3D printed firearms: they're completely useful and viable. CNC machining has never been cheaper or easier to do.
It's quite evident their point is that they don't want gun control and have pre-committed to whatever opinions are necessary to prevent it, including an opinion as absurd as "having to manufacture their own firearms would not be a significant impediment to their operations."
Mass synthesis of the drugs that cartels produce is trivial (that's why they produce them)
Putting drugs on trucks is trivial (that's why they do that)
Rudimentary semi-submersible vessels are impressive but you only need a few and they're not that hard to make (again, that's why they make em)
The telecom stuff they do is legitimately pretty impressive, but this too is just significant capex for long term benefit -- not so with self-made guns which are significant capex and you get out the other side a low volume of low-quality, non-dependable, often-breaking guns.
This is a popular idea amongst American liberals who rejoice at any possible means to eliminate/curb/add friction to lawful firearms ownership and manufacturing.
Where are they buying firearms in America at an "industrial scale?" An AR-15 receiver can be turned out in tens of minutes on a fast VMC - good luck stopping this.
What’s the relevance of who “this is a popular idea” to? It’s either a good idea or it’s not.
If it’s so easy, then why aren’t they doing that today and instead we just encounter thousands of guns bought in the US? Must be because that’s easier, correct?
I get the sense you’re a bit pre-committed to your position here though and perceive this as a bit of an identity question.
Yes, showing the preponderance of evidence against your easily disproven argument is actually "my agenda." Great job on calling that out.
I grew up hunting. Like any other redneck, I fired a .308 at 13yrs old, and yes it knocked me to the ground, lol. Skinned a dear that same year. I just didn't choose to make guns my entire identity.
All I am stating is the obvious. The USA is a major firearms manufacturer and exporter.
I think it's still a relevant point. The point isn't necessarily that it's easier for cartels to make it themselves than to smuggle guns or divert them from military sources. It's that the cartels can easily replace smuggled guns with manufactured guns and their demand for them is inelastic enough at either price point it's unlikely to effect the access to cartels.
The more likely effect is it disproportionately stops normal Mexico citizens from obtaining "illegal" guns to protect themselves but the cartels still have them, making things even worse for the Mexican people.
I mean yes if they can truly just replace all the labs and people for not much addition cost, then you're only hurting yourself to raid/jail/prosecute by arresting and raiding the labs because it comes at great cost to yourself while costing your enemy very little and not changing their operations.
You've just explained why the drug war failed and ultimately hurt us more than helped us while doing nothing to destroy the profits of the cartels.
If that's the argument the other fellow would like to make, then sure. But that's not the argument he's making. He's specifically taking issue with trying to add friction to small arms manufacture and trafficking.
How do you know "empirically" that they aren't? Who says that the US-sourced guns that they are tracing are even a substantial fraction of the overall guns in use? How can you prove empirically that the data provided by the notoriously-reliable and agenda-less Mexican government is accurate?
> Who says that the US-sourced guns that they are tracing are even a substantial fraction of the overall guns in use?
Statistics?
Believing your implication that homemade firearms or widespread and just don't show up in the seizure data is a little silly unless you can explain why this would be the case.
I know for a fact that mass methamphetamine and fentanyl synthesis is more technically-difficult, more time consuming, and more capital-intensive than mass-manufacture of firearms - but good luck pushing your "Iron River" narrative lmao.
At the risk of setting off the flame war detector on this website, please explain to me why simple chemistry that can be done anywhere, is easier than setting up a mass-manufacturing factory.
I challenge you to explain to the exact relative differences.
Also, why did you bring up fentanyl? How is that related to the very well documented Iron River? Well, I suppose it actually is, as the USA's very well documented supply of guns to Mexican cartels helps them bring up fent into the USA. Yay! Sorry to interrupt your previous narrative. Please, go on king.
Gee, one requires huge industrial laboratories complete with niche equipment, highly-controlled precursors in massive quantities, and trained chemists.. the other requires commonly-available machinery and universally-obtainable, cheap materials and a scrappy high-school student who excelled in shop class.
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about. I can have a receiver milled from billet in the time we've spent discussing this.
Even the data you linked explains:
Privately Made Firearms
Law enforcement agencies recovered and submitted 37,980 suspected privately made firearms4 (PMFs) to
ATF for tracing between 2017 and 2021. It is probable that current trace data significantly
underrepresents the number of PMFs recovered in crimes by LEAs due to a variety of challenges
presented by PMFs, to include:
• PMFs involvement in crime is an emerging issue and LEAs are just beginning to institute
uniform training on the recognition, identification, and reporting of PMFs that can lead to more
accurate PMF data being collected.
• PMFs by their nature may have no markings at all, duplicative markings, counterfeit
markings, or markings that appear to be serial numbers on parts of the firearm other than the
frame or receiver. These duplicative, counterfeit, or erroneous markings can be mistaken for
authentic serial numbers and markings causing law enforcement to not recognize the firearm as a
PMF and/or potentially follow false leads based on these markings.
As Figure OFT-04 reflects, the number of suspected PMFs recovered by law enforcement agencies and
submitted to ATF for tracing increased by 1,083% from 2017 (1,629) to 2021 (19,273).
So, just domestically, home private firearms manufacturing totaled more units than all guns traced into Mexico in every given year.
lol making meth or fentanyl doesn’t require very sophisticated knowledge or expertise.
From readily available precursors, you can make fentanyl in less than one day.
The Gupta method (from readily available precursors) takes three steps, all at room temperature, and no specialized equipment at all.
That’s why it’s everywhere.
Versus non-professionally manufactured guns which… statistically pretty much don’t exist. Rounding error on any statistic you could come up with on firearms.
Yep, I'm sure cartels worth billions of dollars in annual revenue are producing tens of thousands of kilos using one-pot tweaker methods. Also which "readily-available" precursors are you referring to here? Can I pick up 10000 kg at Wal-Mart?
Non-professionally-manufactured firearms do exist, the aforementioned ATF traces indicate that they are far more prolific than Mexican imports. VICE produced a documentary almost 15 years ago on cartels in the Philippines manufacturing completely viable firearms without issue - in the woods.
Now you're making a different claim. You said that manufacturing fentanyl requires all sorts of specialized equipment and knowledge. It simply does not.
Does that mean cartels aren't sophisticated manufacturers? No, of course they are.
Second straw-man: no one said homemade firearms literally don't exist. The claim is that they are a rounding error.
The startup costs, process knowledge requirements, and logistic issues with inputs are clearly higher for large scale chemical manufacturing than mechanical. The Roi is currently lower, if that changed they would adapt easily.
There's zero chance that the DC ground in the laptop is tied to earth ground in the charger: they use LLC resonant converters and flyback converters (depending on vintage) - an earth ground tie would defeat the purpose of these isolated topologies.
reply