Hi, it's me.

>> What channel are you with?

>> I'm with Channel Awesome. I'm on the

Lewis Rossman show. Uh, yeah. Yeah, this

gentleman show. I'm I'm uh I'm on the

Louiswis Rossman show. I'm his new

correspondent cuz Lewis is operating

camera and doing narration.

>> This man needs his own TV show.

>> Oh, no. I was being facicious. I'm

actually leading opposition on a bill.

This is Louis's channel. I'm just

holding the microphone.

>> Oh, I figure they're maybe putting off

discussing the 3D printer bill because

they think that people will just go

home.

>> Yeah, that's exactly it. I agree. I

think there was a delay tactic. I also

know that there's a lot of other bills

going on. I know the author has other

things that need to be attended. I know

there's a caucus later that needs to be

addressed. But seeing the amount of

people here would definitely spook me a

bit and I would think of what strategy I

have. I mean, make no mistake, we do

think the bill will pass here because of

partisan lines, but there is definitely

going to be the start of our movement

here. And that was the whole point of

this and last week is to start this

initiative to get this rolling because

there is an immense amount of support

behind this opposition. And the really

interesting thing about this opposition,

I was talking with some other people

here is that if you notice there's a

group that is not a part of the people

that are for this bill. There's no

teachers associations. There's no

education associations. There are groups

on campuses of colleges that support

Moms Demand Action, but there are no

institutions. There's some institutions

that are not formally on yet, but I've

been talking to people at a lot of

universities that want to get on board.

And you're going to start seeing letters

of opposition coming out from some very

smart people that know this. But it's

also so simple because it comes down to

this. My favorite example, I love it,

and I take it with me everywhere I go.

If I can pull it out of my pocket. Hold

on one second.

>> The eyeball.

>> The eyeball. The eyeball. Is this Is

this actually focused? How do you want

me to hold it?

>> Sure. I'm going to just switch to manual

focus cuz

>> Oh, look at that.

>> I don't have anything for print f I

don't have a setting for focusing on a

3D printed eyeball.

>> Yeah. So, this eyeball here as he's

focusing it is completely 3D printed.

This is from the Mayo Clinic. Even has

their logo and name on the back of it.

But under this bill, this would be

considered a gun part because guess

what? Look at that little area in the

back. Little hole there. It's threaded.

and other elements on it. But who knows

the geometry inside this. This is done

in resin. This is done on a Mamaki 3D

printer and it's been polished. We

actually I think use this eyeball for

the umbrella academy. It's kind of

weird. It's fun to take around. What we

have here is an object just like any

object around you. The phone you're

watching this on, the chair you're

sitting on, they're all objects. And

those objects don't do anything. They

sit. They we use them for whatever they

may be. They don't have intent. We have

intent. Humans have intent.

things could be made for stuff and we

talk about that and someone asked me,

"Well, isn't that the two-way argument?

Isn't a 3D printer just like a gun?" And

I said, "Not at all." But I was just

talking to the NRA about this, too. A

gun's function is to shoot a projectile

forward, but you could also use it to

hammer in a nail. I mean, I know I do

when I've been camping. I've definitely

used the butt of my for things I

shouldn't use as a shovel to dig stuff.

But its intent was to do whatever I made

it to do. Its design and use case is

something else. But a 3D printer is to

design parts. What those parts do is

completely different. And one of the

examples that's come up is that they're

trying to flag bad parts. They're trying

to say that parts are bad. There's

certain parts that are just for guns,

and there's certain parts that are just

for other things. But that's not how 3D

printing works, not how life works.

Because the trigger on my garden hose is

a trigger on my Nerf blaster, is a

trigger on my Han Solo blaster. So which

triggers the bad trigger? and how do we

stop that? And it might sound pedantic

what I'm saying and I'm not trying to

come off like that. What I'm trying to

illustrate is that these conversations

are much bigger and it affects other

things. And this is just one aspect of

how we're relating to 3D printing. The

other part of this is the surveillance

side of this and the first amendments

that are getting broken. I mean, we're

talking about prior restraint, compelled

speech, all sorts of issues here. Here's

an example for those you don't know.

Compelled speech, language is code. uh

in 19 was it '92 I think it was

Bernstein versus the state you can look

that up that uh code was declared

language so that is your right to

express yourself that is under freedom

of speech and everything else that goes

with it so we're dealing with a lot of

different factors and for anyone at home

thinks this is a 3D printing bill this

is not a 3D printing bill this is not a

gun bill this is a tech bill this is a

surveillance bill this is a bill asking

us to give up our freedoms for something

that addresses 1% of 1% of 1% of a

problem. Um, some stats for you at home.

There have been zero deaths from a 3D

printed gun reported by the ATF, DOJ, or

anyone. Zero. Because a 3D printed gun

is completely 3D printed, and there have

been no deaths from that. A ghost gun is

different. And you're going to hear both

of them thrown around like they're the

same thing, but they're not. A ghost gun

is a gun with no serial number. That's

why it's called a ghost because you

can't trace it. Like if you're watching

a movie and you see someone filing the

gun, they're trying to get the serial

number off the gun. That's where that

comes from. And you could modify kits to

make your own ghost gun. You can take

that lower and do different things with

it. But there's a lot of components

you're going to need inside a gun if

you're going to use it because you need

a spring, you need firing pins, you

know, other elements of this. You have

to get rifling down. You have to do so

many elements to make something

functional that's safe for a user. And

3D printing may offer that at industrial

scale, but I'm not putting a piece of

plastic with explosives in my hand

because I like my fingers. And I know

that's also putting it on me, but in

general, we shouldn't even be addressing

this

>> all day. I am I'm excited to be a part

of this just because it's great to meet

everyone, you know, and see everyone

here and like,

>> you know, Yeah. I mean, like down the

hall, I mean, this is just a fraction of

everyone that's here supporting this. I

mean, there's over a hundred people

here.

>> Oh, easily.

>> Easily hundreds. Yeah. I told everyone

to go get lunch because we're not going

to be back till 1:30. um and all of

that. But that's what makes me happy. Oh

yeah, go for it, man. We're just

rolling. It's live.

>> Say hi. Shout out your favorite sports

team.

>> There you go.

>> Go Cubs. Uh but that's really it. I

mean, the thing that makes me excited is

when the hearing starts, they're going

to be the Metos and you're going to see

all these women and a couple men go up

wearing red shirts and it's going to

say, "Mom's demand action.

Look into them. Please look into them."

And it's going to be a certain type of

person you're going to see through the

whole thing. But then when I look down

this hall, it's everybody. It's diverse.

It's totally inclusive. It's everyone

across the board. Everyone this affects.

It's not just, oh, we're trying to take

this, you know, action and and push it

through. It's it's everyone. This

clearly affects the whole planet. I

mean, when you hear the list of

companies that are supporting this

around the world and all the scientists

and engineers and just people in general

that get it. I mean, people outside of

engineering and 3D printing are

supporting this because the pure

absurdity of the bill. And you know, the

really neat thing is I run the show. So,

some of you have asked too, who am I?

Who is this guy? Uh, I run the show 3D

printing nerd. I'm the executive

producer of it. That's me and Joel

telling. It's on YouTube. It's a show

about 3D printing. I've been traveling

the world for the last almost seven

years working with everyone in the field

with that and all the experts and all

the companies on that. I also run a

nonprofit called the community

manufacturing initiative that's a part

of experiential. Experiential is a

consortium of a bunch of organizations

that are working really hard to get

engineering education into the world.

We're partnered with Cornell, MIT,

DARPA, NSF, Smithsonian, DECA,

Raspberry Pi, Digi Key, it goes on and

on and on. And things like 3D printing

nerd is a part of that, too. And that's

what this all represents. What you're

seeing here is you're seeing a

politician

being a politician. Their job is to pass

bills. Those are good optics. And when

the bill says gun control, that's really

good optics. And that's what they're

trying to propose here. Because if you

dive into this, it's not a firearm bill.

And that's what we're trying to get them

to reframe this as. Joel brought up

Joel, the host of 3D Premier, brought up

a great point when we were on a call

last night. He said, "If this bill was

named anything else, would it be killed

already? Would this bill be gone? If it

was named anything else?" And that's a

great question that I would love to

know. And I think that's something we

need to keep doing because this isn't

just in California. California is the

biggest, you know, because what happens

here is massive. And you know, if you

don't like California, whatever. It's

the fourth largest economy in the world.

What happens here matters and people pay

attention. And every town is the group

behind this. That's the one funded by

Michael Bloomberg, your best friend out

there in the world. We know you guys

love him so much. You're going to be at

his barbecue this summer for Fourth of

July. I'm sure it'll be lovely. They've

been around doing this in other areas.

And their job is to pass bills and get

things out there. They did it in

Washington, Colorado, New York, here in

California. And they just launched it in

Delaware. You know who's in Delaware?

Printed Solid. That's going to be That's

Pruscha. It's one of the biggest 3D

printing companies in the world

manufacturing 3D printers. So, not only

did they mess with the wrong people by

coming at the nerds with some logic,

they stepped on an antill by going into

Delaware and messing with printed solid.

So, it's really interesting that they're

not really taking the logic on this and

looking at this objectively. And then

the other thing too is who's the company

attached to this? There's a company

called FSNA that has found its way into

this mix. They were a part of

things.com, things.com. You can look up

things. The it was Marlene last week,

the CEO of Shapeways and things. I was

here testifying and everyone in the

industry used this matching software

that FSNA had when it was a part of

things and we tried it to do search and

find something. And you would use this

for say if you had a part on a car and

you needed a replica of it and someone

else there had it. You didn't have to

make it. You could do a search and do a

lookalike part and scan parts to find

things that might solve your problems.

That's where that came from. But it

never worked. It was junk. And then sure

enough, last week they show up on the

support of this bill. Like there's a

tech company behind this with technology

that does not do even the thing they

were trying to do well. And then they're

trying to do something that's not

possible.

>> So you're saying that the company that

would profit from this bill passing by

being the company that's contracted to

view what everybody's 3D printing is the

company that's also testifying in favor

of the bill.

>> Yeah. I don't know if they would be

contract I don't know the deal of it,

but I do know that they were part of the

Every Town broadcast about New York. I

know they showed up here.

>> I'm shocked.

>> Yeah. And who knows if they'll show up

again here. Maybe we'll have someone

else from the company. But you know, we

have a a giant tech company is the only

one on the planet saying that this is a

thing. Which is funny because what

they're doing is they're doing two

things I think are very interesting.

They're saying that their technology can

do the thing, can stop ghost guns from

being printed, can stop 3D stuff from

being printed, that they have the

ability to eventually make that happen,

which is not a thing. It's just not

because you can change the code inside

objects. You can do all sorts of things

to modify it. But what they're also

saying is that objects have intent.

Objects have feelings. That this

microphone stand if it, you know, if I

clobbered someone with it, it would go

to microphone stand jail. Like that's

not a thing. But that's what this

company's also admitting. And they got

roasted online. The CEO of the company

posted that he thinks this is great. And

like the comments are bonkers. So I

think that's really interesting too of

what's going on here is that there's all

these things kind of converging. And the

more we hammer at this bill, it changes

because we have to use this as precedent

as we go forward. And for those of you

out there, you're going to hear that the

bill has been amended. They removed

section two of the bill. It's going to

go through here through this process

talk about amendments. Section two is

the criminalization aspect of the bill.

And by removing that, they're trying to

mitigate costs to the state because

that's the whole thing. It's like, is

this going to cost anyone money? Is this

going to cost the state money? And by

removing that, it allows something

different to happen. It changes the the

mechanics of this. It focused just on

the civil suits. So there's no

protections now from the constitution on

any of this. Before there was a whole

mechanism involving the Department of

Justice and other elements of that

because it was a crime. Now it's not. So

that opens it up to all sorts of

craziness in the space. And also to me,

it also goes to show that if this was

really about making us safer, they

wouldn't be taking things out every

goound as well, too. So that's kind of

what's going on here. That's what you

can expect coming up. It's going to be

really interesting. It was awesome. I

mean, I put this out. It was Ethan over

at the OC MakerFair sent me Lewis's

email. I sent an email. Lewis called me

right away and said, "How can I help?"

And we talked for about an hour. And

then next thing I know, Lewis is flying

up to Sacramento and we're doing this

again here this week. And it's awesome.

Let's see what we got.

>> And that's what that's what that's what

community is about. It's about reaching

out and saying, "Hey, I can help them. I

can do this. I can help these people

over here because it really is something

that needs to be done." So, what's

coming up after this is it will go to

appropriations for review and then it'll

go to it'll go back to assembly because

it's been amended and then for a floor

vote. So, this is the last public

instance, but then the focus is going to

be on reaching the consultants in

appropriations and just keep hammering

on this and stuff. And what's really

interesting is by removing the criminal

side of it, that makes it look optically

like there's upfront costs missing from

the bill. But what it does is opens tons

of frivolous lawsuits and the civility

side of it, which is actually a real big

problem because this is all based on

firearm blocking software that's not a

thing and doesn't exist and can't

actually exist. But lawsuits at the

civil level would force you to prove a

negative. Someone would say, "Hey, Bob

did something bad with his 3D printer.

his printer didn't block it and then Bob

has to go prove in court, spend money,

do all this other stuff, be tied up with

all this and deal with it. Now, imagine

if you liked what Bob was printing in

manufacturing. You could throw lawsuits

at him and gum up his works and then

take over the project and print it

yourself, too. There's all sorts of ways

to weaponize civil lawsuits. Um, and I

think that's a huge issue and this just

kind of keeps perpetuating. But in the

meantime, the author gets to say, "Hey,

I passed a gun bill and I made the world

safer." when in reality she didn't. So,

it's really about holding RBK, Rebecca

Bayer Khan accountable as well too for

this.

>> What do you think accountability would

look like here?

>> I think accountability would be I mean I

would what would I love? I would love a

public statement saying I'm sorry I was

wrong. This isn't a thing. This is how

science works and this is how math

works. I would love to work with all of

you and do a better job and let's move

forward together. But I don't think

politicians do that.

>> Anybody who showed up want to talk?

>> My name is Dr. Omar Abdelotti. I'm a

hospital physician. I've been practicing

since 2019 2018 and I grew up right here

in Sacramento. In 2020, I was practicing

in Englewood, New Jersey, which is about

15 minutes from New York. So, I was

right in the heat of a pandemic in our

300 bed hospital. We had 1424 patients

at one point, critically ill patients.

We ran out of masks, we ran out of

gloves, we ran out of everything. Um,

and we ran out of ventilators.

So,

back at that time, I designed, and you

might have heard of this in the news

because people talked about it. I

designed and 3D printed a valve that

worked to allow us to share ventilators

amongst patients when we ran out. And it

saved lives.

>> There's no doubt about that. We 3D

printed other things. I mean, we were

trying to build rooms faster than, you

know, as fast as we could. The engineers

were just in the room building it and we

would just shove a bed and shove a

patient in there as soon like before the

room was finished. And I remember we

needed to have the tubes from the IVs

run outside of the room and the doors

would pinch the tubing which are running

life-saving meds. And so we printed some

conduits to allow it to fit underneath

and around the door without breaking the

seal. And so it's all these little

things. And I promise you, if you look

at those shapes, they look exactly like

what a gun would look like. Exactly.

100%. There's no way to tell. And so,

uh, you know, if this bill were law,

lives would have been lost. There's no

doubt in my mind about that. And that's

not a hypothetical for me. Hi,

everybody.

>> Hello.

>> Hello.

>> What brought you out here today?

>> What brought me out here today?

>> Yeah. Why do you care about this?

>> What do I care about this?

>> What's the thing that What's the single

thing that got you most bothered? I

think it was just seeing how the valve

that we printed to save lives would be

illegal under this bill. And that I

think that's the biggest thing is this

is not hypothetical for me. There are

very real people and I will never forget

the sounds that the ventilators make

when people are during CO this we all

have war flashbacks the gurgling sounds

that patients make when they can't

breathe when they have CO. Now, there

are some people that have said, "Well,

this may get things wrong, but if it

saves even one life, it's okay, even if

there's all these false positives."

>> I think

that type of argument, while I can

I can always understand that, but that's

not the way the world works. The way the

world works, it's in shades of gray and

saving one life. Everything has to be

looked at in terms of harms and

benefits. That's what we do in medicine.

Imagine if we applied things in medicine

to quote save one life but in doing so

we hurt millions of others. So you have

to consider the cost as well as the

benefit and the benefit that is

proclaimed here about this 3D printing

bill. There's a heavy debate and I think

reasonable people can discuss that

debate of what benefit it can actually

bring. Personally I believe this would

not stop a single 3D printed gun. I

don't think anybody determined will ever

be withheld by this build to print a gun

or gun parts because fundamentally a

printer is just getting G-code and

G-code is just coordinates for where to

move. That's not a geometric shape.

That's not geometry. That's not a shape.

And so, you know, I believe there are

technical limitations to even

implementing this build. But the

question you ask me is, well, let's say

it can save some life. Let's say it can

prevent some guns from being printed. I

would say how, but I I don't think it

will. But let's let's for for now just

skip past that point of let's say you

magically have a technology that can

that can prevent one gun from being

printed, which most of us here do not

believe that that's possible, but let's

well it would also block and I think

everyone would agree that it would also

block critical components that are used

every day. There was another gentleman

here that I ran into that suffered from

a condition that affected his ability to

walk and he printed prosteses for his

crutches and for his wheelchair. And

again, these are things that would be

blocked. So, you have to consider the

real world harm. In direct answer to

your question of what would you say to

those people that say if it saves one

life it'll be worth it. I would say okay

then if it hurts one life then it won't

be worth it. Right.

>> Yeah.

>> If it hurts two or five or 10

>> Yeah.

>> or 20

>> this would have killed. And I can tell

you the number of patients I was

directly in the data retrieval in COVID

during Englewood, New Jersey and in Cal

in in New York and New Jersey. And

again, we had 1424 patients in a 300 bed

hospital. I can tell you for a a fact

that at least 500 patients would have

died were it not for this valve.

That's fact. And and I I mean that's I

don't know how many more can be said or

what more can be said beyond that. I

strongly support guns gun legislation. I

do. And I think there are many people

here who maybe are on different sides of

the aisle on that,

>> but this is not the way to do it.

>> Well, thank you for taking the time.

>> The thing is about like the the thing of

what you said, oh well, you could if

this existed, you could stop one gun

from being made and da da da da. And

that's what's that's what kills me is

they're projecting this as some epidemic

and it's this whole thing of happening,

but it's not. It's not a thing. It's not

a thing. Like someone told me there's an

epidemic of 3D printed guns and plastic

bullets on airplanes right now

>> from one of the offices here

>> just to try to say that

>> which is not a thing. You can't like

it's I mean physics won't allow that.

And I'm looking at future proofing

legislation because if we start going

like oh this is scary let's get rid of

it. We're going to backend ourselves

into so many more problems. And what's

interesting about the gun thing is

there's like such a small amount of

people make their own firearms in

general. And they can and they can do

all sorts of stuff. Like I think my

friend made one out of like a broom or

something once and whatever, you know,

and there's that aspect of it, but it's

such a such a small population of people

that do that and then people that would

use 3D printing to do that is even

smaller, but they're trying to portray

it of things that you see on TV shows

and stuff like that. And so as a doctor,

do you deal with that as well of other

people like blowing things up and stuff

like that?

>> Uh, constantly. One of the things about

data is one of the things we jokingly

say about statistics don't lie. I don't

know if everybody knows about this, but

that's kind of said in sarcasm.

>> Yeah. Oh yeah,

>> statistics lie all the time.

>> It says that actually.

>> Yeah, like they lie constantly, right?

For example, did you know that foot size

is strongly correlated with

intelligence?

>> Really

>> strongly incredibly high positive R

value, which is but but do you know what

else that doesn't mention what

>> is that include that doesn't adjust for

age,

>> right? And so it's so easy.

>> So you say as a baby, oh this one's got

>> this one's not doesn't have a high IQ.

Look, this baby scored two on an IQ test

and it's and their foot size is tiny and

this man has a big IQ and Right. So,

>> everybody on Louis's stream, uh,

longtime watcher, Luis Rosman, supported

the Fulu Foundation, big fan. Um, I'm

here as a leader of the Sacramento State

competitive robotics team. We compete in

RoboSub and we also do combat robotics

here in the Bay Area and Sacramento

regions. The reason I'm actually coming

to comment against this bill is because

it's proposing to solve a problem that

doesn't exist with a solution that

doesn't exist.

The

hypothetical problem of this bill that

it's trying to tackle is the issue of

entirely 3D printed guns. And it's

attempting to do that by requiring the

DOJ to establish an independent

commission in order to require that all

3D printers sold in the state of

California have firearm blocking

technology. As you've heard a lot of

people say before me, this technology

does not exist. And if it does, it has

se severe severe side effects and false

positive rates as well as many other

issues. Somebody asked if you brought a

battle robot into the California Senate.

>> Yes. Yes, I actually did. So, this is my

>> We must zoom on this.

>> This is part of my sumo robot. It

doesn't have the the forks on top of it.

So, this is a flipper bot if anyone's uh

familiar with those.

>> So, what is a flipper bot? What?

>> So, essentially the the top of it has a

servo on it. Uh I didn't bring it today.

>> Is that an XT60?

>> Uh it's a ESP32.

>> I see an XT60 connector some

>> Oh, yeah. Yeah, the XT60. I know that

anyway. Yeah, it's a common RC part. The

reason I brought this in front of the

Senate is actually because there's a

provision in the bill that states that

the algorithm would be required to

reject parts that are seen as avoiding

the detection algorithm. And so

where that comes in with our club and my

prints that I do personally,

who is to say if the for example these

little brass pieces, these are threaded

inserts. It's a very common practice for

3D printing people to actually use brass

pieces and essentially melt them into

the plastic so that you can use metal

screws. It's done very commonly. Under

this proposed bill, the algorithm could

view those holes in the the print as an

attempt to evade the detection

algorithm. So there's a very real chance

that under some implementations of the

design algorithm that just very normal

robots that have nothing to do with

firearms will actually be rejected. And

that's why I oppose this bill.

>> My name is Sarah and um I'm a resident

of Berkeley. I'm actually a constituent

of the chair. My husband and I have

lived and worked all over California.

And I guess the the main reason that we

strongly oppose this bill is because

when I found out about it, I was

horrified is maybe not the right word,

but I'm trying to think of a good word

for it. This is wrong. The fact that

they are praying on people's fear and on

ignorance and trying to create this uh

this um I guess image of what this bill

is supposedly supposed to do when it

will do nothing of this sorts me. I'm a

mom. We have two kids. both of them are

in school. One's in high school, one is

in middle school. This bill is not going

to make our kids safer. There are other

ways to do that, but this bill is not

the way. Instead, it opens up the window

to a whole lot of other problems.

>> Yeah, I know. Last week, Marlene asked a

question of one of the co-chairs or it

was something along the lines of, "Do

you know what the leading causes are of

gun violence in your district?" And they

said some something like, "I don't

know." And that was just that was very

interesting to me. So, you're passing a

bill that is essentially going to

destroy a lot of independent

manufacturing while simultaneously

admitting that you don't actually know

what the problem is that you're looking

to solve. That's crazy to me.

>> That's crazy to me. And they don't. And

the the fact that they're in here, it's

with the like think of the children.

It's like, okay, we can take us I I know

I'm not there's not going to be time for

me to speak. I And that's okay. I didn't

come here necessarily like thinking I

was going to be able to speak in there,

but the fact that they are um really

trying to appeal to people's fear in

that way is frustrating because there

are so many other more important things

that we need to address that are the

root cause of why we have school

violence, why gun violence is a problem

at all. I mean, obviously there's

there's a whole there's a whole

umbrella, right? Like one of them is

access to mental health care and access

to resources, access to healthcare.

There are so many. But this bill, to me,

this is not the answer. This is just

going to invade everyone's privacy. It's

creating a pathway for our private data

to go to yet another billionaire, which

I'm not okay with. I think I saw that

clip cuz that was in one of the ones he

posted, I think.

>> Yeah. It's interesting. There's a Fourth

Amendment violation that's going on

here, too, which is the idea that you

can't have an unreasonable search of

people's homes. Yet here you're

searching what people are doing inside

of their homes because you're presuming

that they're guilty prior to having any

actual evidence that they've done

anything that's a crime.

>> Yeah. Pre that's another thing. If I had

time to speak on that, I would. It's

preemptive search and seizure. It is

preemptively presuming that somebody

might be breaking the law and therefore

invading their privacy on that premise.

And to me that is unconstitutional. So

even if this does get passed, I imagine

that there would be grounds to challenge

it on terms of of like

constitutionality, but hopefully we can

prevent it from going through in the

first place because this is this is

nonsense.

>> Why do you think this bill is a horrible

idea? Or do you I should I shouldn't

start with a loaded question. Do you

think it's a bad idea?

>> I I do think it's a bad idea and uh for

many of the reasons that have been gone

over already, um you know, I'm very

worried about the ramifications to the

uh the first and the fourth amendment.

Um, you know, obviously there is the

issue of this being very technically

impractical, if not impossible. And, you

know, just thinking about how it it sort

of undermines the benefits of open

source software and the similar open

environment that 3D printers have thus

far been a part of. I think we would be

giving up a lot if this bill were to

move forward and I don't think it would

meaningfully solve any problems. So,

>> Oh, thank you for coming out. I

appreciate you uh deciding to do

something. Hello, my friend. How are

you? Like for me it's just

>> Hello.

>> Thank you for coming out. I really

appreciate it.

>> Thank you.

>> You think this bill is a good or a bad

idea and why?

>> I think this is a terrible idea. My

background is manufacturing. I've been

in the industry for a decade now. I've

never seen anything like this. Complete

disregard of technical opinions. Just

complete disregard of our livelihoods

and STEM education. All for the sake of

this vaporware bill that does nothing to

make anybody safer.

>> Well, thank you very much for taking the

time. I appreciate it.

>> What got you to come out here today?

>> I actually want that right now.

>> I've spent 3 years slowly scrging

together enough money to start my own 3D

printer manufacturing business

and this drops. Ouch. The timing. Let

I'm going to take a guess. You're

starting in California.

>> Covered it.

>> Yes. Starting in California directly

after CO tanked me.

>> Oh man.

>> Timing.

>> I moved to LA to do VFX. Co tanged me.

>> That sucks.

>> And uh oh boy. And now I'm doing this

and then this legislation drops. It's

been a heck of a time. But I honestly

think one of the biggest issues with

this is its effect on the uh on the

small business community. I have

multiple friends who use 3D printing in

their small businesses. One of them was

escaping Mexican cartels and had no

money here and nothing to do. So he

started 3D printing

dog and cat toys out of TPU with a 3D

printer in his guest room in his well he

lived in the guest room in the guest

room that he lived in. And that allowed

him to build enough money to actually

live like a human being for once after

being chased out of places by cartels.

And

just in general, small businesses need

this in America. In America, it's well

known. We don't do manufacturing

anymore. We do services. And

by and large, if you try to do large

manufacturing in the US, it doesn't work

due to financial concerns. But 3D

printing time and time again has proven

that anyone can pick a few 3D printers

up and start a business that competes

with the biggest ones out there.

>> Maybe in your own little backyard, maybe

you can grow it, maybe you can't, but

you can at least start. And this kind of

legislation is exactly what would kill

that and hand and hand all of this

burgeoning small business activity in

California and actual manufacturing in

the United States back to China

and a little bit back to Europe and a

little bit back to everywhere else. But

in the US, we don't really have that

much manufacturing and we need it.

I right now I'm living in LA and around

me you can see all kinds of industrial

buildings. I can go down the street and

go to a foam warehouse to get anything I

want. Protective foam, bedding foam,

mattress foam, everything I want. And

that's just one of them. There's also

electrical supply, car parts. We have

the entire manufacturing process to

produce almost an entire F-16 stealth

jet fighter.

And we have tons of empty skyscrapers

just sitting there. Los Angeles could

become

the Shenzhen of the American continent.

We just need the right legislation to do

it and this is the legislation that

would preemptively end it.

>> Well, thank you for taking the time to

come out. I really appreciate it. Very

inspiring.

So, I am disabled and so my my primary

concern with this bit of legislature is

that it'll make it much harder for

disabled people to 3D print replacement

parts for their accessibility

technology, which is like kind of awful

when you consider like a motorized

wheelchair can sometimes be like

$50,000.

>> Yeah. I've talked to Thomas Queter at a

lot of these conventions and I he's he

is a great advocate for how people in

wheelchairs and people in general with

disabilities get completely [ __ ] and

ignored. And just the fact that there

are so many items where he can be, it's

not even the cost, it's that he can be

waiting 3 to 6 months to get it versus

3D printing it. The ability to get back

to being able to actually be free and go

out on your own and be able to leave

your house, like that's something that

3D printing can provide you. And it's

not just about being able to make money.

It's not just about being able to make

random things. It's also about having

personal freedom in a world where you're

consistently the last of somebody's

priorities.

>> Oh yes, abs. Absolutely. Especially when

you consider mobility aids especially

are more of like an extension of

disabled people's like bodies. Like that

is really the the best way to to put on

it. And like could you imagine paying a

$50,000 subscription on your legs?

>> Coming soon. You're just you're just

born with legs, but you have to pay a

subscription with them.

>> Coming soon.

>> Absolutely.

>> Don't put that out there. Somebody some

somebody's taking somebody's writing

down.

>> This legislature, especially since it's

it's AI powered,

AI is just not in the state where it can

do the things that they want it to. I

don't know if it ever will, but

definitely right now it's not. Like if I

wanted to print a more ergonomic grip

for my forearm crutches, an AI wouldn't

be able to tell the difference between a

forearm crutch grip and a guntock.

It just

>> they're both cylinders.

>> It's very It's very similar.

>> Let me zoom out a little bit so we can

get that.

>> Look at that. It's

>> Yeah. You mean like a little bit of

modific

if the AI if Gemini is stupid enough

from a company that makes $70 billion a

year to think I'm sponsored by ground

news is probably stupid enough to think

that that's a gun part at some point and

the idea that you would then be stuck in

your house again or not being able to

get around because some dumbass clanker

couldn't tell the difference between a

crutch or a gun. That's realistic. Like

that is a cylinder. I mean what David

said last week like is this a good or a

bad cylinder?

>> Right. it it just won't be able to know.

And that's my my chief concern there is

it'll disproportionately affect disabled

people who are kind of already being

smothered by the system.

>> [ __ ] if again anybody on my channel

just watch any of the videos with Thomas

Queter in the title. We've done some

like interesting one-hour tours of these

disabilities expose and we u visited him

at a few different conventions and he

talks about the stuff in great detail

and he's really really good at

explaining the uh and you'll probably

get mad listening to it. I usually get

mad when I talk to him not because I

don't like him but just because the

stories he tells are atrocious like

taking New York State five years to

figure out that he did not have legs.

That's just the type of [ __ ] that you

Thank you so much for taking the time.

>> Hello internet. Okay, you can go ahead

and eat your sandwich.

>> God bless you.

>> By all means, cuz you know, you've

probably been very busy today.

>> Uh, let me first start by saying I'm

very grateful to Louis for making that

video to show up, I believe, about 2

days ago. I knew nothing about this

until that video. And about 24 hours

ago, so exactly. Yeah, exactly

yesterday. At this time, I just come

back from Costco with my mom. The reason

I mentioned this is it was at that point

that I watched Lewis's video and I drove

all the way down from Diamond Bar,

California, a seven-hour drive uh to

show up here as he requested because I

do believe that um while I understand

that some personal liberty should be

sacrificed for national security, I

believe that this is an egregious

amount. The point being is is that

personal liberty should not come at too

far a cost for in the sake of national

security, especially when it comes in

the form of a valuable AI that I

personally don't trust to make the

judgment call on the intention of 3D

printed designs. And if I may, if I may

implore those possibly watching, as you

can imagine, I'm not the most

wellressearched expert on this subject.

Not in the slightest. I am definitely

not of the kind of confidence that

speaks to a camera and a mic willingly.

But despite that, and despite the fact

that I live in Southern California, I

made the call to drive all the way up

here on nothing but espresso and and

adrenaline

to try and make my voice heard. So in

the future, if you feel like there is

something you believe should involve

your voice, I implore you if you think

you can do it, please contribute as much

as you can. Anyway, he is still eating

his sandwich, so I will now stall for

time. Um, I was debating on not giving

my full name.

I wonder when uh when I went to present,

but I figured I would probably do so uh

just to show that I actually do give a

dang about this specific legislature. Um

you know, fun little thing, I am in a

political science class, introduction to

American government and politics. And

while it was not my intention, I kind of

hope that my professor will give me some

extra credit for this. He is still

eating his sandwich and I feel really

awkward to return this microphone. And

plus again like he again like give the

man like some time. Um that being said,

I am running out of words. So I should

probably pass this. Huh? No, that's

okay. How's the sandwich? Sir, you look

well dressed. Would you like to I'm

going to drag you in now.

>> Look at him. His hair is quite nice and

and his suit is sharp. Wow. Where where

did you get this suit, sir?

>> Uh I think Macy's. Macy's. Oh [ __ ]

>> Well, I'm unemployed, so I can't afford.

Sorry.

>> It's all right.

>> But what are your thoughts on the

legislature?

>> Uh, I think it's a gross gross

overreach. Uh, I mean, there's so many

fronts on why this is wrong. Uh, in my

opinion, you know, the privacy aspect is

is one of the worst. I don't think the

government should have their grubby

little fingers over every every little

facet of our life, especially in this

day and age. You know, we're seeing plot

cameras pop up around uh you know

they're using geo fencing. There's all

so many things that they're using to

track us and monitor what we do. And

this is I'm afraid another extension of

that. Uh

it's, you know, it's a Fourth Amendment

violation. And even then, the mechanism

behind this is is so unclear. It's it's

vaporware. There's no there's no real

way to uh for you to use what AI. I

mean, AI to to figure stuff out. you

know, you see the false positives day to

day and it's it's never never turns out

good. I think that at best they're

misinformed, but at worst I think

there's some questionable people behind

it and some questionable motives and I

think we're going to go into a slippery

slope um if this is passed. So, so we're

here standing up for what's right and uh

Lewis is a huge champion of that. So,

we're really glad. I mean, I drove 4

hours from to get here. I know you drove

seven. So there's I had time, you know,

there's hundreds of us here. So we're

really looking forward to to putting a

stop to it.

>> That's about it.

>> Good speech. Good speech. Fantastic. I'm

still holding I don't know where Louis

went. Okay. Another a volunteer here to

save me from my awkward predicament.

Please introduce yourself, sir. Nice to

meet you.

>> I'm Jason. Yeah. So um I am a Sacramento

local uh college student comside major.

I'm not actually the biggest 3D printing

hobbyist, but I I saw this law and I was

like, "Wow, this is stupid." And I'm

more against it because I believe that

>> because it's setting the precedent that

it's okay for the government to want to

scan your stuff or it wants to choose

how you use your electronic devices. But

like,

no, I don't I don't want that. I don't

think anybody really wants that. And

there's a lot of anti-privacy laws, a

lot of anti-open source laws going on

around right now. There used there was

recently AB 1043 which was a big scare

that was mostly amended. A lot of people

it's not about oh we're going to win

this time. We're going to we're going to

get it the bill killed right here. It's

more like we are not going to lose. We

are not ready to lose and we are going

to continue fighting and we are going to

play the long game. And I don't live too

far. A lot of people have to drive eight

hours. Some people fly. I don't have to

do that. So, I I thought, well, I'm

lucky. I might as well I might as well

come over here and I might as well fit

my opinion, especially for the people

who can't. So, that's why I'm here. I

want to be in it for the long game.

>> Fantastic speech, Jason. That was I I

love the confidence. Actually, the

conviction. I could feel it.

>> And you're a name temporary mic manager.

>> Oh. Oh, yeah. I guess so. Uh, you know

what? I could use a fake name.

cuz I came up with a cuz I was like,

"Oh, you put put my face and my name on

the on the camera. That's like not going

to bite me back like anytime soon." But

Louis is back. Nice to meet you. My name

is uh Hedrickk Pigan.

>> Nice to meet you.

>> Yes. Yes, me.

>> I did my I did what I could. What got

you to come out?

>> Uh my name is Daniel Watson and uh I've

been 3D printing for more than a decade

now. There isn't currently pandemic of

like 3D printed guns, so this seems like

legislation in search of a problem. Can

you name all the people who've been

killed by a fully 3D printed firearm?

>> Uh, yes I can.

>> Done. Uh, as far as I know. I mean, I

guess maybe somebody somewhere has been

killed that uh but anyway. Yeah. So, uh,

the whole like solution in search of a a

problem. It seems like that that phrase

should really be used for this bill, not

for some of the other bills it's been

used for.

>> You know what bothers me a lot about

this is this. I I was reading this

morning about the stop killing games

bill that did not get a vote yesterday

because there wasn't a quorum I think

for a majority and the ESA was saying it

would not be possible for us to do this,

right? So they're saying it's not

possible for a video game to be able to

work after like continuously in spite of

the fact that we have 40 plus years

evidence that that is [ __ ] right?

Cuz like before 2015 or so games just

work just fine. But when the ESA says

that there's no there's you you can't

make a game work forever, they're like,

"Oh, yeah. I guess that's not possible."

But when we show up and we say there is

literally no way for you to tell the

intent of a shape, they're like, "No, we

probably can. Let's move it on to the

next committee." And that's it's really

annoying that that exact same argument

that gets used by the ESA does not work

when we're the ones making it.

>> Yeah.

>> It's really annoying.

>> I don't know. And did that argument

should work for the ESA and me or it

should work for neither of us? But it

can't go both ways. one way either both

or none. Um I I also feel pretty

strongly I I see a lot of stuff with uh

slicers innovation in slicers which is a

technical part of 3D printing where you

take a shape and you turn it into

instructions for the 3D printer to do

something. And it used to be that you

had to print directly on a surface. But

then after a while people found that you

could do this thing called bridging. But

in order to do that, they have to be

able to make modifications to slicers

and then try it out on a 3D printer to

see if it works. If you can't do that,

then which this bill would make that

illegal, then you can't have innovations

where you can print parts that you used

to not be able to print. And then

there's other innovations in like the

strength of the thing that you build.

They used to the there was recently a

thing where instead of printing lines

just right on top of each other, they'll

print them a little bit offset and that

made the whole part like 10% stronger.

That's another thing, another innovation

that would be criminalized, I guess, by

this bill. If you try to do something

like that, you wouldn't be allowed to.

And uh I think so those are some reasons

that I'm against this bill. Um and I

think uh

>> those are the people. I think this is

just not a good bill the way that it's

written.

>> Well, thank you. Who Who is next? You

wanted to talk.

>> Uh

>> yeah, go for it.

>> Yeah, you can come up here.

>> Somebody else, but I figure for you.

>> Oh, yeah. Thanks for letting me talk.

>> Oh, him and then you actually Thank you.

You personally, thank you for doing all

the things that you do.

>> Okay. After.

>> All right. Uh

>> I got to get in and set up.

>> Hey, everybody in.

>> We're ready to get started. Good luck

everybody.

>> Thank you sir.

>> You're welcome. Thanks for coming.

>> Pleasure.

>> All right.

>> All right. Pardon?

>> Excuse me, doctor. I want to put you on

the spot. Excuse me, doctor.

>> Pardon me. Watch your foot.

>> Hello.

>> Watch your toes. Coming through.

>> Coming through. Watch your toes. Your

fingers. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

>> And he's coming back.

>> We're going to need the same audio plug

in.

>> There we go.

>> Yeah.

>> Yes.

>> Thank you so much.

>> Hi, it's me.

>> Which channel are you?

>> I'm with Channel Awesome. I'm on the

Louiswis Rossman show.

>> Uh yeah. Yeah, this gentleman show. I'm

I'm uh I'm on the Louisis Rosman show.

I'm his new correspondent because Lewis

is operating camera and doing narration.

>> This man needs his own TV show. Oh, no.

I was being facicious. I'm actually

leading opposition on a bill. This is

Louis's channel. I'm just holding the

microphone.

>> Okay. Well, we're next up is Assembly

Member Bower Cahan. I do apologize to

the other Assembly members that that

were here before her, but you know, she

kind of snuck in.

>> My I think my third visit to her trying

to get in, so

I understand.

>> I know. So, um uh you are here on AB

2047.

That is right.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

>> The floor is yours.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I

want to start by thanking committee

staff for their work on the bill and

confirming that I'll be accepting the

amendments from the committee to remove

the criminal penalties from the bill. I

am proud to present AB 2047 along with

my sponsors, Every Town for Gun Safety.

Over many years, California has set the

standard and taking an active role to

protect our communities against gun

violence. and the chair of this uh

committee, Senator Argene, um has led

the way on this and I want to thank him

for his incredible work. AB2047 builds

on prior legislation to address the

newest firearm threat, which is 3D

printed weapons. Numerous reports from

the DOJ and nonprofits have emerged

demonstrating the proliferation of these

3D printed firearms. Just since January

of this year, there have been several 3D

printed gun busts and recoveries in

California, including in San Jose, San

Bernardino, and Santa Rosa. We cannot

stand by while these firearms continue

to flow into our communities. AB2047

creates an upstream solution by

requiring that all three-dimensional

printers sold in California are equipped

with firearm blocking features to

prohibit the printing of dangerous gun

parts. We will not be the first in the

nation to do this. New York has already

passed this policy earlier this year and

it was signed into law. At its core,

this is about ending gun violence. It's

about keeping our children safe in their

schools, our families safe when they

attend worship service, the mall, or a

concert. AB2047 is supported by unique

coalition of doctors, parents, law

enforcement, and students. I'll turn it

over to my witness, Crystal Loito,

Crystal Opalo, director of policy

advocacy for every town, and Christina

Kundari, volunteer with moms action.

>> Welcome.

>> Good afternoon, chair. There you go.

and members of the committee uh or

acting chair. My name is Crystal Oplatto

and I serve as policy advocacy director

at Every Town for Gun Safety together

with Moms Demand Action and Students

Demand Action. We are the largest gun

violence prevention organization in the

nation. We're proud sponsors of AB2047

and grateful to Assembly Member Bower

Cahan for bringing this bill forward.

AB2047 is the common sense next step in

California's fight against ghost guns.

This committee has been at the forefront

of recognizing the existential threat

that 3D printed firearms pose to

California's gun laws and advancing

strong policies to address this next

wave of the ghost guns crisis. Last

year's SB74 created one new step to

begin thwarting DIY gun makers who can't

pass a background check. This committee

was also a key stop for 2022's AB2156

and 2023's AB1089, which made it a crime

to 3D print guns without a firearm

manufacturing license. And this

committee helped advance last year's

AB1263, which made it illegal to aid a

bet or facilitate another person

manufacturing firearms with a 3D

printer. What we have before us with

AB2047 is different. It's an opportunity

to add a new truly preventative layer on

top of those existing prosecution

focused public safety laws. We can stop

gunprinting at the source. Technology

now exists to block the printing of

files that have been specifically

identified as firearm design files.

Ensuring that technology is equipped on

all printers sold to retail consumers in

California is a new and preventative way

to affectuate our existing laws. To be

clear, there is so much positive

creativity and innovation happening as

3D printing becomes more accessible and

affordable. We can all agree on that.

>> This bill won't stifle or threaten it.

And it includes a careful three-year

implementation process to be sure the

technology is minimally disruptive to

legal print jobs. But we need to pass

this bill and start that implementation

process now to stop the floodgates of 3D

printed guns before it gets out of

control. Thank you. We ask for your eye

vote.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Sorry.

My name is Christina Kandari and I'm a

volunteer and the local group co-lead

for the San Francisco Moms Demand Action

Group. I teach couture embroidery at an

art school and we have multiple 3D

printers on our campus. We encourage our

students to use them in their classes

and activities. In my classes, students

can use 3D printers to create their own

sequins, beads, and other components

that they use in their fashion design

projects. As an educator, I'm constantly

amazed at what my students create with

their 3D printing. And 3D printers have

broadened their horizons and created so

many opportunities for them. But with

those opportunities comes the terrifying

reality that they can use those to print

a gun. This is not hypothetical. This is

happening all around our state. And in

the last year alone, a teenager in San

Jose was arrested with 27 3D printed

guns, including guns modified to

function like a machine gun. Santa Rosa

police arrested and charged a teenager

for using 3D printers in an illegal

firearm making operation. and a teenager

in San Diego was arrested for bringing a

loaded firearm to school. Afterwards,

police discovered multiple 3D printed

firearm frames and 3D printed conversion

devices in his home. There is so much

potential and promise for 3D printing. I

see it every day with my own students.

But when a fully operable firearm as

deadly as a store-bought weapon can be

manufactured by a teenager or anyone

else who wants to skip a background

check, 3D printers present a dangerous

reality which is only going to get worse

if we don't act. The law can balance

respect for innovation alongside the

need to keep our communities safe. And

this bill does. This law doesn't ban 3D

printers. It just requires printers to

have a safety feature that stops them

from printing illegal guns. As an

educator, a parent, and a volunteer with

Moms Demand Action, I believe we have a

responsibility to put guard rails in

place to protect our kids. One child's

life ruined from a 3D printed firearm is

one too many. For this reason, I urge a

vote yes on AB 2047. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much. Thank you for being

here. Anyone who would like to testify

in support, please come forward.

>> Chloe King with Political Solutions on

behalf of the American Academy of

Pediatrics and support. Thank you.

>> Thank you,

>> Katie Kirk on behalf of Mom's Demand

Action

and I advocate for

um

>> in support. Thank you so much.

>> Lesley Rouson, Mom's Demand Action in

support.

>> Thank you,

>> Bridget Jacubitz, public school teacher

in Pleasanton, California, and Mom's

Demand Action volunteer in support.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Uh Janie Dobs, Pleasanton, uh volunteer

with Mom's Demand Action for Gunsense in

America, and I fully support AB 2047.

>> Thank you.

Yarajid Doll, volunteer with Mom's

Demand Action, former nanny and former

preschool teacher in support.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Charles Allen, on behalf of Every Town

for Gun Safety, proud sponsors and

strong support for 2047. Thank you.

>> Linda Gail, San Francisco resident, and

I am a volunteer with Mom's Demand

Action, and I fully support AB2047.

Thank you.

>> Brenda Nixon, retired educator and Mom's

Demand Action volunteer in support.

>> Thank you.

>> Sarah Berger, Mom's Demand Action

volunteer and public school parent in

support.

>> Rachel Le Rachel Leo with Mom's Demand

Action in support.

Mary Dupla, gun violence survivor and

volunteer for NorCal Gun Violence

Prevention.

>> Thank you.

>> Max Perry on behalf of the California

Police Chief Association in support.

Thank you.

>> Janet Surret, Mom's Demand Action

volunteer in support.

>> Mariah Hajj, Mom's Demand Action

volunteer in support. Thank you.

>> Thank you. 445

>> Claire Sena, Mom's Demand Action

volunteer and a gun violence survivor. I

support

>> Cooper Howard, Mom's Demand Action

volunteer in support.

>> Elizabeth Carpenter, Mom's Demand Action

volunteer in support.

>> Good afternoon. Donald Stury, moms

demand action volunteer and I support

>> should be moms and dad.

>> Mitch Stiger with CTF, a union of

educators and classified professionals

also in support.

>> Thank you.

>> Good afternoon, chair members. Conor

Gman on behalf of Prosecutors Alliance

in support.

>> Jamie Miner on behalf of Gfords pleased

to support. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much. Anyone else in

support?

Now we're going to move over to

opposition.

>> Welcome

>> chair and members. My name is Aubrey

Rodriguez. I'm a ledge advocate with

ACLU Cal action. While we are

appreciative of the committee

amendments, we continue have strong

concerns with AB2047.

To start, this bill poses grave risk to

many users of 3D printers and a right to

privacy. Just yesterday, the Supreme

Court reaffirmed an individual's right

to reasonable expectation of privacy in

Chatry v. United States. In a concurring

opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote that

one's papers or effects was understood

that the time of the fourth amendment

adoptions who embrace most of any kind

of personal property. This unequivocally

includes one's 3D printer, and every

owner of a 3D printer holds their right

to a reasonable expectation of privacy

when printing in their own home. And if

the government suspects an individual

violating the law by 3D printing ghost

guns, they can obtain a search warrant

rather than mandating a dystopian

scanning tool that constantly monitors

what people do in the privacy of their

own homes.

This newly acquired algorithm contains

troubling similarities to efforts by

governments and corporations to either

break end to end encryption or include

content scanning technology on people's

electronic devices.

At the ACLU, we warned of the dangers

that this technology brings and how it

may be exploited to conduct far-reaching

surveillance.

Mandating an algorithm that scans for

possible printing of a ghost gun poses

similar risk. And the question is where

will this constant surveillance

monitoring or every move end? Once this

sca uh scanning algorithm is in place,

it could be abused by governments or

corporations to prevent socially or

politically sensitive 3D printed designs

infringing on our civil liberties. This

type of software creates a permanent

backdoor into the privacy of our own

homes ripe for exploitation. And once

this new infrastructure exists, it is a

simple software update away from

tracking political dissents or

preventing 3D printed designs deemed

inappropriate.

We remain skeptical of any software that

contains a clientside scanning system

that is purportedly only designed to

capture specific files as this software

invades the privacy of users with 3D

printers who will by necessity have

everything they print scanned and

improved by an opaque algorithm. For

these reasons, we respectfully urge a

strong no vote on this bill.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Hi, I'm David Tobin. I am Oh, there we

go. Good morning, committee. I'm David

Tobin. I'm the executive producer of the

show 3D Printing Nerd. I'm also the

executive director of the Community

Manufacturing Initiative. And uh I want

to say hello to everyone watching on the

live stream. And thank you, Lewis, for

coming. We broadcast this to all the

educators throughout the state to make

sure they were all aware of what was

going on, all the small businesses and

all the big businesses that use this.

All our friends over there are

wonderful. Um, and you know, JPL,

SpaceX, everyone down in Liverour and

all the other small businesses across to

make sure they all saw what was going on

here today. And because of last week,

everyone has one collective question for

the committee is the only reason this

bill is going forward is because firearm

is in the title. Because this is a tech

bill. There's nothing about firearm

protection in here in any capacity.

There's one company on the planet that

supports this technology and it's called

FSNA. They brought their salesman here

last week to talk to you about it. We've

all used their technology. It does not

work and do what they're saying it does.

We've we've used this in the space and

it comes down to the core thing. There's

a pen on your desks. That's an object

that does not have intent.

No object has intent. We instill intent.

That could be a pen. It could be a

tracheotomy tool. It's a tube. And the

other thing is last week the author of

the bill said that if this technology

was possible it would not be foolproof.

Also she said that the ghost gun making

is illegal already. It's already a crime

to do this. So this isn't really adding

anything new to it. And then bringing up

New York. It has not gone into effect in

New York. New York has an amendment in

their bill that says if this technology

is proven not to be possible, which it's

not, they don't have to go further down

the line on it. We don't even have that

amendment in here to get out of it in

any capacity. So, that's where I want to

leave it at and I really do appreciate

your time and I wholeheartedly vote no

on this.

>> Thank you very much. Is there anyone

else who would like to testify in

opposition or give testimony?

>> Yes. My name is Steve Peterson. I'm a

member of the Voron design team

representing uh the wider open-source

hobbyist 3D printer community. And I

also want to add on record the following

um additive manufacturing professionals,

educators, stakeholders. Prussa

Research, Printed Solid, Pop Poly, Make

Magazine, MakerFair, West 3D, Nico

Industries, 3D Printing Nerd, Cocoa

Press, Micros Swiss, Greengate 3D, LDO

Motors, Protolant, makers of Protoasta,

Make Good 3D Fuel, Sarriate, Monster

City Studios, Slice Works, Things 3D,

Zeerfeld, Fulu Foundation, Repair

Preservation Group, Repair Preservation

Group, Action Fund, OCreate, OC Maker

Foundation, Matterhackers, Polymaker,

Big BQ Q Big Tree Tech, Dr. Adrien Buer,

Joseph Prusa, Dale Doherty, Maxim Zolan,

Joel Ting, Clayton Parker, Bill Duran,

Grant Pausner.

Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Aiden Sabria, disability advocate. Um, I

think there's a real possibility for

this bill to have disastrous

consequences for disabled people to have

access to spare parts to repair their

assisted technologies.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Hello everyone. My name is Claire Armer.

I am the lead chassis development

engineer for the Hornet Racing team at

Sacramento State University where we

develop a new internal combustion engine

open wheel race tour every year. 3D

printing technology is crucial to my

work.

>> Sorry, this is the time. I apologize. I

should have said it at the beginning,

but this is the time only for your name

and then your affiliation and whether

you're in support or opposed to the

bill.

>> I strongly oppose this bill.

>> Great. Thank you so much. Thank you for

being here.

>> My name is Joe. I'm with SGT consulting

and Golden Hams Hams Radio Club in

principle of National Security. I

oppose.

>> Thank you.

>> Uh hi, my name is uh Sergy Small. uh

born and raised Sacramento um a diyer

and I am here on behalf of my family and

friends who cannot attend. I am opposed

to this.

>> Thank you so much.

>> Hello, my name is Daniel Anasser. I

research the 3D printing of organs for

medicine and I deeply oppose this bill.

>> Thank you.

>> Hi, my name is Alan Horticon Rutzler.

I've been working a decade in rapid

prototyping and commercial research. I

strongly oppose this bill as written.

Thank you.

>> Thank you.

Hi, my name is Victor Pedra. I'm just a

parent and resident of Daily City and uh

I strongly oppose this bill for a

variety of reasons I already explicitly

explained. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Hi, my name is Christopher Katon. I'm a

Lenovo sales training and relationship

specialist and I strongly oppose this

bill.

>> Thank you.

>> Hi, my name is Sen Lawrence Hastings.

I'm a free software and open source

hardware advocate and I strongly oppose

this bill.

>> Thank you.

Joel Sanchez, Sacramento County resident

and hobbyist 3D printer. I oppose this

bill.

>> Hi, I'm Rogel Barwage. I'm a resident of

San Francisco and I vehemently oppose

this bill. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Hi, my name is Paul Rothstein. I'm here

again after last week and uh I strongly

oppose this bill on Fourth Amendment

grounds at the very least.

Hello, my name is Tyler Woodward from

the

all the reasons already laid out. I also

very strongly oppose this bill.

>> Thank you.

>> My name is Roy O' Connor. I'm an

engineer and hobbyist from Limart. I am

opposed to this bill.

>> Hi, my name is Aish Rana and as an

engineering student, I deeply oppose

this bill.

>> Thank you.

Hi. Uh, Michael Heert, engineer and

Sacramento County resident, and I oppose

this.

>> My name is Justin Pitta, uh, Sack County

resident and local maker, and I

definitely oppose this bill.

>> Thank you very much.

>> My name is Aiden Simmons. As a hobbyist,

I deeply oppose the bill on right to

repair and privacy grounds. Thank you.

>> My name is Alex Rossella. I'm an open

source advocate. I oppose this bill.

>> Thank you. My name is Alex A. I'm an

open source developer and I oppose this

bill.

>> My name is Joseph Ule, Sacramento

resident, and I strongly oppose this

bill.

>> My name's uh Christopher Heiser. I'm an

engineer, parent, and resident of San

Carlos, California, and I strongly

oppose this bill.

>> Uh Anthony Garcia. I work in prop

production. I strongly oppose this bill.

>> Thank you.

>> Sean Suljian. I own Warbert

Technologies, an industrial 3D printer

manufacturing company. My company is

exempt from this bill given the

industries we sell to. We oppose this

bill regardless.

>> Thank you.

>> Hello. Uh Aaron Thurer, engineering

student at Consumer River College and I

oppose this bill.

>> Hi, Gabriel Chang, Sacramento on the

grounds of the fourth amendment. I

strongly oppose this bill.

>> Oh, my name is John Panel. I'm a member

of the Warren Design Group and generally

open source uh community as well as an

engineer and educator. I strongly oppose

this bill.

>> Hello, my name is Nathan Groves. I am an

industrial design student at San

Francisco State University and a former

Air Force. Strongly oppose this bill for

the sake of my future.

>> Thank you.

Hello, I'm Benjamin Nvarez, private

citizen, uh, Sacramento resident, and I

strongly oppose this manufacturing

control bill on Fourth Amendment

grounds. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Hello, I'm Dr. Nathaniel Deosantis. I

represent myself as a 3D printing

hobbyist and author of Open Source

Software, not my employer. I oppose this

bill. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lewis Rossman from

Rossman Repair Group, Vulu Foundation,

Repair Preservation Group, and I

strongly oppose this bill and the

billionaire who's been funding it.

>> Hello, my name is Christopher Kramer.

I'm an instructor I'm an instructor at

Maker Space and I'm a student at

Sacramento State, a part of aerospace

club, Comp Robotics Club, and Baja SA

Club. I'm a student member of Society of

Manufacturing Engineers, American

Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and

uh American Society of Mechanical

Engineers. and I strongly support you

saying no to this bill. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> My name is Benson Phillips. I'm a

hobbyist. Uh I strongly oppose this

bill.

>> Thank you.

>> Say hi, Elizabeth's registering

opposition on behalf of the Electronic

Frontier Foundation and Oakland Privacy.

Thank you.

>> Hi, my name is John Hannah and I'm a

Sacramento native and for 30 years I've

worked professionally as an editor. And

so I carefully read this bill and I

carefully read all of the supporting

materials that came along with this bill

and I'm hoping that you all also read it

carefully and what I found is that there

are statements of fact.

>> If you could just state your name and um

your affiliations and whether you

support or oppose the bill.

>> I'm opposed to the bill due to the fact

that it has not been written with care

towards fact in reporting.

>> Thank you.

Hi, my name is Evan Butterrimer. I'm a

professional musician. I play with the

Sacramento Filarmonic and the Stockton

Symphony and I strongly oppose this

bill.

>> Thank you.

>> Hi, my name is Rolando Javier. I am

computer engineer in the enterprise

software industry uh and in support of

protecting privacy and consumer rights.

I strongly oppose this bill.

>> Thank you.

>> Stuart Hastings, reading, retired

computer engineer. I'm opposed.

Okay.

>> Hello, my name is Kyle McKenna. I'm a

advanced manufacturing and mechatronics

student at Sierra College. I oppose.

>> Thank you.

>> Hi, my name is Jeremy Labati. I'm here

with my daughter. I'm a current software

engineer and a former former child care

provider. Um, we're very busy, but not

so busy that we can't come here and

state our disapproval of this bill.

Please do not support it. Thank you.

>> Thank you so much. Thank you for

bringing your daughter. Thank you.

>> My name is James Hong. I'm a mechanical

engineer, a user of 3D printers, both

professionally and personally, and a

Democrat. I strongly oppose this bill.

>> Thank you.

>> Jen Thomas. On behalf of law-abiding

citizens who value their privacy, I

oppose.

>> Thank you.

>> Hi, my name is Warren and I'm a resident

of Sacramento and I strongly oppose this

bill.

>> My name is Justine Johnson. I came out

here all the way from Patterson,

California, and I came here to oppose

bill 2047 as I believe it is an invasion

of privacy and could be very problematic

for businesses who use utilize 3D

printers.

>> Thank you so much.

>> Good afternoon. My name is Finnegan