California AB 2047 makes 3D printers off-limits to students, educators, business(the3dprintingnerd.com) |
California AB 2047 makes 3D printers off-limits to students, educators, business(the3dprintingnerd.com) |
Articles like this are just further proof.
States in the US were modeled after sovereign nations, perhaps even more loosely connected than the EU is today. They didn’t even share a currency.
Eventually the federal government became more important and powerful, and there are many federal laws now, but states are fundamentally still their own thing with the rights to do certain things that are more like a sovereign nation than a province.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/santa-rosa-167-gun...
https://da.santaclaracounty.gov/da-task-force-seizes-ghost-g...
https://www.vvng.com/3d-printed-firearm-recovered-after-man-...
Money anti-counterfeiting is trivial, it's just 5 dots arranged in a specific pattern. Deciding what is a gun part is impossible, even for an expert human.
I will also be bringing an ergonomic grip for my camera.
My email is in my profile.
Like, it's true that refrigerators don't maintain a completely uniform temperature, meaning there's some philosophical wiggle room in what it means for a health department to say that raw meat must be stored at 41F. But it would be absurd for a meatpacker to declare that this means food safety is "impossible", and outrageous for them to conclude that they're just not going to bother refrigerating their meat at all.
And in places where guns are tightly regulated, most people couldn't get hold of ammo even if they did build a printed gun, so it's not a big problem. (And the bad guys just use kitchen knives)
Blocking the printing of parts of mechanisms is a completely different beast, because the functionality is only discernible after final assembly of the individual parts, which can be shaped in a variety of ways. Most of these parts are unique to guns or at least usable in other kinds of designs. E.g. the same trigger lever design could be used for a ghost gun or a nerf gun or a water pistol. So where would yiu draw the line of all the classifier sees is G code that combines support structures, the actual surfaces and infill of some arbitrary collection of parts?
I'm against guns in generally, but this classification problem seems particularly ill posed and I don't want it to result in tamper-resistant printers stopping people from tinkering and taking the fun out of printing. The US should just outlaw the casual carrying of guns of individuals in public. That's not a violation of the second amendment.
Some crimes are not worth it to eliminate, and western liberal society should just accept that the optimal amount of crime is non zero.
Obviously the law is stupid. But states passing their own regulations isn't on its face.
really? what percentage of Americans can't afford a bus ticket to the nearest city in an adjacent state?
About 15% of rural Americans aren't within 25 miles of any intercity transit, much less interstate; low-income residents are disproportionally represented in that group. That figure jumps to 25% if you exclude suburbs, and in some states that figure is as high as 62%.[2]
Even as intercity bus demand has increased due to the declining quality of air travel in the US,[3] rural intercity bus access has declined. Greyhound served many rural routes until its slow collapse before being acquired by FlixBus, which is more focused on urban access than Greyhound was. The deregulation of intercity bus access in 1982, which led to the closure of many intercity routes (disproportionally in the rural Midwest) that required subsidization from more profitable routes, was a major factor.[4]
So "what percentage of Americans can't afford a bus ticket to the nearest city in an adjacent state" is a non-starter of a question, because most of the Americans who'd _need_ an interstate bus ticket can't even get to a bus stop without first owning a car... with which they could simply drive to another state.
1: https://itdp.org/2024/01/24/high-cost-transportation-united-...
2: https://www.bts.gov/data-spotlight/85-rural-residents-have-r...
3: https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/travel/bus-travel-tickets-airl...
4: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/greyhound-bus-tran...
I believe the answer to both of those is yes, which leads to my next question, which is, do you think that's also absurd?
For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, firearms manufacturers seem to think they're entitled to instead stomp their feet and say "no, no regulation, you have to let me do whatever I want!". I'm never quite sure why they think this foot-stomping would be at all persuasive to people who don't manufacture firearms. Again, I imagine you don't see things this way and I'd be happy to learn more about what I've gotten wrong here.
Go solve gun crime with boots on the ground instead
I 3D print as a hobby, mostly items related to retro computing/gaming and things like Gridfinity storage boxes.
But I value my privacy, and don't want governments scanning my models before I'm able to print them, just as I wouldn't want them scanning my code before I'm able to compile it (these days, code can potentially be a weapon of war, malware or drone flight controller code being more powerful than a plastic gun)
Who exactly is the "firearms manufacturer?" I've owned and used 3D printers for years. Not once has anything I've used or seen from any 3D printer manufacturer or other related supplier have anything to do with guns.
Why do you think they would be opposed to this? (I doubt they care.)
It's incredibly bizarre that you feel entitled to issue commands about what I or the California legislature must do instead of passing the regulations you don't like. What is your mental model of the world, where someone would read the words "Go solve gun crime with boots on the ground instead" and not become more passionate about the idea that we must regulate you whether you like it or not?
"Anthropic announces Project Disarm, a new model designed for 3d printer manufacturers to quickly infer whether the intent of an stl file is a weapon. The printer first submits the job to the cloud, and only after it's approved will it print."
Not that I want this future, just that I can imagine it.
I'm not mad at you for suggesting this, you're right, I'm just generally aimlessly angry and ready for this world to burn.
I recently was in Venezuela, I have been in Cuba. I am a native spaniard. There you have a group of people that took control of the weapons in the country and uses it to basically enslave the rest of the country.
When the people in power have automatic weapons and you don't there is basically nothing you can do to defend yourself from the abuses of power.
That is a real thing the people in power have wet dreams and would love to do in any country, including the US.
You can no longer just buy a tool and use it.
Echoes of Network Neutrality problems, where BigCo is permitted to block or degrade sites about how to cancel your BigCo service.
This is basically how civil engineering works for every project type that doesn't involve a pitched and (specifically "and" not "or") high stakes battle with gravity where you'd want to hire one on pure merit.
The input to the detector could be not the G code instructions, but a 3D model representation recovered by simulating the G code. (That's a thing that exists.)
The requirements for a 3D printer which detects weapon shapes is actually fairly realistic.
It would likely have laughable false positives: 8-year-old Johnny not being able to 3D print a squirt pistol.
Some common tools have pistol-like form factors: spray guns, glue/grease/caulking guns, drills, hair dryers.
It is a cockamamie idea; but to claim that it is not doable seems a bit disingenuous.
1. Your printer probably puts a secret code into everything you print (not just money-like things) with the time and a serial number of the printer. [0]
2. Windows and MacOS constantly sends the serial-numbers of your connected devices back to the mothership. [1][2]
3. So when you print out a flyer that somehow annoys the regime, they read out the serial number, then call a buddy at Microsoft/Apple.
4. Now there are thugs knocking at your door to talk about how your picture was criminally mean to Dear Leader.
[0] https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-d...
3D printed is a very niche case. They're only good for one shot ever, they are not reliable even for that. And they're bulky. The one thing they do is make it much harder for a metal detector to find them.
Ghost guns made by CNC milling equipment are nearly identical to what you would buy from the manufacturer, except they do not have a serial number and you won't have the background check for a firearms purchase.
But politicians are reacting to the ghost guns by going after the printed guns.
Note that in particular banning of 3d printing severely decreases chances for bringing back manufacturing - high labor and other costs makes domestic manufacturing feasible only when it is highly automated and highly customizable.
My bet is the US militaro-industrial complex is busy preparing juicy contracts to sell shitload of drones and drones-related tech to the US government now that they understood that drones in warfare were a thing (Ukraine vs Russia showed it and Iran-vs-the-world showed it too).
The US has something like 12 tech companies in the top 20 biggest companies by market cap in the world: do you really think the US is "falling behind in drone tech" because a country that has never invented anything (besides mass killings of their own citizens) since religious extremists took over managed to fly a few low-tech drones into US military assets?
That a country bent on violence (including towards its own citizens) where pick-up trucks armed with .50 cal, AK47s and explosive are the norm can slap explosive on DJI drones is resourceful but I wouldn't exactly call it "passing ahead in drone tech".
I don't gamble but I'd make an exception and bet big that the US is going to end up right next to China, at the very top, when it comes to drone tech. While I fully expect the EU to fall behind in drone tech.
And de-facto won the war as a result. That is reality. That is the power of that weaponry, and that is the falling behind. And that after 4 years of such a war in Ukraine.
I agree it is very possible that US would be at some point able to build up those capabilities. Though, limited to established players, it most probably would be very expensive and thus go against the key feature - cheapness - which in itself allows for the other key feature- mass scale of the drone weapons.
Roll call: https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB2047/id/1702219
* Dr. Darshana R. Patel (D)
* Tim Grayson (D)
It seems more precise to say that 3D printers sold/transferred in California would need built-in anti-firearm-printing controls?
I don't see how this directly bans students/teachers/businesses from owning 3d printers, which is what the title seems to say.
It’s a useless place to put an identifier. It can be filed off easily, and checking whether it’s present involves a microscope and/or disassembling the firearm (depending on the gun and firing pin setup).
You can even just straight up replace it with hand tools at the range. More insidiously, if this passes, you’ll probably be able to buy firing pins that are stamped with someone else’s identifier. I have little doubt a market will spring up for falsely marked firing pins.
Or go super low tech and just throw a brass catcher on the receiver to catch the shells. In a pinch, duct tape and a shopping bag will prevent leaving brass behind.
This is just a money grab by the folks that invented the tech. We don’t even do a good job of keeping stuff like select fire switches for Glocks off Facebook, this is unlikely to do anything but raise the base price of a gun.
A grim day for 3D printing if so.
Given that it is extremely well known that most commercial printers will refuse to print anything that looks like counterfeit currency, why is this considered technically unworkable?
I agree that compliance would be onerous, but that's different from insisting that it's not possible.
Why do the pols feel like they have to pick fights in so many places? I doubt there’s a majority of voters who want this.
In this case you can say
“You need a license to do this activity”
[adds all the requirements in the bill to the licensing authority]
“Unlicensed activity is forbidden”
so now you can get your tiny LLMs added to 3D printers so that license holders can operate again, without specifically mandating unworkable technology or getting a freedom of expression challenge from the manufacturers you just invented court standing for
This works under every governance system
do you guys even America? catch up
The only thing that's different about this one is that it mentions a technology geeks care about. But I doubt that's enough. As another commenter noted, you can no longer hide behind "we have no technology to distinguish between guns and non-guns". We have AI that's supposedly PhD-level and will soon automate all jobs. Looking at STL files sounds like a job.
That's actually one of my fears about LLMs: they make thought policing cheap. There are profound privacy and cost barriers to having a Facebook employee review all your private messages. There are no such barriers to having a robot watch all your IMs in real time.
If this fails it'll be because the tech industry expresses disapproval too loudly to ignore.
The legislators don't care about the underlying criticism. Almost no legislators have ever used a 3d printer or written any software, beyond maybe simple assigned programs if they had a required intro-to-programming course. Few are "tech" people. The rest don't understand this technology, or any technology really, beyond it being a black box for specific purposes. They see 3d printing and plastic guns and think something must be done, because the 3d printing black boxes are producing dangerous weapons.
USA has plenty of saner places. In fact, one could argue that CA is a local minimum for sanity in USA
There is a law in California that has been interpreted to mean that all clubbing weapons are illegal. So if you by a length of pipe and keep it around (e.g. under your bed) explicitly for self-defense purposes, you have committed a crime.
IANAL, but as far as I can tell, keeping a shotgun in your home for self-defense purposes would be fine, as long as you aren't planning ahead of time to use it as a club.
[edit]
My information is slightly out-of-date; there was an injunction against enforcement in 2024 from Fouts v Bonta. I have no clue the injunction is or is not still in effect, so ask your lawyer before carrying a club.
This is why many may have heard lawyers say "if you're going to carry a baseball bat in your car, make sure to also carry a ball and mitt"
https://legalclarity.org/is-it-legal-to-have-a-baseball-bat-...
I think so many people in the US are so focused on the topic of guns as weapons that we sometimes forget that we have laws regarding other weapons as well.
Maybe they'll ban Github, too - as it hosts unregulated open source software that can power these scary tools.
They will refuse to print images that contain the EURion constellation, a cluster of points with specific distances between them. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation)
More generally, "Does this image represent US currency?" and "Does this 3D mesh represent a dangerous gun part?" are different kinds of questions.
Checking if an image is US currency is simple. Not only can an image similarity hash be used, but the design of the currency can be changed to make checking easier. The checking program just has to run a textbook algorithm and compare the result with a handful of hashes (we only have a few denominations of bills).
We can be confident that the checking program will always see substantial portions of the bill, so it can always see the pattern. If someone chopped the bill into tiny pieces, it would look fake when glued together. Looking like a real bill is the thing we want to control, and that's something we can reliably measure with simple algorithms.
Checking if a 3D shape is a gun part is an unsolvable problem. (It would be equivalent to making a program that can detect hidden "subversive" meanings in text.) The checker would have to understand how the piece could operate in the hands of a skilled person. Parts could be printed in multiple pieces, or have material removed after printing, so it'd have to anticipate all possible post-processing steps.
Even if the problem is limited to "match against these known gun part hashes", gun parts are not defined by their overall appearance. The files can be mutated until they no longer trip the detector, yet can be easily post-processed into functional components. (Also, a similarity hash for 3D toolpaths may not exist.)
(Such a hashing regime would be useless to stop "3D-printed guns" as a concept, because the design could be changed to not match the hash at all, without post-processing.)
Not so with guns. Literally hundreds of existing designs, thousands if you account for all the variations. But more importantly, a working firearm is fundamentally an engineering problem with too many solutions. Real world designs tend to be as simple as they can be while still functioning (which is why most modern guns today are very similar internally - the field has converged, what difference remains is mostly legacy path dependent quirks). But if the goal is to defeat a filter, they can be easily made into something more complicated, looking very different but working largely the same.
And if you make the filter fuzzy enough to catch such things, it will also trigger on many completely unrelated things.
Looking at just the silhouette or shape, you couldn't really tell the difference between the body of a firearm that was later going to receive a metal tube from the hardware store or a plastic bracket that I'm going to use to support a shelf.
And even if you could accurately tell the difference, how do you know I'm not helping my nephew build a Nerf gun?
The other is a human-invented category of objects that lacks consistency in size, shape and design.
“Don’t print this specific pattern” is a much more closed loop than “figure out if this could be part of a firearm, bearing in mind that guns share a ton of parts with perfectly legal things”. Especially since the things that are most indicative of being a firearm are usually bought instead of printed.
Eg a “3D printed AR-15” usually means a 3D printed lower and the rest of it is bought off the shelf of a gun store (the rest isn’t regulated, you don’t need a background check to buy a barrel or upper or etc). So it’s really just a grip, the slot for the magazine, and some holes for pins in the right spot.
That’s super hard to identify. Grips come in a variety of shapes and sizes and have a bunch of legal uses (nerf guns, slingshots, Wii remote holders) and are hard to detect. The mag well is just a rectangular hole? Probably some slots for springs, but you have to assemble it afterwards so the printer doesn’t see that.
The pin holes are probably the best indicator, although they’d be trivial to drill or melt afterwards, or print them as a separate piece and screw it on top of the lower.
It’s just an almost impossible problem. I don’t even think humans could do it reliably with the info the machine gets. Whether it’s an AR lower or a prop/nerf gun/airsoft/cosplay/accessibility attachment (pistol grips have some nice ergonomics) gets into the nitty gritty of the interior and whether they support real linkages or not. I just don’t think we can do it with any degree of accuracy.
That’s without getting into the more avant-garde 3D printed guns that are made either out of hardware store parts rather than gun store parts (common in Europe, barrels and what not are regulated there), or are made out of an amalgamation of parts from other guns (trigger from a Glock, barrel from an AR-15, mags from something else, etc).
Generalizing an algorithm that can detect “things that aren’t a gun I recognize but could be used as a gun” is going to be fraught with false positives. You don’t 3D print the linkages, so it’s just a frame, and there an awful lot of things that could conceivably be part of a gun. Anything vaguely semi-circular could be a trigger, anything with a tube could be a barrel, anything hollow and rectangular could be a magazine.
I don’t see a way that either a) it only blocks current designs and the community quickly adapts around it and continues, or b) it tries to block anything gun-like and false positives spiral out of control.
It feels sort of moot anyways. Phillip Luty wrote a whole book about assembling a fully-automatic submachine gun out of parts from the hardware store all the way back in the 90s. It does require familiarity with hand tools and access to more tools than most people have at home (drill press comes to mind), but you don’t have to be an expert machinist to do it even without 3D printers.
This is all besides the fact that it’s so easy to obtain a real gun in the US that 3D printing guns is a niche hobby. I’ve looked at them and watched some of their competitions, they’re still pretty crap. The fully 3D printed ones still jam constantly and I believe still use off the shelf magazines because those are surprisingly hard to make well. The partially 3D printed ones (eg lower only) tend to be substantially less durable than market alternatives. Unsurprisingly, a plastic 3D printed lower is more likely to shatter while firing or dropping it than a milled steel/aluminum one.
The Republicans just can’t stop demonizing Hispanics. And don’t forget Oregon and Washington large fast growing Hispanic communities you can only demonize people so much.
And I’m not talking about Cubans.
All they have to do if frame it as an unnecessary freedom that only conservatives and wackos want to keep and they will 100% support it.
They see their state as a sort of oasis in the country and will do whatever it takes to keep the guns out. They really believe they’re just a few laws away from solving any issue a “reasonable” American could face.
Some made life hard for Californians like the CARB gasoline blend requirement but I think if you proposed removing any of those laws you'd find yourself downvoted here and called a corporate bootlicker on Reddit - which is not a poll of all people but should give you an idea of the fact that they're not unpopular.
That said these politicians have pushed:
The ban on disinfectant soaps
Stop Shirley bill (charge you for public records in order to suppress access to public information)
Effort to sideline charter schools by teachers unions
Reduced sentences for murderers (this isn't unarmed robbery, etc., rather murderers)
Per mile traveled tax (for a state with the highest gas prices in the lower 48)
Sanction unsafe needle litter (as if there weren’t enough in playgrounds already)
Strangers can assume custody of children without parental consent
Allow politicians to dip into taxpayer money to fund campaigns.
Leniency towards solicitation of minors(!) this was unbelievably passed.
The frame is the part that gets the serial number and is considered the controlled part of the gun. Rather than the trigger, the springs, the barrel, etc.
Other than the frame, which requires an FFL for transfer, especially across state lines, the rest of the parts can be ordered and shipped from anywhere and are not controlled.
Mind, that’s changing, again notably in CA, as they now talk about “gun pre-cursor” parts.
The 3D printed frames are similar to the “80% lowers” which are aluminum blocks that are “80%” complete AR-15 lowers (the lower receiver, again, the controlled part of an AR-15).
With straight forward machining and some jigs, those chunks of metal can be finished into an operational lower receiver, and the rest of the rifle can be assembled from disparate parts ordered from anywhere.
The original “ghost gun” before 3D printers enabled folks to assemble Glocks in their garage.
Or you just 3d print the "receiver" for something like an Ar-15, which isn't load bearing. If you use the right materials and the beefier designs it will lats hundreds to thousands of rounds. The rest of the parts can be bought through the mails unregulated.
Some parts in regular firearms can be printed in plastic, guns with polymer parts have existed since polymers existed, but it is only marginally simpler than machining it out of metal. After all you can buy a metal CNC machine for handful of bucks more than a 3d printer and you don't have to worry about shitty materials breaking immediately.
And there are already plenty of examples of hardware store pipe guns that if someone spent more than a day or two working on it would by far surpass anything anyone can print.
Fwiw, when I paid attention to my local police department's released body cam vids, maybe around 1/3 of the guns they showed as evidence were polymer80s (edit: which I mistakenly assumed were 3d printed, but it turns out they aren't so feel free to disregard that fun fact)
Polymer80 is defunct but still sold under a slightly different modified mold that someone mysterious somewhere owns and is selling through some other companies("76%" instead of 80%)
A pure plastic gun seems more likely to blow the users hand off than hit their target. Especially if just downloaded and printed in PLA on default settings (few walls, sparse infill...)
So what the ATF does is take an essential part not substantially influenced by wear and declare it to be the gun. Trade in anything that sufficiently resembles this part is treated as trade in guns. Other parts are not considered guns, they're just pieces of metal or plastic. Then there are the parts that you're not supposed to have. But is that an oil filter or a silencer? When it's on the gun it's obvious, when it's listed on a website as an oil filter...
Don't ask me. I think the focus on sex things is utterly insane. However, even on Hacker News many people definitely seem extremely concerned at least about people under 18 having access to Internet pornography, which to me, clearly isn't even remotely close to the biggest problem adolescents are facing.
In America we're worried about 3D printed ghost guns. Why? Ostensibly it's because ghost guns are showing up more at crime scenes, since 3D printing is just so accessible these days. How many gun deaths do 3D printed guns currently account for? As far as I know, something on the order of magnitude of around 0.01%, at least in America. That number is probably mostly small because we never actually really did anything about regular gun violence.
This is not a new pattern. Nuclear energy has very few fatalities in its track record. Shockingly few when you consider its reputation. Depending on how you count it, it is pretty much a rounding error by any reasonable measure. Meanwhile, we send at least somewhere around 10,000 bodies to the morgue every year as a result of pollution from natural gas power plants. How many from nuclear? Probably less than one on average. Certainly nowhere near 10,000 no matter how you shake it, twist it or bend it. Even the dumbest and least reputable studies couldn't force the number to half as high, which is pretty funny to me. Is nuclear fission still the future? Given the density and reliability of energy production from fission it's hard to entirely count it out even in a mostly solar + battery future... yet here we are, with politicians arguing about the safety of ~0 deaths per year energy production method vs >10,000 deaths per year energy production method.
Does it matter that politicians are so interested in regulating sex when bigger issues are at stake? Well, yeah. It's no less alarming even if it seems trivial. Not everyone has to pick every battle, but to me free expression is my bugbear so I give a fuck when it's in the mouths of politicians. The apparatus for suppressing expression never stops where it starts. Never. It wouldn't be right if it did, but the point of trying to come up with something that sounds like an obvious net good is that it can make people more forgiving to implement a terrible idea and set an awful precedent.
Which, of course, is why it's pretty likely in the near future you will need a driver's license to reply to this comment.
Somehow, it started with Internet pornography.
Or your literal thoughts depending on how far we're able to push neuralink type technology.
Other countries regulate the pressure-bearing parts instead. It probably started off with a safety rationale (those parts are generally proof tested), but those parts ALSO tend to be the ones that are more difficult for someone to produce at home.
So, I suppose the answer to your original question is: they're slowly grinding forward on a progressive-politics agenda in a public and straightforward manner that's generally popular among the electorate.
You do not print a lower receiver compatible with standard parts. The threat is a CNC milling machine cutting one from metal.
Ghost gun = key part made by sources other than a legal firearms manufacturer. Typically, this means CNC milling.
Printed guns are ghost guns, but the vast majority of ghost guns are not printed guns. Printing plastic has a very hard time confining the gunpowder. It's possible to print metal, but it's sintered (not nearly as strong) and the printers are still way beyond the home level.
I've personally seen 3d-printed polymer Glock frames and AR-15 lowers. I've personally seen them stand up to sustained automatic fire. You're not going to be printing with PLA and there's plenty of bad designs out there that can't take the stress, but good designs that are durable when printed with the appropriate filament or resin exist.
> Printing plastic has a very hard time confining the gunpowder.
Which is why printing Glock frames and AR-15 lowers works so well—they're the controlled part and they don't bear the pressure of the gunpowder combustion products.
> Printed guns are ghost guns, but the vast majority of ghost guns are not printed guns
Sure, you're probably seeing way more Polymer80 and aluminum 80% lowers than 3d printed ghost guns... but people aren't CNCing those at home, either. They were milling those out with special jigs and a drill press.
Anyone can legally manufacture firearms for personal use (federally.)
Also, the home page of that "blog" points to a 404 not found, and the footer of the blog says: "Official blog of NetworkMonitor — network monitoring and macOS privacy insights." and I can't seem to find any application made for the Mac called "NetworkMonitor".
Originally the comment was Windows/Microsoft-centric, and then I thought I'd better broaden it so that nobody makes the mistake of thinking Apple is significantly safer.
That changes the above quote. It's not a gun manufacturer claiming they can't find anyone to microstamp their guns (though not dispositive of the same), it's a citizen saying that commercially no one sells microstamped guns.
If you expand out your quote, it neatly explains what I would wager is the reason why no one sells microstamped guns:
"AB 2847 also imposes an additional amendment to the UHA: for every semiautomatic handgun that satisfies the new one location microstamping requirement (in addition to havingCLI and MDM) and is therefore added to the Roster, the State must remove three (3) grandfathered semiautomatic handguns from the Roster, in reverse order of addition. However, this has not yet occurred because microstamping technology does not actually exist in any commercially available application on a handgun."
In other words, if a manufacturer decides to make a new microstamped model then 3 models that are likely still in production will become illegal. It's a losing proposition for the manufacturers. There's no money to be made by creating a new production line to build microstamped pistols if it's going to shut down an existing line; it's a bunch of money to re-tool factories to sell to the same people the shut down line was already selling to.
Without getting too into the weeds of politics, it's exacerbated by it being California. Whether you agree or disagree with the goals of the policies, they do change the requirements for guns very frequently relative to other places. I can understand manufacturers being reticent to set up new production lines to comply with policies that will probably change again in the next 5 or 10 years.
My reading of the lawsuit is that they think this was the intended end state of the bill. Require new guns to implement a feature, ensure that implementing that feature will generate financial losses, and now no new guns get made but you can point at gun manufacturers and say you didn't ban them the manufacturers just won't comply. I'm not totally sold on that, but it is a remarkably poorly written bill when the incentives the bill sets up run exactly counter to the intended goals.
Note that this isn't really limited to guns either. I foresee a similar moral panic wrt 3D printing "killer drones" (i.e. parts that allow one to attach explosive to a drone) and software that allows you to circumvent various restrictions on drone firmware. All it'll take is one high profile attack using a drone...
There is a reason why California is leading the nation in migration out of the state.
The existence of a house resolution mean that one representative wrote a thing, not that it's on the precipice of becoming law.