ITAR is all over the lathe/CNC world - I'm an industrial/controls engineer, and have to do compliance reviews, "production of arms" forms, and "destination control statements" for the machines we build. The main difference is that cheap 3D printers are $200 and can be carried to your bedroom, instead of $200k+, requiring riggers and 3-phase power.
Yes, you can buy old Bridgeports and Pacemakers on Craigslist, or cheap mini-mills and mini-lathes at Harbor Freight, and run them in your garage, and yes, those would be infinitely more valuable in the making of a firearm. No, this law won't prevent someone clever and determined from building a 3D printer with some aluminum scraps, an Arduino, and a few steppers. Similarly, those ITAR PoA forms don't prevent me from buying some servos and bearings from AliExpress, bolting some steel together, and downloading LinuxCNC to make a 5-axis machine that ITAR would say could be used to enable nuclear proliferation. Many in the industry [1] agree that all these restrictions are ineffective and harmful.
The good news for this law is that while a nation state can probably devote a couple engineers and dismantle some obsolete equipment to build a custom 5-axis mill, a New York gangster is more likely to be deterred by this obstacle. But whether these restrictions are completely ineffective political posturing, an opportunity to add a charge to a separate conviction, or an obstacle in front of would-be criminals that is actually effective at reducing crime, is a social question, and unfortunately answers probably depend more on your political preferences than on anything measurable.
I think the "good news" for this law (not the is that those "New York gangsters" are more likely people who instead of making flimsy homemade firearms, might've otherwise been forced to buy random part X at price Y from company Z, the only people who ever manufactured and sold the part you need, don't do it anymore, have no interest in doing it anymore, and so costs exorbitant fees as they offload the remaining inventory, if they have any at all.
I just don't really see another really good reason for well paid people to be spending their time making a fuss about things that practically don't happen, especially compared to the ease of procuring a "real" firearm.
However it is seemingly pretty common for lobbyists to weaken consumer's positions even if it doesn't bring a tangible, concrete benefit, and seems merely...vindictive/petty.
Good point, because without CNC, with 3d printers solely you couldn't do a firearm that do more of 1 shot. CNC are more "dangerous" for firearm production. This bill is a show of ignorance of the legislators.
Designed with the explicit intent of containing no parts that are regulated as firearm components in Europe. Including the barrel, which is manufactured using 3D printed jigs and a bench top power supply.
These are in active use right now, most notably by anti-junta rebels in Myanmar, who have literally been running print farms in the jungle to produce them.
According to my casual Googling, metal lathes start out a lot more expensive than 3d printers. Wood lathes and CNC machines are surprisingly affordable though. So this seems like a good question.
Not only that, but if you consider a cheap second hand lathe mostly as a source of parts and rebuild the frame out of something like synthetic granite (which is mostly a casting job) then it'll probably have much better rigidity than anything you can buy at a similar price.
