u/Ololomarine

it took 30 seconds.

Find your Senator:

https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov

Here’s what you do when you call. An Intern will answer, and you should say something along the lines of:

“Hi, I’m a constituent of Senator ______ and I’d like to voice my opposition to AB2047, which is up for a floor vote this week.”

The intern will pull up a form they fill out in which they take your position, and optionally your name and zip code. That then gets aggregated and sent to the chief of staff/policy people.

They’ll likely ask you if you’d be willing to provide your name and zip to complete the form, which I’d recommend. Lastly, they may ask why you hold that position. You can come up with your own, or say something like:

“This bill imposes unworkable digital restrictions on standard consumer hardware, effectively criminalizing open-source software and locking law-abiding makers and small businesses out of everyday manufacturing tools. Mandating hardware-level DRM will not stop bad actors, but it will severely stifle technological innovation and consumer rights across California."

That’s it, you’re done. Again, takes 30 seconds. The more people that do this, the more effective it will be!

By shifting the burden onto ASTM, Sacramento avoided immediate legal action, sidestepped the enormous costs of development, and created a framework under which ready‑made commercial engines from companies such as Physna would later be accepted under the protection of third‑party standards.
Calling this amendment a victory is a mistake. Nothing has changed, but the ultimate goal remains unchanged: to create a global baseline under which desktop computer manufacturing equipment must be controlled, filtered, and limited by software means.
The foundation is being laid for the next stage of implementing physical DRM protection. Looking at the Senate‑modified text of AB 2047, one can see what the practical results will look like in the future. The ideal outcome is the best‑case scenario. July 1, 2029 arrives, ASTM International does nothing, and no global blocking standards are published. Everyone in the makers’ environment continues to print freely, and the threat of censorship at the firmware level disappears. In reality, this will not happen.
In a number of states across the country, laws restricting micro‑manufacturing and 3D printing are being actively promoted, under the pretext of ensuring public safety and combating “ghost weapons”. Centralized authorities have no intention of abandoning this fight.

Instead, the future will likely unfold according to three very real scenarios: Legislative revision: Legislators are not waiting until 2029. At the next legislative session, or in two years, Sacramento will simply amend the bill again.
Capture of ASTM by corporations: Corporations such as Physna, along with well-funded lobbying organizations, follow a standard corporate pattern. They donate capital, get seats on the committees of ASTM International, and develop exactly the standards they need.
The global domino effect: As soon as California successfully demonstrates that transferring technical restrictions to an outside organization avoids direct constitutional lawsuits, other states will immediately copy this approach. This will not be limited to the borders of the states. Foreign countries will refer to the global ASTM framework as an established standard and introduce mandatory use of blocking software worldwide.