Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new regulation

[jmg8550]

Saw this on another site. Thought I'd post the link here as well.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-obama-regulation/article/2565762

[68Charger]

wiping their behinds with the constitution once again... I don't see this going real far, just another form of harassment.

[Doolsmack_Bud]

I don't think this will survive in the courts, even if it makes it into law/regulation.

[TFOGGER]

State can shove it up their ass. I would love to be the test case for this, as it would put the ACLU in the awkward position of defending both the First and Second Amendments.

[Mazin]

Guess we will have to wait and see if this passes but looks like a 1st amendment case to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/08/nra-gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-obama-regulation/

[wctriumph]

Those coc&#ukers, don't they have anything better to do? It is really getting be a case of them and us, no longer a government of citizens.


TEA

III

[RblDiver]

Legislation and Politics has a thread on this.

https://www.ar-15.co/threads/149056-Gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-regulation (https://www.ar-15.co/threads/149056-Gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-regulation)

[roberth]

Those coc&#ukers, don't they have anything better to do? It is really getting be a case of them and us, no longer a government of citizens.


TEA

III


Hasn't been for a LONG time, just becoming more apparent every day in a way that more people are starting to notice.

[SNAFU]

Just a thought,but hope they try.
Unfortunately, most won't care their rights will be next.
Once the 1st Amendment falls,so will the rest,like dominos.
When and how do we set term limits on Congress and Senate?
They should only be allowed 2 terms.

[TFOGGER]

They should only be allowed 2 terms.

1 in office, 1 in prison?

[BlasterBob]

1 in office, 1 in prison?

100% correct.

[SNAFU]

1 in office, 1 in prison?

Nope,,both terms,in Sing Sing or Attica

[jmg8550]

Legislation and Politics has a thread on this.

https://www.ar-15.co/threads/149056-Gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-regulation (https://www.ar-15.co/threads/149056-Gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-regulation)

Yeah, you just posted in it.

[Aardvark]

"You can't stop the signal, Mal!" I don't think it would be possible for .gov to apply the control the Eutopia's wish for.

[Zundfolge]

Not going to pass but if it does this is one of those "time to feed the hogs" turning points.

[Zombie Steve]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-obama-regulation/article/2565762

Maybe turn me into a desperado for talking about boolit casting.

[20X11]

From another forum...could make online gun forums ILLEGAL
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015060 ... ted-speech (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech)


Quote:
It's happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.

Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration's "Unified Agenda" of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.

To understand the proposal and why it's so serious, some background information is necessary.

For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called "defense articles" and "defense services" in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part "U.S. Munitions List," which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.

Also regulated under ITAR are so-called "technical data" about defense articles. These include, among other things, "detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information" about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the "public domain." Essentially, this means data "which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public" through a variety of specified means. These include "at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents." Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.

The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been "exported," as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.

With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be "clarifying" the rules concerning "technical data" posted online or otherwise "released" into the "public domain." To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the "authorization" of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.

Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized "export," including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.

Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.

But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means are at his disposal to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation?

Time is of the essence! Public comment will be accepted on the proposed gag order until August 3, 2015. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail atDDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.''

Finally, please contact your U.S. Senators and Member of Congress. Urge them to oppose the State Department's attempt to censor online speech concerning the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition. Use the "Write Your Lawmakers" feature on our website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121.

[Great-Kazoo]

Why don't you come to your senses?


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

Busy out mending fences.

[Great-Kazoo]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-obama-regulation/article/2565762

Maybe turn me into a desperado for talking about boolit casting.

The info has been out for decades. there's no way to redact it now. Besides who pays attention to those stupid gun forums , when there's serious stuff to discuss like Bruce Gender's transformation. NOW That's News.

[jmg8550]

From another forum...could make online gun forums ILLEGAL
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015060 ... ted-speech (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech)


Quote:
It's happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.

Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration's "Unified Agenda" of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.

To understand the proposal and why it's so serious, some background information is necessary.

For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called "defense articles" and "defense services" in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part "U.S. Munitions List," which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.

Also regulated under ITAR are so-called "technical data" about defense articles. These include, among other things, "detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information" about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the "public domain." Essentially, this means data "which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public" through a variety of specified means. These include "at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents." Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.

The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been "exported," as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.

With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be "clarifying" the rules concerning "technical data" posted online or otherwise "released" into the "public domain." To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the "authorization" of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.

Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized "export," including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.

Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.

But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means are at his disposal to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation?

Time is of the essence! Public comment will be accepted on the proposed gag order until August 3, 2015. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail atDDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.''

Finally, please contact your U.S. Senators and Member of Congress. Urge them to oppose the State Department's attempt to censor online speech concerning the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition. Use the "Write Your Lawmakers" feature on our website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121.



Posted on this same topic in legislation and politics.

[Buff]

The info has been out for decades. there's no way to redact it now. Besides who pays attention to those stupid gun forums , when there's serious stuff to discuss like Bruce Gender's transformation. NOW That's News.
From the Wheaties box to Fruit Loops.........[LOL]

[Buff]

On a serious note..... We're ITAR registered at work and as a supplier to OEM's the regs are fairly lax. Since all employees sign a non-disclosure / confidentiality agreement we can say much of anything.

[RblDiver]

Yeah, you just posted in it.
Actually, I didn't :P The thread where I posted was merged into this one.

[JohnnyDrama]

I think we're a little off target on this issue. I think this rule change is more aimed at the right of assembly phrase in the first amendment rather than "technical data" regarding firearms. The way I see it, the administration got a black eye after the outcry at the attempt to ban 5.56 ammo. How did many of us find out about the ban? How long did it take word to spread through the shooting community? How long did it take shooters who are active in the sport to contact their representatives and have something done about it? The administration wants to shut us down. Not so we can't share reloading data or how to fix that new build that doesn't cycle, but to keep us from alerting fellow shooters as to threats to our hobby.

If "they" can get this rammed through, they will have killed two birds with a single stone. A precedent will have been set that effectively allows for regulation of what happens on the interwebz (if not ITAR, some other law), and they can chip away at not only the Second Amendment, but any other right they wish to as well.

BTW, I'm trying to come up with something to say to my congress critters. If anyone has any ideas, I'm open to suggestion. The sooner we start speaking our minds and letting our reps know, the better.

[sellersm]

Allen B. West chimed in on this topic:

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/forget-jade-helm-obamas-state-dept-quietly-implementing-outrageous-rule-against-gun-owners/

Snippet:

The result is that the Obama administration is going to assault the First Amendment in order to undermine the Second. Once again the bureaucratic regulatory state has reared its ugly head, developed a rule and posted it to the Federal Registry without the consent and knowledge of the American people, nor their Representatives. This is yet another means by which the Obama administration — aka, the liberal progressive left, is seeking to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[asmo]

*sigh* this whole thing is about 3D printed guns. Limit the ability to share CAD files and you limit the ability for people to print guns for themselves.

This whole thing has zero to do with free speech, assembly, or 99.99% of what is talked about on Internet gun forums.

Not that I agree with the proposed ruling in any way, but if we are going to fight it, then we need to fight the right fight.

[TEAMRICO]

*sigh* this whole thing is about 3D printed guns. Limit the ability to share CAD files and you limit the ability for people to print guns for themselves.

This whole thing has zero to do with free speech, assembly, or 99.99% of what is talked about on Internet gun forums.

Not that I agree with the proposed ruling in any way, but if we are going to fight it, then we need to fight the right fight.

Whats to stop any two people from trading this info buy burning it to a disk or thumb drive?
You can't monitor that.

[CO Hugh]

A lot less than this caused some Americans to revolt against the largest empire in the world at the time.

[asmo]

Whats to stop any two people from trading this info buy burning it to a disk or thumb drive?
You can't monitor that.

The same thing that prevents people from sharing the technical details of a guidance system from a missile. Copyright and ITAR... Doesn't mean people don't do it all the time.

[SAnd]

Whats to stop any two people from trading this info buy burning it to a disk or thumb drive?
You can't monitor that.
It's not just the trading of information. It's connecting those with the information and those wishing to be informed. They may be separated by the continent or they may be next door. If they don't where the other is they can't do the exchange.