• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Censoring Gun related speech!

John A. said:
Naturally, I contacted all of my reps.

---------------------------------------------------------

Good evening Senator.

I am writing today to express my anger over the proposed changes regarding ITAR concerning firearms, ammunition, videos, articles, etc.

From everything I have gathered, they are wanting to make criminals out of millions of law abiding citizens who have even discussed anything firearm related online.

This is not only an infringement on our Second Amendment right, but a straight out attack on our First amendment.
It's been known that the President has been trying to do as much damage to our rights as he can in the time he has left in office, but I am writing to let you know that if this goes through, there will be literally tens of millions of people who have done nothing wrong that can be prosecuted and fined for nothing more than public discussion of a right.

I am writing to let you know that I expect nothing less than your full opposition to this and to do everything in your power to stop this from happening.
Click to expand...

Good letter. I don't understand why the liberal press isn't all over this, simply because of the 1st Amendment implications. Very little coverage of the whole thing by anyone in fact. Just the NRA, one paper, and a few gun forums is all I've found that have even briefly mentioned this. And of those, it seems there is a lot of misunderstanding of the actual proposed rule, that makes me think hardly anyone has bothered to read it. I know it's lengthy and complicated, but c'mon. It's really not too much to ask is it?

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...of-defense-services-technical-data-and-public

Here's one of the pertainent paragraphs in the proposed rule. The definition of "technical data" is also changed and is explained in the proposed rule.

Paragraph (a)(7) is added for the release of information to a public network, such as the Internet. This makes more explicit the existing control in (a)(4), which includes the publication of “technical data” to the Internet due to its inherent accessibility by foreign persons. This means that before posting information to the Internet, you should determine whether the information is “technical data.” You should review the USML, and if there is doubt about whether the information is “technical data,” you may request a commodity jurisdiction determination from the Department. If so, a license or other authorization, as described in § 120.11(b), will generally be required to post such “technical data” to the Internet. Posting “technical data” to the Internet without a Department or other authorization is a violation of the ITAR even absent specific knowledge that a foreign national will read the “technical data.”
Click to expand...
 
There have been 4 comments submitted on this proposed rule change. None of them addresses the concerns we have or that were voiced by NRA-ILA and others. All 4 comments focus on the "brokering rule" portion of the ITAR proposal. 2 were submitted by the ABA, one by GE, and one anonymous.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOS_FRDOC_0001

If anyone wants to read them click the above link and then download the attached pdf for that comment.

This is also the page where you can comment on this, however I'm pretty sure comments along the lines of "stick it where the sun don't shine", will not be accepted. ;)
 
I found this from the press briefing the other day. The State press flak avoided directly answering the questions as they pertain to 1A and/or 2A and individuals on forums such as this, but I think it's plain what the intent of the rule change is.

Specifically, as it is written, you will have to get a ruling from them on whether what you want to put on the net is "general info, pics, etc. " or is specific detailed info. Therein lies the problem. We don't want to have to go hat in hand to State or any other gov. entity to post whatever the hell we want.

Partial transcript follows (My bolding):

QUESTION: Did you get an answer the question I asked yesterday about these ITAR – revisions to the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations?

MR RATHKE: I did. I’m happy to go through that, if that would be helpful. You asked yesterday, Matt, about a June 3rd publication in the Federal Register by the State Department of proposed changes for public comment to several regulatory definitions under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. These proposed changes in definition are part of our broader effort to streamline and modernize a Cold War-era regulatory system to better safeguard against illicit attempts to procure sensitive U.S. defense technologies.

These proposed definition changes – which, as I pointed out, are out for public comment – they seek to account for technologies that were not envisioned when the regulations were initially developed. Otherwise these definitions are intended to be a clarification of existing law and regulations, technical data, and detailed schematics that are required for the manufacture or production of defense articles already require U.S. Government authorization before they can be disseminated by U.S. manufacturers.

Now in contrast, general descriptions, public discussions, and imagery of defense articles, including firearms, have never been the subject of – to these regulations and they would remain unaffected under these proposed revisions. As I said at the start, they were published in the Federal Register for public comment. That’s a period that runs through August 3rd of this year. So I’d refer people to the text of the Federal Register notice for details about providing --

QUESTION: Okay. So these rules would not apply to private citizens, only to manufacturers – and only to highly sensitive technical details? Is that --

MR RATHKE: They apply to the technical data and detailed schematics for the production of defense articles.

QUESTION: So they don’t apply to private citizens.

MR RATHKE: Well, they apply to anything that relates to those areas of subject matter, whether discussed by --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, the concern that had been raised by the Second Amendment groups is somehow this is going to restrict or stop or ban discussions about gun – about firearms --

MR RATHKE: Well, I go back to the – also the point that general descriptions – that is general, not technical and detailed ones – general descriptions or public discussions and imagery of defense articles would – have never been subject to these regulations and wouldn’t --

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/06/243337.htm
Click to expand...
 
Well, if some guy assures me that some descriptions would not be "subject to these regulations", that's good enough for me! ...NOT.

When recent tests show that the TSA can miss 95% of guns and explosives, and when the FBI fails to communicate its intel with local PDs, like in Garland (TX), all of this flying in the face of all post-9/11 promises... it should be clear that WE are the first line of defense against domestic threats, not useless and bloated bureaucracies. As such we should be empowered, not muzzled and disarmed. This was the thinking behind the LEOSA, after all. More good guys with guns is a good thing.
And you simply can't take people's freedoms away one by one under guise of giving them safety in exchange, when you've proven yourself to be so inept at the second part. This is what gives hawkish people like me, who initially gave the White House carte blanche after 9/11 (I was frankly expecting Martial Law back then), reason to believe that something else is going on with all those attacks on the Constitution.
 
Press Secretary tap danced through a mine field.

Mine%20field.jpg
 
Twelve Pump said:
Well, if some guy assures me that some descriptions would not be "subject to these regulations", that's good enough for me! ...NOT.

When recent tests show that the TSA can miss 95% of guns and explosives, and when the FBI fails to communicate its intel with local PDs, like in Garland (TX), all of this flying in the face of all post-9/11 promises... it should be clear that WE are the first line of defense against domestic threats, not useless and bloated bureaucracies. As such we should be empowered, not muzzled and disarmed. This was the thinking behind the LEOSA, after all. More good guys with guns is a good thing.
And you simply can't take people's freedoms away one by one under guise of giving them safety in exchange, when you've proven yourself to be so inept at the second part. This is what gives hawkish people like me, who initially gave the White House carte blanche after 9/11 (I was frankly expecting Martial Law back then), reason to believe that something else is going on with all those attacks on the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Defense Distributed (the printed gun guys) are the test case for this. They've been fighting State for 2 years. Y'all need to read the entire article, not just the excerpt I posted here. Have some intoxicating substance handy, you'll want a drink.


The Obama administration’s latest anti-gun salvo isn’t about reducing gun violence or stopping the export of dangerous weapons, it’s about pure retaliation against a non-profit that sued the government in federal court last month.

Defense Distributed, a pro-Second Amendment non-profit organization that provides blueprints, plans, and machinery to fabricate or finish firearm components, has been at war with the State Department for nearly two years.

According to a complaint it filed in federal court last month, the organization began to make its data, compiled entirely from publicly available information, available for free on the Internet in December of 2012. Just a few months later, in May of 2013, Defense Distributed received a letter from the State Department alleging that the group was illegally exporting technical data. The federal government then demanded, in contravention of long-standing policy dating back to 1984, that Defense Distributed submit its proposed speech to the federal government for pre-approval.

You read that right: the Obama administration demanded that a pro-Second Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech, consisting of publicly available information, to the federal government for approval prior to publishing.

For nearly two years, Defense Distributed tried to comply with the State Department’s demands. The organization submitted its data for pre-approval. Then it waited. And waited. And waited. After asserting a lawless requirement that the government must pre-approve speech by Defense Distributed, the government refused to do anything but sit on its hands.

More: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/10...-against-group-that-sued-the-govt-last-month/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I read the whole article.

Sounds like Fed is trying to cover his ass again by trying to rewrite laws shortly after a major lawsuit was filed.

Classic.

I'm so glad you found and shared that because it explains so much.
 
John A. said:
I read the whole article.

Sounds like Fed is trying to cover his ass again by trying to rewrite laws shortly after a major lawsuit was filed.

Classic.

I'm so glad you found and shared that because it explains so much.
Click to expand...


They could fix this just by stipulating that the new rules only apply to items specifically and solely produced under contract to the Federal Govt. instead of spray painting everyone. But that's obviously not the goal. :mad:
 
Got to respect their tenacity...as there is nothing else about them worthy of respect. If they can't ban guns then they will just prevent people from talking about them which means we can't even argue many pro 2A issues and the rest just falls into place. <facepalm> It's sickening...
 
GunnyGene said:
Defense Distributed (the printed gun guys) are the test case for this. They've been fighting State for 2 years. Y'all need to read the entire article, not just the excerpt I posted here. Have some intoxicating substance handy, you'll want a drink.
Click to expand...
Roger that, Gunny. I hadn't delved into the background of the case and was merely commenting on the principles involved.
Just like the internet, 3D printing is probably terrifying to any government. The feds are behind the curve (as always), scrambling to control what they see (rightfully so, to an extent) as potential threats to national security. The problem I think we all have with their M.O. is the pettiness and over-reach, in this case when dealing with Defense Distributed but it could be anyone. As the blogger above said, regardless of any assurances given now... once the foot is in the door it is too late. Because the first and second Amendments are not just potential collateral damage to this (unacceptable enough), but they have been in the cross-hairs all along.
 
The purpose is purportedly: " . . . to better safeguard against illicit attempts to procure sensitive U.S. defense technologies."

If my 100 year-old tech lever gun is a "sensitive technology" that the whole freakin world doesn't know about already, I sure as hell don't want to tell any of you foreign guys how to fix your computer!

Imagine how sensitive that data might be. One computer can control a whole missile system.

But of course the purported purpose is just a bald-faced lie.

It's all about controlling the people.

The truth is that our enemies already have the technology for nearly everything we're doing, and it's Clinton and Obama who are responsible.

There's no preventing that. People are going to copy our stuff.
The key is that we have to always be one jump ahead of them. That's where our govt should concentrate their efforts.
Not in some hopeless, misguided, and totally unworkable attempt at censorship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top