NRA: Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation

IF posted elsewhere Mods please delete
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-obama-regulation/article/2565762

NRA: Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation
BY PAUL BEDARD | JUNE 7, 2015 | 10:10 AM
Photo - AP Photo
AP Photo
Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.

In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.

RELATED: House votes to let nonviolent ex-felons restore gun rights

According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.

“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,” said the NRA in a blog posting.

“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,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop. “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,” it added At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers.

The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.

RELATED: Bam: Arms maker to sell 6,134 guns a day to benefit NRA

State’s proposal is highly technical. It took 14 pages in the Federal Register to explain. But the NRA boiled it down for gun owners with this warning:

"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.” Below are the State changes drawing the NRA fire:

Paragraph (b) of the revised definition explicitly sets forth the Department’s requirement of authorization to release information into the ‘‘public domain.’’ Prior to making available ‘‘technical data’’ or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense’s Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ‘‘technical data’’ or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ‘‘technical data’’ or software to be made available to the public.

The requirements of paragraph (b) are not new. Rather, they are a more explicit statement of the ITAR’s requirement that one must seek and receive a license or other authorization from the Department or other cognizant U.S. government authority to release ITAR controlled ‘‘technical data,’’ as defined in § 120.10. A release of ‘‘technical data’’ may occur by disseminating ‘‘technical data’’ at a public conference or trade show, publishing ‘‘technical data’’ in a book or journal article, or posting ‘‘technical data’’ to the Internet.

This proposed provision will enhance compliance with the ITAR by clarifying that ‘‘technical data’’ may not be made available to the public without authorization. Persons who intend to discuss ‘‘technical data’’ at a conference or trade show, or to publish it, must ensure that they obtain the appropriate authorization.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

I wish other people in this country loved liberty as much as the rest of us.

Yeah this AHOLE in Chief basically wants to infringe on the second via the first

Well in that case, 24grs. of TAC with 55 gr. FMJ’s works for me as a good training load… Just thought I’d mention that while I could.

Freedom of speech slowly going away… Hope they (we) can stop it. Im not afraid to say it online: kiss my ass obama…

Such an erosion of civil liberties will get the ACLU involved regardless of ACLU not exactly being a friend of the NRA. I don’t see the State Department having much success getting positive support by lawmakers. Time to contact your Congressmen and Senators so they can shove a lit Bunsen burner in John Kerry’s ass about it.

So we won’t be able to talk about guns, but they can have websites radicalize our dumbasses…

I fully expect these relentless Alinsky fools to attempt to overwhelm our defenses. It’s a page right out of their playbook. Take note that this news come right after the DOJ decides to publish their mixed bag of legislation. This is a concerted effort and it will take a concerted effort to shut it down.

Yeah this President has a sick obsession with trying to destroy the second amendment, and undermine our constitution.
When I think of all things this guy is allowed to get away with, I often wonder if Karma/ God will stop him

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

I highly doubt it is as dire as you are led to believe. Let’s wait for some lawyers to chime in before we jump off the bridge in unison.

Pretty much. Starting to think the whole ITAR thing needs to go away. Just another .gov over reach. Guess Wikipedia is toast.

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.

So how do they plan on keeping a copy of Jane’s or a Blake Stevens book from going overseas? Never mind that there are probably thousands of "TM"s provided to the Iraqi military that are in the hands of ISIS along with abandoned weapons, vehicles and armor. The absurdity of this entire premise is astounding.

If it keeps people from buying up the components I like, then I’m in!!! :jester:

I am a lawyer. I have briefly read the proposed changes and the NRA comments on them, and have tried to make sense of it. Very important preliminary information: most federal regulations are extremely dense and specific to a certain context, and it is often difficult for anyone, even a lawyer who deals with other federal regulations, to understand exactly how they are meant to work without some length of time practicing with them. I find that regulations are often specific on some topics while being totally silent on important related topics, and simply reading the regulations is often not enough to understand what the agency actually plans to do while claiming to be following those regulations.

With that said, what I see in the changes could, conceivably, be used to do bad things the way that the NRA describes, but I doubt that is actually the intent.

I’m fully aware that some parts of the current administration are extremely sneaky and dangerous, but major parts of the federal administration are simply career employees doing their thing, with limited responsiveness to whatever political regime happens to be in office.

I expect this is intended to limit web publication of blueprints and complete data packages. It might readily be used to limited the “Defense Distributed” and similar types of complete CAD files for firearms manufacturing. I don’t think it’s meant to limit the sort of discussions we have here or at other common forums.

It might be worthwhile to write in with comments expressing concern that this not be applied to hinder discussion forums and journalistic articles. But it’s not the topic I’d be most excited about right now.

Do you mean like the RICO statutes went from reigning in the mob, to stealing some poor schlep’s money on the side of the road? Or perhaps the way Sarbanes Oxley was intended for Enron type fraud, but is now used to individual people for deleting their web browser history at home?

Yeah, they can say it’s for the best intention in the world, but they’ll still pave the road to hell with it. :frowning:

Never heard of that claim about use of SOX - do you have any links to articles?

But otherwise, yeah, something may be passed for one fairly legitimate purpose, and later be used for something else that’s abusive. Happens all the time, but it could happen with almost any law. While I like narrowly drafted statutes, fundamentally that is more an issue with our current system of government than with the drafting of specific statutes. For example, stop and realize that the topic of this thread is not a statute, but a change in administrative regulations - something that has the legal effect of a statute (99% of the time), but is created by an agency through a non-democratic process, with only mild checks and balances. The sheer growth of administrative law is a bigger issue than any one particular regulation.

Let me grab my tin foil hat. What I could see is something like the old porn law regulations. All kinds of stuff flying around out there with little to define what is illegal. Then you get selective enforcement- so everyone gets nervous about what they post and that ends up being the chilling effect.

Probably not going to happen, but if 10 years ago you had told me about the selective use of the IRS and the lack of MSM interest, I would have said that was tin foil hat fodder too.

http://www.thenation.com/article/208593/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history

They used it on one of Tsarnaev’s buddies, so no one is going to really get up in arms about it. This time… :frowning:

Small detail, Janes is a British publisher already :wink:

But you get your dick cut off, slather on some whore paint, and put on a wig given hero status with protected speech.

Circling the bowl . . .

They only have to win ONCE…