- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf
Has anyone found corroborating interpretations for this planned expansion of ITAR authority? The purpose of ITAR was to prevent foreign access to domestically developed proprietary information critical to the development of military products, but it has lately become a fledgling gun control tactic, with the potential to become a serious one.
<See links below to submit comments to the proposed federal register changes>
Like most laws passed in the name of National Security (aka; The Greater Good) it sounds like a good idea, but has a number of unintended consequences. Basically, it allows a board of bureaucrats in the State Dept to designate specific information as too dangerous to 'export' to foreigners. I believe some justification is required, but I imagine the process is likely something of a rubber stamp unless lobbied. Typically cutting edge weapons R&D, stuff developed for domestic military contracts, and information critical to military superiority (i.e. 'how to build a nuke'). It is similar in concept to the security classifications (Secret, Top Secret, etc.) but covers stuff outside the government's possession. Violations are punished even more severely than NFA laws.
Moreover, in order to merely generate this content (when the State Dept knows you intend to do so) one must be federally licensed, basically as a government contractor, to continue their R&D. This to prevent the unintentional export or uncontrolled spread of the information domestically.
It is easy to see how this power could be abused, though so far it has not had very much influence outside industry (either industrial product development, or foreign commercial sales). Every so often you'll hear about someone getting in trouble for selling thermal scopes to Russia, and many licensed SOT dealers who produce machine guns pay thousands in ITAR fees annually to comply (thank you Hillary Clinton, for that). But recently Cody Wilson of Distributed Defense (of printed AR, printed Liberator, and now Ghost Gunner CNC fame) was threatened with prosecution if he did not cease distribution of his 3D Liberator files online.
The internet is accessible to foreigners, so anything placed there qualifies as an export. What the feds alleged was that the Liberator constituted a national security risk because it was a cutting edge technology with military potential to damage our strategic standing. This of a single-shot 32acp pistol that still relies on metallic components and has a life of a couple shots, maximum. Wilson complied, since by that time he'd already obtained an FFL to pursue his 3D printing research without interference (he'd been threatened previously by the ATF in that regard, and so became licensed to cover himself). He likely now pays ITAR fees of thousands of dollars to continue research on pistols like the Liberator, and to produce the CNC programming for Ghost Gunner (which must be delivered via thumbdrive with the unit, since hosting it online would be a violation, is my understanding)
The NRA asserts that our benefactors are planning to expand the scope of ITAR 'defense articles' (stuff they can regulate) to include the mere technical data needed to produce firearms. Blueprints, measurements, detailed instructions, photographs. Presently, for an 07 SOT assembling AR kits, ITAR must be paid. But this rule change would essentially shut down the vast majority of technical gun discourse on sites such as this one, as well as a trove of literature. Obviously the full enforcement of the rule change would be untenable, due to centuries of prolific content generation, but it could be used to go after the more popular internet gun and gun building forums.
I believe the intention is to restrict access to the various "how to" videos for finishing 80% AR15's, since AR platforms seem to be the sole focus of all proposed federal gun restrictions in the past 3 years. As with M855, there is a comment period for these changes, and we need to make ourselves heard. But we need to do so intelligently, which is why I am seeking supporting information for the proposed changes, so we know exactly what they are and how they will seek to strip us of our right to free speech regarding firearms. The second amendment cannot protect the first if we can't share how to produce arms, and the second will not persist while we cannot communicate freely.
If you either know the details, or feel like commenting half-cocked anyway;
[email protected]
regulations.gov
TCB
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf
Has anyone found corroborating interpretations for this planned expansion of ITAR authority? The purpose of ITAR was to prevent foreign access to domestically developed proprietary information critical to the development of military products, but it has lately become a fledgling gun control tactic, with the potential to become a serious one.
<See links below to submit comments to the proposed federal register changes>
Like most laws passed in the name of National Security (aka; The Greater Good) it sounds like a good idea, but has a number of unintended consequences. Basically, it allows a board of bureaucrats in the State Dept to designate specific information as too dangerous to 'export' to foreigners. I believe some justification is required, but I imagine the process is likely something of a rubber stamp unless lobbied. Typically cutting edge weapons R&D, stuff developed for domestic military contracts, and information critical to military superiority (i.e. 'how to build a nuke'). It is similar in concept to the security classifications (Secret, Top Secret, etc.) but covers stuff outside the government's possession. Violations are punished even more severely than NFA laws.
Moreover, in order to merely generate this content (when the State Dept knows you intend to do so) one must be federally licensed, basically as a government contractor, to continue their R&D. This to prevent the unintentional export or uncontrolled spread of the information domestically.
It is easy to see how this power could be abused, though so far it has not had very much influence outside industry (either industrial product development, or foreign commercial sales). Every so often you'll hear about someone getting in trouble for selling thermal scopes to Russia, and many licensed SOT dealers who produce machine guns pay thousands in ITAR fees annually to comply (thank you Hillary Clinton, for that). But recently Cody Wilson of Distributed Defense (of printed AR, printed Liberator, and now Ghost Gunner CNC fame) was threatened with prosecution if he did not cease distribution of his 3D Liberator files online.
The internet is accessible to foreigners, so anything placed there qualifies as an export. What the feds alleged was that the Liberator constituted a national security risk because it was a cutting edge technology with military potential to damage our strategic standing. This of a single-shot 32acp pistol that still relies on metallic components and has a life of a couple shots, maximum. Wilson complied, since by that time he'd already obtained an FFL to pursue his 3D printing research without interference (he'd been threatened previously by the ATF in that regard, and so became licensed to cover himself). He likely now pays ITAR fees of thousands of dollars to continue research on pistols like the Liberator, and to produce the CNC programming for Ghost Gunner (which must be delivered via thumbdrive with the unit, since hosting it online would be a violation, is my understanding)
The NRA asserts that our benefactors are planning to expand the scope of ITAR 'defense articles' (stuff they can regulate) to include the mere technical data needed to produce firearms. Blueprints, measurements, detailed instructions, photographs. Presently, for an 07 SOT assembling AR kits, ITAR must be paid. But this rule change would essentially shut down the vast majority of technical gun discourse on sites such as this one, as well as a trove of literature. Obviously the full enforcement of the rule change would be untenable, due to centuries of prolific content generation, but it could be used to go after the more popular internet gun and gun building forums.
I believe the intention is to restrict access to the various "how to" videos for finishing 80% AR15's, since AR platforms seem to be the sole focus of all proposed federal gun restrictions in the past 3 years. As with M855, there is a comment period for these changes, and we need to make ourselves heard. But we need to do so intelligently, which is why I am seeking supporting information for the proposed changes, so we know exactly what they are and how they will seek to strip us of our right to free speech regarding firearms. The second amendment cannot protect the first if we can't share how to produce arms, and the second will not persist while we cannot communicate freely.
If you either know the details, or feel like commenting half-cocked anyway;
[email protected]
regulations.gov
TCB
Last edited: