In the interest of making the discussion regarding my points here even the slightest bit understandable, I would request we try to organize our thoughts/questions about them in a similar order;
1) Law's original justification/purpose
2) How the law works & its current reach in general
3) The law's current reach regarding firearms and assoc. media
4) Literal meaning of the proposed changes (not their implications)
5) Impact on media assoc. with firearms
6) Impact on the online firearms community
7) Possible motivations/justification for the proposed changes
8) Ultimate long term impacts on the public in general (inside and outside our little clique)
I would also request that before simply dissecting my thoughts (as I myself am bad about doing), instead phrase what you yourself think as a substitute idea.
This will hopefully cut down on link-backs and quote bubbles
I'm afraid both my understanding and organization of thoughts are not quite where I want them yet, to craft a letter to be sent to the State Department or my representatives. I don't care to fire off a knee-jerk "me no like!" squeal, since it damages my/our reputations greatly, even if our concerns are valid. Telling our reps to do something without giving them the tools to actually educate/convince their peers and coworkers or a plan of action, is also a bit pointless (unless there's an urgent vote, which is not the case here). We have plenty of time to craft a quality, defensible objection before this thing moves on in the news cycle (it appears to still be on the upswing, so I figure we have until this weekend to get something we can all agree to run with). And it's a good thing, too, since ITAR regulatory specifics don't exactly lend themselves well to bumper sticker slogans.
We've got to be foreceful, but also clever & careful, or we won't have damaged the proposed regulations in the slightest. If we can work up a short n sweet talking point list that accurately reflects the situation, then by all means let slip the trolls of war upon Arfcom
So, all that other junk aside, here is my layman's, non-matriculated, stray-dog mutt's understanding and opinions on the story so far;
The ITAR law's justification:
Back during the Cold War, Russia (and China) was shamelessly ripping off our technological developent regarding arms and electronics, to the extent that they faithfully reproduced a fleet of B52 strategic bombers. In addition to cloak & dagger industrial espionage for which we already had a raft of (quite flexible/permissive) laws to punish, an awful lot of information was obtained through military contractors. At this time, the contractor base was expanding rapidly to support the ever growing and diversifying military industrial complex, which made an ever-increasing number of non-government entitites that could be contacted and compromised. Things like replacement part orders by customers who had never bought the planes, requests for technical support or detailed spec sheets, and the like could surely not be sufficiently covered by even an army of counter intelligence specialists. So the companies were made responsible for safeguarding designated material at the pleasure of the government, in order to protect our strategic/industrial standing. The law set up a bureaucracy charged with tracking sensisitive information, and ensuring compliance with security protocols among those it registers.
How the law works currently as far as small arms:
Apart from true-blue classified programs (weapons not known to exist in the public realm), the only items designated as "defense articles" (subject to direct oversight by the ITAR folks) are physical components of the weapons themselves. You can talk about anything you want, so long as it isn't itself classified or proprietary info (protected by other laws), but you cannot ship your French friend an AR buffer tube retaining whatsit without contacting the State Department. You can instead give him dimensioned drawings for the buffer tube retaining whatsit so long as no one's owned intellectual property is compromised. That many do mail items overseas to foriegners or OCONUS US citizens without incident does not designate it a legal export (incidentally, most other nations --even the neutral Swiss-- have their own equivalent of ITAR that may be more or less strict, and can include extradition for prosecution!) Since one needs an ITAR registration to simply create, let alone store, "defense articles," everyone who has built an AR15 is technically in violation already, but such a ridiculous excercise as prosecuting everyone for it is impractical/untenable. However, individuals (Cody Wilson) have found themselves required to submit to registration after being contacted by the State Dept and are thereafter bound by ITAR regarding disclosure of their information. Subsequent violations are understood to be prosecutable.
What I think the proposed changes seek to literally accomplish:
I'm sure there's a clear motive behind these changes, but you wouldn't spot it for reading through once or twice. It is a very complex area of regulation, clearly written in a purposely confusing manner. However, the thrust appears to be an expansion of the definition of "defense articles" subject to ITAR controls to the technical data surrounding current defense articles. Any data crucial to reproducing, countering, etc. "defense articles" will be classified as a "defense article" itself, making it subject to ITAR controls and procedures for disclosure, storage, and disclosure.
The other change is to formally classify the posting of "defense article" data online as an "export." I'm positive you would have been prosecuted for posting ITAR materials online in the past, as it clearly cannot be controlled in the manners required by the law at that point, but apparently the practice was not formal (had to be justified on a case-by-case basis in court, I assume)
What this means for gun information:
-All information currently in the public domain cannot be removed from it, therefore will remain unrestricted (though likely monitored to some degree, as it still pertains to "defense articles")
-New information regarding the technical details of "defense article" weapons --guns and ammo-- will now be treated as "defense article" media, and may not be generated, disseminated, or stored freely
What this means for the online gun community:
-All technical forums will be 'frozen' by compliant moderators, so no new information may be added to them
-Communities dedicated to reloading, ballistics, firearm design, firearm building, silencers, and usage tactics will become static reference sites
-Forums will be self-policed by moderators to ensure new posts containing likely ITAR data are scrubbed and the posters warned/banned in order to avoid potential legal liability, same as they do now for advocacy of other illegal acts (violence, NFA violations)
-It will be illegal to generate or store ITAR "defense article" media even for private persons, though enforcement will be limited by resources to the most egregious offenders (most likely businesses and rabble-rousers)
Possible motivations for the changes:
-There was no mention of the internet in the original law (it predates it) and all common means of export need to be addressed for sufficient clarity (fair enough; putting stuff online is the same as shipping it outside the borders)
-Due to the fall of Iraq and the middle east at large, there is a lot more US materiel in enemy hands than at problaby any point in history. Shielding them from access to the details regarding its use, maintenance, etc. is "more critical than ever." (Somehow I don't think it's right that all of us pay for their screw up, though.)
-Advances in CNC and rapid prototyping (meaning cost reductions) put them within reach of ordinary Americans as well as those who would do them harm. The government, fearful of both, seeks to limit their technological development in the firearms realm (good luck)
-Failing to pass universal background checks or an assault weapons ban, the new goal was to make it nearly impossible to discuss the technical aspects of the manufacture of firearms outside federal oversight (i.e. privately made "ghost guns") without violating what are essentially espionage laws
Ultimate impacts of the rule change:
-Gradual diminishing of public participation, then interest, then ability, then knowledge, of the private manufacture of firearms (so the only remaining source is federally licensed dealers who make record of all transfers)
-Ossification of the private firearms industry, as well as the corporate one (less innovation)
-A dulling of the online gunnie community, having been barred from discussing the most fascinating aspects of firearms. Mostly "my favorite gun" and "existing caliber vs. existing caliber" and "existing platform vs. existing platform" debates sourced solely from static source material (gradually decreasing as sites go dark)
-Occaisional high profile arrests/prosecutions of individuals for distributing 'advanced gun plans' and the like
-As new debate stagnates, diversity of existing topics will decrease sharply (nothing but AR/AK/Glock/1911 threads going forward), as will market offerings to suit them
-Fewer and fewer individuals online or in general will have any more than a basic understanding of operations and safety regarding firearms (i.e. gunsmith sear jobs and gun mods will once more become highly variable and dangerous)
-A small, but very real portion of gunowners will give up trying to abide by these restrictive laws, and dissimenate 'defense article' data freely amongst each other through some means unreachable by the government. Having broken one set of very serious laws, there will be little to no moral barrier to them breaking NFA, GCA, or other prohibitory laws, or even laws in general. This small population will have a corroding on law-abiding in general (see communities with rampant illegal drug use inevitably plagued by general lawlessness even apart from the drug-addicted)
-A clear precedent for the severe restriction of information deemed 'dangerous' to our national standing or military advantage (ie Wikileaks, whistleblowing, ATF Tech Branch determinations and regulatory changes, military autobiographies, and eventually political speech & dissent in time of war, assuming by then "we have always been at war")
It is here we see the true limitations of this forum format. There is not really any good way for us to collaborate on, well, anything. We can only data-dump or Fisk one another's arguments until all that is left is a towering inferno of misperception, misrepresentation, and confusion. At some point, a parliamentary system closer to formal debate truly is necessary for any sort of resolution on all but the simplest of issues. Just an FYI for anyone considering making an internet forum some future form of governance
TCB