ITAR Restrictions Expanding to Cover Firearms Info?

Status
Not open for further replies.
'This new ITAR law makes perfect sense; after what the Rosenbergs did, we'd be idiots not to restrict the disclosure of non-classified technical data that could still be seen as strategically sensitive. It's not like they'd ever seek to restrict mundane stuff like civilian small arms information'
It certainly appears that is exactly what this new regulation is capable of, if not purpose-built for. The name of the law is International Traffic in Arms Regulations, for Pete's sake; that most certainly includes small arms, and the restrictive means to ensure they are not traded internationally (which, in a globalist society, translates into strict control, generally)

"i don't see the feds coming after people for discussing guns on the web."
I have to say I'm growing increasingly worried, not by the content, but by the response of a good 1/3 of commenters I see relating to this issue. "They won't do that" is a horrible assumption to make of government. Are you tired of selective enforcement and executive discretion? That is what you are endorsing when you tolerate a law because it is unenforceable at present.

They'll never shut down and prosecute bloggers for hosting restricted information (even on foreign servers), huh? That's exactly what is happening to the silkroad scum, so it is far more accurate to say authorities currently lack the will, not the ability to shut down gun forums for some perceived slight and prosecute the operators. I believe something similar happened with regards to US-based WikiLeaks sites, though they shut down after mere cease-and-desist letters.

I know the regulation is a tough read. I know this is complex and stupid. And I see gun owner after gun owner on forums throw up their hands and say "it couldn't possibly mean that; they aren't that crazy" or "you guys are paranoid wingers" without actually addressing the concerns raised from the plain text. More worrisome, it appears the initial reporting came off as so click-baitey to so many readers (even though the 'ban gun forums' headlines don't seem quite so off the mark according to my estimation), and the subsequent explanations so poorly-worded, long-winded (guilty), and confusing in logical progression that it has been dismissed, and is not remaining a headline topic at many major gun news outlets. And without being properly debunked as a hoax/exaggeration like the other hoaxes/exaggerations

M855 seemed to light a fire under everyone almost immediately, and I think because it was easy to understand; "the gubbermint says they're armor-piercing and wants to ban them, but they lie and here's why." Our response to the ITAR proposal is a lengthy explanation of what ITAR is (since no one knows/cares), and why the proposal is needlessly expansive and out of step with our long understood constitutional restraints on governmental authority and--

"BOR-RING! It can't possibly be a real threat if it takes that long to explain. 'All technical gun discussion on the web could be banned,' you say? Why, that's crazy talk. There's no way the law says that."
...
"...What's this? THR received a cease and desist letter from the State Department ordering them to immediately put an end to new discussion regarding technical data pertaining to the manufacture, performance, and use of firearms and ammunition, and are shutting down the equipment and reloading forums as a precaution? The use agreement now forbids discussion of such and is grounds for a permanent ban from the forum?"
...
"Well, it seems AR15.com has been shut down entirely, and the operators subpoenaed for a large list of members who began making threats of violence once the cease and desist was posted --that's to be expected."

It is worth repeating that our wealth of gun-talk is but a tiny drop in the cesspool that is the general public discourse. App-writing forums probably get more traffic than we do. The vast, vast, vast majority of Americans and our legal/representative leaders do not share our thirst for this information, and most likely find it uninteresting to off-putting (hunting/terminal ballistics threads, anyone?). They will not fight our censorship, they will if anything request it after being exposed to the scarier sounding (as well as legitimately scary) corners of gun forum topics.

TCB
 
Cody says a lot of dumb stuff;
"Your revolution was fought for less" --we had a lot less to lose in 1776

And some flat out unhelpful stuff;
" 'Now that I have this 1500$ mill, I can blow away kindergartners' "
--Cody Wilson paraphrasing a killer on NPR's radio segment Ghost Guns

But I think he is not as far off the mark as you might think here;
"But don't be numb to just what this is. This isn't about firearm industry compliance. It's about divesting you of any free and public access to the means of your own defense; about pruning you from gunsmithing culture and its scientific exchange. Their claim is that gun technology is exclusively commercial and military. You're a pleb and it isn't for you."

Again, this is a crazy dense/confusing/frustrating rule change to reason through. I implore everyone to put forth the effort to do so. They caught their mistake with the ATF move (it was too easy to describe and counter-argue) so they're using something as treacherous as tax law now. We desperately need some ITAR-trained lawyers helping us form some arguments, but I suspect they are too busy tending to corporate compliance to help in their off time (hard to blame them) or are legally barred from commenting by their employers.

TCB
 
I expect the ITAR lawyers are busy working with their clients on how big a mess the proposed changes might make for them if the changes are too loose or too vague and cost them time and money bringing product to market.
 
Since I haven't seen anyone else post a list of what they think the impacts are, and since it appears calling attention to the impacts is our best bet (though we'll look like tin-foil hyperbolites if we do), any thoughts on what I came up with? Any/all particularly appealing to congress-critters looking to pander, or particularly outrageous but also believable enough to suggest legal vulnerability (of interest to the State Department via comment)?

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)

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 with no interest to replace them)
-Occasional 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")

I'd really like to get a decent letter hashed out by Friday, folks, but we all need to figure out what the best areas to lodge a complaint are, and how.

TCB
 
hso said:
From Cody Wilson's Ghost Gunner newsletter/email -


ITAR and First/Second Amendments

The news you've recently heard about the Obama Administration regulating speech related to guns on the Internet is true and actually worse than the NRA-ILA message has indicated. The State Department is now formalizing the power to police all public exchange of data related to any category of munition online. I'm frustrated with the NRA's rhetoric, which is that ITAR has not yet been used to block websites or harm public speech. This is a lie springing from the organization's refusal to develop a position on homemade and 3D firearms.

The Sate Department has in fact harassed and censored this company for two years with the ITAR. Every compliance move we make in an attempt to publish CAD files or gun software is re-routed, stymied or ignored. This Federal power grab isn't a hypothetical, future scenario. It is already US policy and is being used to target politically-motivated speech related to the Second Amendment.

State has even directly threatened this company over opening our Ghost Gunner forum. The forum is literally closed to registration as of today because the US government doesn't want us to be able to support an open-source DIY product expanding your 2A franchise. We are unable to publicly develop our machine with you until this agency has been corrected.

Because of this malicious set of laws, Defense Distributed filed suit against the State Department in early May. We've brought a First Amendment lawsuit and we are joined by the Second Amendment foundation and other legal talents in Texas. I want to emphasize that none of the gun lobbies are funding this effort and neither are they willing. Defense Distributed alone has has funded this multi-year endeavor and only by the success of Ghost Gunner and your patience were we able to afford to reach this filing.

I'll update you all at the right time about this matter in more depth, but our current filings may be found here. Our first hearing is ordered for July 6.

I at least hope that with the NRA's spotlight and the public comment period offered for the new regulations, the reg will be pulled. Comments will be accepted on the regulations until August 3, 2015, and they may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail at [email protected] with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.''

But don't be numb to just what this is. This isn't about firearm industry compliance. It's about divesting you of any free and public access to the means of your own defense; about pruning you from gunsmithing culture and its scientific exchange. Their claim is that gun technology is exclusively commercial and military. You're a pleb and it isn't for you.

Remember that your Revolution was fought for less.

Thank you, hso, for bringing this up here. This demonstrates a new tactic by the anti-gun rights crowd. They wish to implement regulations ex post facto to cover what they have been engaged in for some time. I guess they are taking a clue from "Star Wars" where when the Sith lord was asked by the leader of the trade union if their maneuver was legal and he responded with, "I will make it legal."

Woody
 
Last edited:
My ITAR Change Objection Letter said:
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to object to the proposed changes regarding the ITAR, namely the re-definition of the term "defense articles" subject to restriction of foreign-export. It appears the reclassification of assorted "technical data" pertaining to previously-classified "defense articles" represents an unprecedented expansion of the materials claimed subject to the regulation.

Specifically, how this newly claimed authority pertains to the realm of firearms. Throughout the entirety of this nation's history, the lawful design, construction, and discussion of firearms amongst the public has been thoughtfully protected, in keeping with the first and second amendments to the US Constitution. The rule changes described in the federal register appear to usurp this intentional protection, using the justification of the appearance of internet communication, yet the regulatory changes extend far beyond mere internet exchange.

The rule requires anyone creating newly defined ITAR "defense article" data or media to first seek State Department approval and registration before proceeding with its release into the public sphere. Apart from the prohibitory tax burden imposed by mandatory ITAR registration, this approval process constitutes a severe prior restraint on speech that has until now has been clearly protected by US statutes. Anyone interested in learning the details of firearms operation, design, construction, or performance would inevitably become entrapped by these far reaching regulatory changes that seek to restrict access to all new firearms technical data not already in the public sphere. Such a result would be a fiscal and legal nightmare for both the government and those seeking to operate within this scheme, and is unacceptable.

Apart from the severe impacts on online information sharing, which is now the predominant form of communication for technical data of all kinds, the new material classification rules would prevent the publishing of detailed technical articles and manuscripts regarding firearms in assorted print or broadcast media, even though the claimed justification for these newly claimed powers is the ascendance of the internet. The internet has been repeatedly held as no more threatening and no less protected than any other form of publication, and for the ITAR or State Department to determine online communication as especially dangerous speech is unacceptable.

The justification to classify as "defense articles" sensitive to our nation's strategic standing, the various firearm technical data, is also unsupportable. Small arms up to and including .50 caliber are perfectly legal devices for American civilians to purchase, own, build, and operate in accordance with federal and state laws. Far from constituting a national security threat, our governing documents make it clear this information and its free disclosure are absolutely critical to our security as a free nation. They cannot therefore constitute such a significant strategic or existential threat to our nation's security domestically or abroad that mere technical speech pertaining to them must be restricted severely. Such a broad restriction on speech regarding an entire class of technology in common lawful use by the public fails even the thinnest scrutiny.

In conclusion; the proposed changes to ITAR must not be adopted. They are far too sweeping beyond the claimed purpose, the claimed purpose itself is so sweeping it falls outside the existing regulatory authority of the State Department, the type of data that would be restricted has both historical precedent and legal protection spanning centuries, and the security threat claimed in order to justify this threat is wildly exaggerated if not fabricated outright.

Thank you for your time spent addressing my concerns,
TCB

I suspect introduction and closing courtesies are wasted on these people. While I think the issues I have laid out here poison the ITAR changes so fully that they should all be withdrawn for the time being, I restricted my complaint to merely the 'firearms' area I have even the slightest bit of understanding. Arguments for opposing the definition of the internet as "public domain" are beyond me, since on its face that concept doesn't seem like such a reach as the twice-removed-from-assisting-the-enemy nonsense the "defense article" changes pose.

If there is a good explanation for rejecting the rest of the proposed changes (again, I can only assume all are poison at this point) I will gladly submit it as a subsequent comment to this one for review.

I would also strongly suggest that commenters refrain from complaining how the regulation would 'shut down all the popular gun blogs and gun building sites.' That will do nothing more than confirm the desired impact for the reviewers, regardless the legality/illegality of the intended impact.

TCB
 
Last edited:
Attention, attention; it appears this regulation is 'trending' at the top of the regulations.gov homepage --makes it very easy to find and use. Please tell everyone you know how easy it is to lodge a complaint, whether they think this is a 'real' threat to us or just the NRA fundraising.

Whenever some troll posits that, respond politely that it doesn't matter since lodging a complaint makes them no money and helps them in no way whatsoever. I would also demand they explain fully why this is not a threat as a growing number of interested people are asserting, and not let them get away with dismissing it out of hand.

The AR15.com type forums where this issue is raised are absolutely disgusting with the amount of outright denial. All of it stemming from the absolute-first-initial scare-mongering titles like "Obama bans guns on the internet." Were I as conspiracy-minded as I have been purported to be for raising this issue, I might suspect troll 'scoop-breakers' were employed to exaggerate and bring ridicule on the topic early on. Instead, I think it was due to bloggers realizing this is a dry and inscrutable topic, hoping dearly that such scary headlines would convince readers to focus for more than two minutes on the article so they might understand the situation. A bridge too far, I'm sure.

The lesson: Don't bring this topic up as a bomb-thrower, even if this ITAR change is truly a bombshell! Pose it as a question, or something; ask whether a topic under consideration would be restricted 'if the new ITAR changes were already in effect.' Anything but claims of bans, oppression, tyranny, and gas chambers. Please. Build up to that, if you absolutely must.

TCB
 
Before I submit my comment, I have one question for others who may have done so already, or have used the system in the past.

The comment-box does not support word-wrapping, so the above text is one line per paragraph :D. Will it be reviewed by readers properly, or will it be truncated at 80 characters or something, and discarded? Would be a very sneaky trick to cut down on comments, but look who we're dealing with ;)

TCB
 
Okay, we got a basic plan (spread the word and encourage people to send opposing comments), we have some basic recommendations on how to approach and inform people (focus on the 1st amendment issue, don't strain the credibility of the threat by telling uninformed gun owners that the sky is falling), and we have a sample letter.

I think that's enough to open a full activism thread.
 
Two things:

1. I'm wondering a bit if barnbwt's proposed letter doesn't provide just a little too much confirmation to State that the proposed regulation will do exactly what they intend for it to do.

2. The regulation hinges on export, not speech as it considers anything posted in the internet to be an exported item. In this regards, the options are to either regulate the material being exported, or regulate the vehicle. If regulating the material fails, the obvious next move is full govt. regulation of the internet. With the court order supporting the FCC asserting authority to control the internet like any other public utility going into effect today, the ground work has been layed.
 
1. I'm wondering a bit if barnbwt's proposed letter doesn't provide just a little too much confirmation to State that the proposed regulation will do exactly what they intend for it to do.
Here was my thinking for the comment (which are part of public record, btw)
-We see what you are doing
-This is what it woukd accomllish
-We know why you are doing it
-It is illegal on its face
-Knock it off (or suffer the consequences is implied)

It might be fun to suggest in your letters that a strike down of this rule change could extend to a larger dismantling of ITAR, but didn't think it believable enough to mention.

TCB
 
Here's my Congress Critter Letter

Greetings, Mr. Govt Sanctioned Bum,
I am writing to seek your opposition to the proposed changes regarding the ITAR which amount to a digital "assault weapons ban" to be passed without congressional action and implemented by restrictions on public speech; namely the re-definition of the term "defense articles" subject to restriction of foreign-export. It appears the reclassification of assorted "technical data" pertaining to previously-classified "defense articles" represents an unprecedented expansion of the scope of regulation.

Specifically, how this newly claimed authority pertains to the area of firearms. Throughout the entirety of this nation's history, the lawful design, construction, and discussion of firearms amongst the public has been thoughtfully protected, in keeping with the first and second amendments to the US Constitution. The rule changes described in the federal register appear to usurp this intentional protection, using the justification of the appearance of internet communication, yet the regulatory changes extend far beyond mere internet exchange.

The rule requires anyone creating newly defined ITAR "defense article" data or media to first seek State Department approval and registration before proceeding with its release into the public sphere. Apart from the prohibitory tax burden imposed by mandatory ITAR registration, this approval process constitutes a severe prior restraint on speech that has until now has been clearly protected by US statutes. Anyone interested in learning the details of firearms operation, design, construction, or performance would inevitably become entrapped by these far reaching regulatory changes that seek to restrict access to all new firearms technical data not already in the public sphere. Such a result would be a fiscal and legal nightmare for both the government and those seeking to operate within this scheme, and is unacceptable.

Apart from the severe impacts on online information sharing, which is now the predominant form of communication for technical data of all kinds, the new material classification rules would prevent the publishing of detailed technical articles and manuscripts regarding firearms in assorted print or broadcast media, even though the claimed justification for these newly claimed powers is the ascendance of the internet. The internet has been repeatedly held as no more threatening and no less protected than any other form of publication, and for the ITAR or State Department to determine online communication as especially dangerous speech is unacceptable.

The justification to classify as "defense articles" sensitive to our nation's strategic standing, the various firearm technical data, is also unsupportable. Small arms up to and including .50 caliber are perfectly legal devices for American civilians to purchase, own, build, and operate in accordance with federal and state laws. Far from constituting a national security threat, our governing documents make it clear this information and its free disclosure are absolutely critical to our security as a free nation. They cannot therefore constitute such a significant strategic or existential threat to our nation's security domestically or abroad that mere technical speech pertaining to them must be restricted severely. Such a broad restriction on speech regarding an entire class of technology in common lawful use by the public fails even the thinnest scrutiny.

I implore you to oppose this administration's proposed changes to the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulation). Allowing all new discussion of 'gun technology' to be stricken from the public discourse will have an impact much like an "assault weapons ban," leading to the stagnation and atrophy of the civilian shooting sports, much as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did. Opposition to this proposed change is already widespread. I am certain you are already receiving letters, and will continue to receive many more in the coming months as popular opposition organizes around the NRA's call to action. The circumstances surrounding this change strongly suggest they are politically motivated, in order to keep certain gun rights activists' lawsuits from proceeding, so it is likely the administration will go ahead with the regulations, regardless of the results from the public comment period ending in August. Action on your part is needed to halt this rule change in its tracks; removing from ITAR purview all technical information pursuant to the design, construction, function, operation, and service of firearms in accordance with federal firearms laws (those accessible to civilians) would be a good place to start. Removing from their oversight, all small arms and related information, is a more thorough solution, as none constitute such an existential threat to national security as to justify restrictions on our core freedoms.

In conclusion; the proposed changes to ITAR must not be adopted. They are far too sweeping beyond the claimed purpose, the claimed purpose itself is so sweeping it falls outside the existing regulatory authority of the State Department, the type of data that would be restricted has both historical precedent and legal protection spanning centuries, and the security threat claimed in order to justify this threat is wildly exaggerated if not fabricated outright.

Once again, I seek your opposition and assistance in defeating this proposal. Thank you for your time, and your service to the state & nation.
TCB

Included a bit more 'inflammatory language' --"Digital Assault Weapons Ban"-- that will hopefully give them the proper perspective on this, as well as a description of the sort of opposition being built right now against it (name-dropped the NRA for good measure), and proposed a vehicle for mooting this rule change beyond congress's direct authority (strip ITAR of authority to regulate NFA-compliant firearms/information, or firearms 'stuff' in general). Also some good 'ol buttkissing at the end, there ;)

Hopefully I'll get some sort of informative response from my Texas reps shortly.

TCB
 
Last edited:
I don't think this has anything to do with foreign countries or even who owns guns. I think this is about us gun owners being able to contact each other and form an organized resistance to the political powers that would have us disarmed.

We got together and raised a huge stink when 5.56 ammo was on the verge of being outlawed. "They" don't want to go through that again.

Totally agree. This is a 'divide and conquer' play.

Demonizing the gun has worked fairly well for them to promote restrictions.

Demonize ideas & knowledge - Then restrict the ideas & knowledge.


With the way the Patriot Act was trimmed, they needed a way to fill the void. :scrutiny:

Truly this can lead to scary things.
 
Think about it this way: if they weren't trolling boards for worrisome information already, they sure as heck would be if this passes. This simply gives them authority for the next step; enforcement.

BTW;
Anyone one here ever get random PMs from new posters with no posts asking for technical information on firearms they've posted about? I have, and from goobers with poor English skills, too. What are the chances they could be foreign persons? Prepare to think carefully about what you say...

TCB
 
You forgot the secret courts issuing general warrants, but yeah, it's gettin' pretty ridiculous.

Hopefully this means our system is about to take a hard turn towards libertarianism (recent grassroots political developments suggest this a very real possibility)

TCB
 
Anyone one here ever get random PMs from new posters with no posts asking for technical information on firearms they've posted about? I have, and from goobers with poor English skills, too. What are the chances they could be foreign persons? Prepare to think carefully about what you say...

Got one just this week about the R51. I found it...curious. :scrutiny: (but probably better discussed in a separate thread so as not to derail this one)

Here was my thinking for the comment (which are part of public record, btw)
-We see what you are doing
-This is what it woukd accomllish
-We know why you are doing it
-It is illegal on its face
-Knock it off (or suffer the consequences is implied)

OK, that makes sense as far as it goes, but as you said, this is State. They are heavy hitters. And of all the double-talking government entities, they are the most experiencec and proficient at double-talk. Or triple-talk. Nothing they way is what it seems on the surface, and the most obvious negatives are probably there to focus resistance away from the true purpose and even channel that resistance into support for something else they want to accomplish. My concern is that we haven't yet identified everything they are trying to do with this.

Originally Posted by mokin
I don't think this has anything to do with foreign countries or even who owns guns. I think this is about us gun owners being able to contact each other and form an organized resistance to the political powers that would have us disarmed.

We got together and raised a huge stink when 5.56 ammo was on the verge of being outlawed. "They" don't want to go through that again.

I'm sure the British Parliament would have loved to have had a similar way to suppress the Colonies' Committees of Correspondence. :eek:
 
Seeing as the official justification is "becuz gunz and we can't control the internetz," I suspect locking down gunnies is the real motivation. I'm certain the actual feint is the convenient introduction of loud and obnoxious gun bills with mo shot at passage at the same time.

Somehow gunnies will believe all guns could be made to include electronic locks, but locking down gun building forums is a bridge too far :scrutiny:

TCB
 
I have done some more digging, and I do not feel better about this. I'll try to break out the chain of references so it might possibly make sense. It is disgusting how clearly obfuscated this whole process is.

More research into ITAR has revealed;
-There is a catch-all "Miscellaneous" category at the end of 27 CFR 411.21 (ITAR munitions list)
-Items may be added to it by agreement between the Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense (all reporting to the President)
-It appears this portion of the statute was amended recently (as best I can tell, the president himself previously had to sign off on the determination)

I have a feeling this is the authority by which Cody Wilson was shut down, since no other categories properly describe the technical CAD data he was posting online. A quick conference call, and your pen is sanctioned. My understanding of the proposed rule change the subject of this thread, is that the process by which Cody was shut down will be made official and broadened greatly, subject instead to mere ATF director discretion. By classifying technical info as a defense article, CAD files would be covered by Section 1 at the top of 27 CFR 411.21 "Firearms." The theory is this change would also knock Wilson's suit against the ITAR back to square one, since technically a 'new' regulation would be responsible for his claimed damages, technically the responsibility of a different government body (the ATF instead of the State Dept, which is moronic since they both report to POTUS at the end of the day)

******************************

I would love for someone with experience with federal regulations to weigh in, here, since deciphering the assorted codes and references is practically impossible by design. I am a pure layman, but I am troubled greatly by what I see proposed, and have not seen one shred of convincing argument that I am misinterpreting, yet. Repeatedly I've been told that ITAR does not apply to individuals (it most certainly does) and that our government would never be so brazen as to try enforcing this as written. That's it, and I do not find it reassuring.

TCB
 
Last edited:
Two Weeks Left, Folks. That's All. Only 7000 Comments.

For the love of all that is gunnie, please post something in opposition in the Federal Register.

Found an older article about a press conference in which these changes were "explained". Hadn't seen this since last looking into the topic.

Hearing it straight from the horses mouth, it appears;
-Private citizens posting online will be subject to the regs (obviously)
-All "technical data and detailed schmatics" for firearms or ammunition will be controlled by ITAR
-Generic discussion or pictures of firearms, and data already in the public domain will not be covered (so I guess THR has absolutely nothing to worry about)

"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 —" Mr. Rathke

So basically, it would appear we could continue to have caliber/platform war threads, and fantasize about the end of the world, and complain about gun laws. But we would be unable to discuss (or even access, since it would be closed off to us) the detailed function of cutting-edge weapons systems, or new sight/targeting technology, new methods or techniques for producing guns (or accessories) ourselves, or even new projectile or ammunition technology.

Prepare for moderators of all boards to censor discussion of new technology or manufacturing, like they currently do illegal modification of firearms. The potential liability is too high for them not to.

TCB
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top