Only One Week Left To Object To Proposed Itar Censorship Of Gunsmithing Forums

Status
Not open for further replies.

barnbwt

Registered
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
179
Johnson, Grassley Question State Department Gun Regulations - Press Releases - Ron Johnson)

Really not trying to be too political here, but this issue directly applies to this specific forum and its continued operation as we all like it. Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have written a letter to the State Dept seeking clarification of the proposed ITAR changes which seek to classify vast sections of firearms technical knowledge as 'defense articles' subject to strict federal controls against publishing, specifically over the internet. I ask everyone reading to look over the letter, and the concerns raised within. Multiple examples of now-legal online firearms activity are put forward, with a request for how they would be held under the regulation. At first glance, several would appear to be problematic if the rules change goes forward.

http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/pu...728372f/johnson-grassley-to-kerry-re-itar.pdf
From the letter (emphasis mine):
Because the proposal grants the State Department the power to classify what is and what is not in the "public domain" for "defense articles" under ITAR, the Department will apparently have unilateral authority to require citizens to seek preapproval for what had previously been free speech. Given the proposal's nexus to firearms, a number of Second Amendment and Constitutional rights organizations have expressed concern over the chilling effects that this regulation may have on free speech and the right to bear arms. When asked about these constitutional implications, the State Department has been unable to adequately clarify what specific activities would be subject to preapproval under the proposal. So far, during the public comment period, over six thousand [make that seven thousand] comments have been submitted by citizens, with the overwhelming majority opposing these proposed changes.

Daily Press Briefing - June 10, 2015
The State department actually had a press conference last month in which some very basic questions about the implications of the proposal were taken.
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 --
QUESTION: So the concern that has been expressed is misplaced, yes?
MR RATHKE: Yes, that would be our view.
Sure seems like that 'misplaced concern' applies directly to this forum, does it not?

Regulations.gov
This is the link to the proposed change's docket; there is a great, big "comment now" button --use it if you have not already. I'd sure hate to lose the freedom to openly discuss the manufacture, modification, and development of firearms here and elsewhere.

TCB
 
The hell-hole my grandchildren are going to grow up in...

Can't say any more, because free speech isn't permitted on this board (or most others for that matter).
 
Johnson, Grassley Question State Department Gun Regulations - Press Releases - Ron Johnson)

Really not trying to be too political here, but this issue directly applies to this specific forum and its continued operation as we all like it. Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have written a letter to the State Dept seeking clarification of the proposed ITAR changes which seek to classify vast sections of firearms technical knowledge as 'defense articles' subject to strict federal controls against publishing, specifically over the internet. I ask everyone reading to look over the letter, and the concerns raised within. Multiple examples of now-legal online firearms activity are put forward, with a request for how they would be held under the regulation. At first glance, several would appear to be problematic if the rules change goes forward.

http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/pu...728372f/johnson-grassley-to-kerry-re-itar.pdf
From the letter (emphasis mine):


Daily Press Briefing - June 10, 2015
The State department actually had a press conference last month in which some very basic questions about the implications of the proposal were taken.

Sure seems like that 'misplaced concern' applies directly to this forum, does it not?

Regulations.gov
This is the link to the proposed change's docket; there is a great, big "comment now" button --use it if you have not already. I'd sure hate to lose the freedom to openly discuss the manufacture, modification, and development of firearms here and elsewhere.

TCB

Well, can we still talk about it over coffee at our shops? I will anyway............free speech.....
 
YYYYYEEEEEEEPPPPPP I remember when!!!!!:gangster:
 
Free speech is a fine thing. But not many things are truly free. They cost a lot at times. We respect the foundations this country has built its free speech attitude upon. However, in the instance of a private forum, simply agreeing to the ToS can "infringe" on the perceived free speech right. That is something reserved here and limited generally on topics that are likely to become contentious due to differing opinions, although in the grand scheme everyone is entitled to have. This restriction is here to keep peace on the forum, not to take away anyone's free speech rights. Remember, you agreed to this when you joined.

Please don't take this to mean you are being asked to leave, just a note of caution, and a policy reminder.

Sincerely,
Tony Wells
Administrastor
 
Last day remaining, folks. Again, not a political issue, but an issue that affects the forum regardless, should it be implemented.
 
Sorry just found this..where it at ,at this time. Must admit being upset with myself gor this getting around me. State secrets??.? Simi auto. 120 year old tec. Like ma duce.. I will do some looking more on this up.
 
It looks to me that the changes to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (regulations.gov link) is an attempt to bring it up to today's world. The primary changes are how software is classified, and how to control the electronic dissemination of sensitive information. The government should be able to control what militarily important information can be posted on-line, stored in a foreign server, etc. The definition of "Public Domain" appears to have a lot of changes in an attempt to differentiate between public knowledge and non-public knowledge.

But the issue is that there is not any good definition (at least that I can find) of what is considered "militarily important", leading to a skeptical reading of the changes that any on-line posting of guns, parts of guns, etc. could be found in violation. I expect that this will be clarified and fixed before the rule is adopted - most all rule bodies give the public an opportunity to comment on proposed code changes (See the National Electrical Code).

Firearm hobbyist should have clear guidance of what information can be posted on-line without issue. these changes need to be cleaned up so that militarily important electronic information is controlled but hobbyists can converse freely on-line without fear of crossing the regulations.

On a side note, one of the "would proper authorization be needed" scenarios in Senator Johnson and Senator Grassley's letter is a little inaccurate:

"b. A Wisconsin or Iowa hunter creates a website dedicated to hunting birds (e.g. ducks, pheasants, etc.) On the website the user posts a diagram on a forum detailing the individual parts and pieces of a shotgun commonly used to hunt birds. [...] The website is read and commented on by many Canadian bird hunters."

Section 121.1 The United States Munition List, Category I - Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns has this note: "This coverage by the U.S. Munitions List in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this category excludes any non-combat shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer, BB, pellet, and muzzle loading (black powder) firearms."
 
As far as news? There is a second Senate letter circulating with signatures of all the usual suspects, which builds upon the Johnson/Grassley letter in seeking clarification and a halt to this regulatory action. I think it has about thirty signatories at this time. Probably an equivalent in the House as well, but it's actually pretty hard to find prominent news articles about the issue.

"It looks to me that the changes to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (regulations.gov link) is an attempt to bring it up to today's world."
That's what they are claiming, yes; but in doing so they directly expand the applicability of the statute to a whole new frontier of regulatory authority...without congressional action.

"But the issue is that there is not any good definition (at least that I can find) of what is considered "militarily important""
This has been the core issue with the expansively-interpreted ITAR since its very inception, and it has never been a priority to clarify this distinction. One might say this is a basic tenant of the law, to give the State Dept as much regulatory authority as possible.

"Firearm hobbyist should have clear guidance of what information can be posted on-line without issue. these changes need to be cleaned up so that militarily important electronic information is controlled but hobbyists can converse freely on-line without fear of crossing the regulations."
This is the very problem; between a now overly-broad application of ITAR and the even more tortured expansion of ATF regulation, hobbyist gun smiths (and gun builders especially) have extremely little explicit guidance from the authorities in pursuing their hobby, and if you are rash enough to try getting clarification from them directly, it takes nearly a year and usually results in either a meaningless form letter of statute or a new 'ruling' with the effect of additional restriction. This ITAR component would make it increasingly hazardous to discuss the very technical issues we try to hash out online in order to meet ATF approval; you'd have to seek State Dept approval before posting a new semi-auto conversion design for a parts kit (technically before even developing it), and the type of work SOT manufacturers of NFA items indistinguishable from 'military' ones would likely be restricted entirely.

That's bad for development and progress of firearms technology all around. As far as this being an 'unintended consequence' of the State Dept good intentions? They've had ample time, ample comments, and ample opportunity to even claim this wasn't their goal, and the one public statement that's come out seems to endorse the idea that firearms technical data will be entirely regulated, both online and offline. The fact that the executive order directing this action is the same one used to justify several recent and equally-controversial indirect gun control measures suggests a motive as well. No, it's not fully enforceable unless we start banning books, but it will be cause for internet forums to start moderating content once the threat of prosecution arrives.

""This coverage by the U.S. Munitions List in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this category excludes any non-combat shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer, BB, pellet, and muzzle loading (black powder) firearms.""
You do realize that there is no legal definition of "combat shotgun," and that the status of any particular shotgun's NFA and now ITAR status lies entirely with a single individual's approval (attorney general, and probably also the secretary of state now)? "Street sweepers" are designated Destructive Devices due to a lack of 'sporting purpose' even though they are hardly a military item, as are numerous other guns like the USAS and SPAS12 (both actually with some limited military history, but not nearly as much as the Remington 870, Mossberg 500, or Ithaca M37) and that Turkish AR-looking 12ga. There's also been rumblings about bringing the Saiga 12 into the fold, if such a large-scale reclassification can be performed effectively. It's worth mentioning again, that there is even less distinction between military and civilian shotguns than there is for rifles (or pistols), and that the barrel length exemption makes no difference since the underlying technical data being restricted is irrelevant to it. Not only are all the most popular designs widely used in varying forms by the military as breeching or clearing weapons, but practically all of them were marketed from their inception to militaries.

TCB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top