• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Censoring Gun related speech!

GunnyGene

GunnyGene

Racist old man
BANNED
Ok, all of us that like to yak about reloading, mods, etc. better watch out. Obama is at it again, trying to restrict "gun related speech". Official announcement at: https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/FR/2015/2015-12844_80FR31525.pdf

It’s happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.

Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration’s “Unified Agenda” of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. 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. 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.

To understand the proposal and why it’s so serious, some background information is necessary.

For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called “defense articles” and “defense services” in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part “U.S. Munitions List,” which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.

Also regulated under ITAR are so-called “technical data” about defense articles. These include, among other things, “detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information” about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

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.

Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized “export,” including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.

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. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.

But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means are at his disposal to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation?

http://www.mississippigunnews.com/2015/06/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech/
Click to expand...
 
Those pesky rights are bothering him again.

Since I have a right to both guns and speech , I'll take my chances.

I'll talk about whatever I want. Whenever I want to talk about them, and to whomever I wish to say them to and at my sole discretion whom not to.

What's he worried about? The "wrong person" finding out" where to buy a grip?

Myself, I think ordering the Marines to lay down their arms and other implements of war by leaving armed Humvees (like was done in Yemen recently) so the terrorists could get them or by actually GIVING the drug cartels in Mexico weapons is far worse than what I'm doing. And don't even get me started about giving Egypt BILLIONS of dollars worth of battle tanks and fighter jets.

Your actions are doing a lot more damage than mine.

Obama, screw you. And that's the side of the bed I got up on this morning.
 
Last edited:
That's insane. We've been on a very long slippery slope now, but this country ain't what it was even 15 years ago. I harbor no illusions that this tide can be reversed (call me a pessimist, but living in LA I'm just surrounded by sheep who not only accept, but embrace the shackles) so I catch myself more and more hoping for a civilization reset, either via a major natural catastrophe or some smart hackers putting an end to the technology that's enabling this planetary power grab.
I quit watching the news in 2008, hoping to wake up from this nightmare 4 years later (no such luck) and finally cancelled my cable last year. I don't use smart phones either. The internet is what provides me with a constant stream of bad news such as this one so that I'm not utterly uninformed. So when the time comes I'll be fairly prepared to going back to cave dwelling. Actually looking forward to it if this means the end of a life run by elitist clowns elected by brain-dead zombies.
 
Obama Countdown Clock Update:

Time until Friday, January 20, 2017 (EST)

592 days...12 hours...34 minutes....01 seconds

...and counting !!
 
Twelve Pump said:
That's insane. We've been on a very long slippery slope now, but this country ain't what it was even 15 years ago. I harbor no illusions that this tide can be reversed (call me a pessimist, but living in LA I'm just surrounded by sheep who not only accept, but embrace the shackles) so I catch myself more and more hoping for a civilization reset, either via a major natural catastrophe or some smart hackers putting an end to the technology that's enabling this planetary power grab.
I quit watching the news in 2008, hoping to wake up from this nightmare 4 years later (no such luck) and finally cancelled my cable last year. I don't use smart phones either. The internet is what provides me with a constant stream of bad news such as this one so that I'm not utterly uninformed. So when the time comes I'll be fairly prepared to going back to cave dwelling. Actually looking forward to it if this means the end of a life run by elitist clowns elected by brain-dead zombies.
Click to expand...


There's a lot of insanity in the world these days. I'd even call it a fad. Logic and rationality have left the building, and freedom isn't far behind. :(
 
John A. said:
Those pesky rights are bothering him again.

Since I have a right to both guns and speech , I'll take my chances.

I'll talk about whatever I want. Whenever I want to talk about them, and to whomever I wish to say them to and at my sole discretion whom not to.

What's he worried about? The "wrong person" finding out" where to buy a grip?

Myself, I think ordering the Marines to lay down their arms and other implements of war by leaving armed Humvees (like was done in Yemen recently) so the terrorists could get them or by actually GIVING the drug cartels in Mexico weapons is far worse than what I'm doing. And don't even get me started about giving Egypt BILLIONS of dollars worth of battle tanks and fighter jets.

Your actions are doing a lot more damage than mine.

Obama, screw you. And that's the side of the bed I got up on this morning.
Click to expand...

Well said, John. It's getting closer and closer to time to use the constitutional reset button. :mad:
 
I'm something of a gopher when it comes to digging out information, so I tunneled around the ITAR until I found the list of stuff that would be effected by this. These are what are defined as "Defense Articles" that would be subject to the new rules. The list is very lengthy, so I only posted an incomplete list below due to limitations on post length.

Happy reading. ;)

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...b606caa46&mc=true&node=se22.1.121_11&rgn=div8

Category I—Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns

*(a) Nonautomatic and semi-automatic firearms to caliber .50 inclusive (12.7 mm).

*(b) Fully automatic firearms to .50 caliber inclusive (12.7 mm).

*(c) Firearms or other weapons (e.g. insurgency-counterinsurgency, close assault weapons systems) having a special military application regardless of caliber.

*(d) Combat shotguns. This includes any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches.

*(e) Silencers, mufflers, sound and flash suppressors for the articles in (a) through (d) of this category and their specifically designed, modified or adapted components and parts.

(f) Riflescopes manufactured to military specifications (See category XII(c) for controls on night sighting devices.)

*(g) Barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete breech mechanisms for the articles in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this category.

(h) Components, parts, accessories and attachments for the articles in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this category.

(i) Technical data (as defined in §120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (as defined in §120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles described in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this category. Technical data directly related to the manufacture or production of any defense articles described elsewhere in this category that are designated as Significant Military Equipment (SME) shall itself be designated SME.

(j) The following interpretations explain and amplify the terms used in this category and throughout this subchapter:

(1) A firearm is a weapon not over .50 caliber (12.7 mm) which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or which may be readily converted to do so.

(2) A rifle is a shoulder firearm which can discharge a bullet through a rifled barrel 16 inches or longer.

(3) A carbine is a lightweight shoulder firearm with a barrel under 16 inches in length.

(4) A pistol is a hand-operated firearm having a chamber integral with or permanently aligned with the bore.

(5) A revolver is a hand-operated firearm with a revolving cylinder containing chambers for individual cartridges.

(6) A submachine gun, “machine pistol” or “machine gun” is a firearm originally designed to fire, or capable of being fired, fully automatically by a single pull of the trigger.

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. This category does not cover riflescopes and sighting devices that are not manufactured to military specifications. It also excludes accessories and attachments (e.g., belts, slings, after market rubber grips, cleaning kits) for firearms that do not enhance the usefulness, effectiveness, or capabilities of the firearm, components and parts. The Department of Commerce regulates the export of such items. See the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-799). In addition, license exemptions for the items in this category are available in various parts of this subchapter (e.g., §§123.17, 123.18 and 125.4).
Category II—Guns and Armament

*(a) Guns over caliber .50 (i.e., 12.7 mm), whether towed, airborne, self-propelled, or fixed, including but not limited to, howitzers, mortars, cannons, recoilless rifles, and grenade launchers.

(b) Flame throwers specifically designed or modified for military application.

(c) Apparatus and devices for launching or delivering ordnance, other than those articles controlled in Category IV.

*(d) Kinetic energy weapon systems specifically designed or modified for destruction or rendering mission-abort of a target.
Click to expand...
 
tattooo said:
Makes me vomit in my mouth that such a thing could even considered
Click to expand...

What's so strange about this is the restriction they want to impose on the net (1st Amendment). Discussion of firearms and such is huge on the web; magazines, forums, and on and on. Got an old GI 1911A1? You'd have to get permission to show off some mod or tweak. It's really outrageous.:mad:
 
It's not outrageous.

It's a calculated plan to divide and conquer.

Firearm owners have gotten increasingly adept at alerting each other of attacks on our rights mostly through the use of the web.

They're wanting to take that away so it would be like 1934 all over again when they had full reign of what to do with little knowledge or dissent from the public until after the fact.
 
John A. said:
It's not outrageous.

It's a calculated plan to divide and conquer.

Firearm owners have gotten increasingly adept at alerting each other of attacks on our rights mostly through the use of the web.

They're wanting to take that away so it would be like 1934 all over again when they had full reign of what to do with little knowledge or dissent from the public until after the fact.
Click to expand...

Hadn't really absorbed that fact, but you're right. :)
 
Been perusing some other gun blogs. An interesting article on BearingArms blog:

Excerpt
http://bearingarms.com/constitution...speech/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

You did a gun review about your new AR-15 and posted it to YouTube? That’s up to 20 years in prison.

You took a small unit tactics class, and wrote about what you learned on your Blogspot blog? That’s a fine of up to one million dollars.

You’re a manufacturer that posts product manuals your web site? Obama will shut you down.

I’m not going to register for permission from the government to write here at Bearing Arms, and so you can expect me to wind up in a federal prison… or worse.

Your favorite gun forums, blogs, web sites, gun video channels, and virtually all other firearm-related online speech would be banned, with your favorite personalities subject to fines and prison, in a direct assault by this corrupt government on both the First and Second Amendments.
Click to expand...
 
Below are the Stated 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.
 
John A. said:
Below are the Stated 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.
Click to expand...

And of course, it is (or will be ) a National Security issue, so I'd expect DHS, FBI, etc. to be in the game. And the proponents of Big Gov should start accusing gun owners and anyone who objects to this of being traitors, etc. in 5, 4, 3,..........
 
If Gov't has a heavy hand with law abiding citizens not doing anything wrong, I suspect that things will be getting hot very soon.

I suspect this is just the start of things to come.
 
John A. said:
If Gov't has a heavy hand with law abiding citizens not doing anything wrong, I suspect that things will be getting hot very soon.

I suspect this is just the start of things to come.
Click to expand...

If you haven't yet read thru the list of Defense Articles I linked to up thread, you should. It covers a lot of territory, including such mundane stuff as camo, war paint, etc.
 
Yet another despicable assault on our keystone rights to free speech and to keep and bear arms...!!

Once again...it's up to US to fight this President with all the force WE THE PEOPLE can bring to bear....

Call /Write your State Senators and Representatives and STOP THIS Hater of Freedom in his tracks NOW !!!

=====================

Here is the contact information:


http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

========================
 
Naturally, I contacted all of my reps.

---------------------------------------------------------

Good evening Senator.

I am writing today to express my anger over the proposed changes regarding ITAR concerning firearms, ammunition, videos, articles, etc.

From everything I have gathered, they are wanting to make criminals out of millions of law abiding citizens who have even discussed anything firearm related online.

This is not only an infringement on our Second Amendment right, but a straight out attack on our First amendment.
It's been known that the President has been trying to do as much damage to our rights as he can in the time he has left in office, but I am writing to let you know that if this goes through, there will be literally tens of millions of people who have done nothing wrong that can be prosecuted and fined for nothing more than public discussion of a right.

I am writing to let you know that I expect nothing less than your full opposition to this and to do everything in your power to stop this from happening.
 
Thanks Barry but I think I'll just keep on enjoying my freedom of speech and freedom to own firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top