• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

web forums threatened by new Obama regulation

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Obama, what a beep, beep and beeeeeeeep.

We will have to be very careful of what is said here and other pro-gun sites if this happens. This type of crap just never ends.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...tened-by-new-obama-regulation/article/2565762
This is a fear claim by the NRA, Obama knows this would never get past the courts, and NRA showed no supporting evidence that he would take such a move. This rule has been on the books for years, and never intended for what NRA claims. This is much like the NRA's remarks on open carry, that backfired on them.

It is IMO, give us your money or else. We have much bigger things to be concerned with than this malarkey.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
From the VCDL Va-Alert dated 6/10/15

The NRA-ILA is sounding the alarm on this one: the feds want to put a roadblock on dissemination of all technical information on guns and ammunition on the internet, based on the ITAR trade agreement.

Before videos, blogs, or other public postings could be put on the internet, some government bureaucrat will have to pre-approve it! What is the penalty if someone has the audacity to post technical information on guns or ammunition without government approval? Up to a ONE MILLION DOLLAR fine and up to TWENTY YEARS in jail!

The antis have long wanted to use international agreements as excuses to restrict gun rights in America and this would be a big one. Easily accessible technical data on guns and ammunition would dry up. Who knows what some Washington bureaucrat might call technical data requiring government approval? Educational material on how guns work? Reloading data? Schematics? Repair information?

This is just another sneaky scheme to undermine both the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and should be opposed by anyone who supports the Constitution.

ACTION ITEMS (must be no later than August 3, 2015)

Email address: DDTCPublicComments@state.gov

USE THIS SUBJECT LINE ONLY: ITAR Amendment Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.

Suggested message:

I oppose any changes to Data Transmission and Storage in ITAR with respect to firearms and ammunition. Publicly available information on these commonly owned lawful commodities should not be stifled in any way or for any reason.

YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
From the VCDL Va-Alert dated 6/10/15

The NRA-ILA is sounding the alarm on this one: the feds want to put a roadblock on dissemination of all technical information on guns and ammunition on the internet, based on the ITAR trade agreement.
...
Just a small correction, but ITAR is not a "trade agreement". It is US Federal Regulations (law). It is the "International Traffic in Arms Regulation". In this case "international" refers to the import or export into or out of this nation. It does not refer to any kind of agreement or treaty with other nations.

From wiki

[These] regulations control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML).[1] These regulations implement the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), and are described in Title 22 (Foreign Relations), Chapter I (Department of State), Subchapter M of the Code of Federal Regulations.

...

For practical purposes, ITAR regulations dictate that information and material pertaining to defense and military related technologies (items listed on the U.S. Munitions List) may only be shared with U.S. Persons unless authorization from the Department of State is received or a special exemption is used.[3] U.S. Persons (including organizations) can face heavy fines if they have, without authorization or the use of an exemption, provided foreign persons with access to ITAR-protected defense articles, services or technical data.[4]

...

ITAR does not apply to information related to general scientific, mathematical or engineering principles that is commonly taught in schools and colleges or information that is in the public domain.[8]:§ 120.10(5)[8]:§ 120.11 Nor does it apply to general marketing information or basic system descriptions.[8]:§ 120.10(5) Broad interpretations of these exceptions have faced several legal challenges. For example college professors have been prosecuted for breaches of the AECA as a result of access to USML items by foreign graduate students[9] and companies have been penalized for alleged breaches of the AECA for failing to properly remove USML items from material used to market defense articles.[10] The U.S. Government has also taken action (albeit unsuccessfully) for the export of technical data that was allegedly already publicly available on the Internet.[11][12][13][14]
In addition to ITAR, there are other laws that govern import-export of "dual use" or commercial items.

Charles
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Since when was plagiary considered elegant?
It was the words that were described as elegant, not he act of passing them on to others. We share here with but a small concern for copyright infringement.

Please give a sample of an 100% original thought you may have had w/o any contribution from someone else....or is it only forwarding when you do it? :p
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,464
Location
Dallas
I have one - 'Trust but Verify' or one I used in High School running for Student Council, "i will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
I have one - 'Trust but Verify' or one I used in High School running for Student Council, "i will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience"
:lol:...:lol:
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,778
Location
here nc
hummm, did ya'l see any smileys around augustin_s cranky post on grape"s etiquette and discuss'g grape;smanhood ?????

guess the poster was plumb serious at his rebuke towards grape tho his significant breach of netiquette by hollar'n at the end is a tad bit baffling isn't it?? http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117390/netiquette-capitalization-how-caps-became-code-yelling

guess they can have it both ways in their world...

hang in their or is it there, or they're grape, this olde boi puts 10000 % be work'n on a ed-u-ma-ca-ion course to get your wrightting and gramma up to, or is it two, or tooooo, drat steed...

ipse
 
Last edited:

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
Back on target

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

'nuff said. Anything contrary to that is not law and therefore any attempts to enforce it would trigger whatever reasonable force is necessary to protect oneself from a crime being committed against them
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
Back on target

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

'nuff said. Anything contrary to that is not law and therefore any attempts to enforce it would trigger whatever reasonable force is necessary to protect oneself from a crime being committed against them
Tell me how that's working for you in the real world.

Just as free speech does not extend to yelling "Fire!" in a theater when there is no fire, free speech can run up against a few other issues. In the case under discussion it pretty much falls back to the .gov's power to punish treason and the .gov's power to define what acts meet the definition of treason.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Article III
....
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
The changes in regulations change what is considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Up until now you can find the blueprints and instructions on how to build a thermonuclear device on the internet, and email them to your email-pal (modern equivalent of pen-pal) in Southeastern West Northistan. If the changes are put into place a strict (or not so strict) reading would make publishing what passes for a gun evaluation article in a gun magazine a treasonable act. It's just not going to be prosecuted as treason, but as a violation of a regulation designed to prevent treason.

DISCLAIMER: I do not support the proposed changes, but as I speak fluent governmentese I offer my translation services at no cost. Caveat Emptor

stay safe.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Tell me how that's working for you in the real world.

Just as free speech does not extend to yelling "Fire!" in a theater when there is no fire, free speech can run up against a few other issues. In the case under discussion it pretty much falls back to the .gov's power to punish treason and the .gov's power to define what acts meet the definition of treason.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii



The changes in regulations change what is considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Up until now you can find the blueprints and instructions on how to build a thermonuclear device on the internet, and email them to your email-pal (modern equivalent of pen-pal) in Southeastern West Northistan. If the changes are put into place a strict (or not so strict) reading would make publishing what passes for a gun evaluation article in a gun magazine a treasonable act. It's just not going to be prosecuted as treason, but as a violation of a regulation designed to prevent treason.

DISCLAIMER: I do not support the proposed changes, but as I speak fluent governmentese I offer my translation services at no cost. Caveat Emptor

stay safe.
Governmentese.... I love it..... Many tyrants also speak this language fluently....

CCJ
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Tell me how that's working for you in the real world.

Just as free speech does not extend to yelling "Fire!" in a theater when there is no fire, free speech can run up against a few other issues. In the case under discussion it pretty much falls back to the .gov's power to punish treason and the .gov's power to define what acts meet the definition of treason.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii



The changes in regulations change what is considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Up until now you can find the blueprints and instructions on how to build a thermonuclear device on the internet, and email them to your email-pal (modern equivalent of pen-pal) in Southeastern West Northistan. If the changes are put into place a strict (or not so strict) reading would make publishing what passes for a gun evaluation article in a gun magazine a treasonable act. It's just not going to be prosecuted as treason, but as a violation of a regulation designed to prevent treason.

DISCLAIMER: I do not support the proposed changes, but as I speak fluent governmentese I offer my translation services at no cost. Caveat Emptor

stay safe.
Obama wrote these changes in 2011, FOUR years ago, since that time Defense Distributed was informed they were in violation of ITAR, two years later. SAF has filed a lawsuit this year for DD Cody Wilson. They always could make arrests on violations as they in 2007 for IIRC Yang attempted to buy chips that were on the list, which he intended to sell outside the US.

While what happened to DD is reprehensible, the NRA is blatantly fear mongering to garner donations. Of course we all should make our feelings known to our representatives, we are not being put under a gag order. Nothing is more dangerous to our cause than a group crying wolf.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
Walking Wolf -

Please check the link I posted at Post #2. If you do not want to scroll back to it, here it is: http://www.pagunblog.com/2015/06/08/public-comment-period-for-itar-gun-owner-silencing-rule/

Again:

DATES: The Department of State will accept comments on this proposed rule until August 3, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments within 60 days of the date of publication by one of the following methods:
Email: DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.’’
Internet: At www.regulations.gov, search for this notice by using this rule’s RIN (1400–AD70).
Do you see the word I bolded? It's not the same old same-old. State would not be soliciting comments on something that has existed for the past 4 years.

Yes, the NRA and others may be a bit hysterical in order to convince you to donate money that cannot be earmarked for battling this specific issue. But the general gist of what they are saying is what the proposed rule will end up doing.

stay safe.
 
Top