Posted on Jun 13, 2015
Can the White House Ban Firearms Discussions on the Internet?
5.5K
35
26
7
7
0
Obama is proposing broad regulations that could very well prohibit and make criminal firearms discussions over the Internet. Do you believe as I do that he is crazy enough to even think that he can get away with this? The article by Gun Owners of America has a letter that you can send to your Senators. I would suggest doing so if you believe in Freedom of Speech and your second amendment rights.
http://www.gunowners.org/alert06122015.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/alert06122015.htm
Firearms and Guns
Office of the President (POTUS)
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
6
6
0
I read an article in regards to this last week.
Basically what it boiled down to was, limiting the ability to "promulgate technical gun data, that was not readily available."
Usually things like Technical Data (Specifications) have to be released via a document of some kind from the manufacturer, either at a tradeshow or through a library. That puts them in the Public Domain, for mass consumption.
The problem is that we don't use tradeshows/libraries as the primary means of distribution anymore. We use the internet.
That basically means that talking about specific data would be prohibited.
Think about it like classified information.
Everything about "Guns" would be "Classified" by default. "If" the manufacturer released it to the Public via an approved source, it becomes "Unclass." If it hasn't been released, the government steps in and says "no, no, you can't do that."
The problem is that, it's unenforceable. The internet is not controlled by the US for starters. The technical data is already out there. The manufacturers already release it via tradeshow & library publications (Library of Congress .pdf).
It's an asinine update that serves no purpose other than attempting bring manufacturing regulations in line with the telecommunication standards.
They can make the change, but it won't functionally do anything. Much like changing speed limit signs don't functionally do anything.
Basically what it boiled down to was, limiting the ability to "promulgate technical gun data, that was not readily available."
Usually things like Technical Data (Specifications) have to be released via a document of some kind from the manufacturer, either at a tradeshow or through a library. That puts them in the Public Domain, for mass consumption.
The problem is that we don't use tradeshows/libraries as the primary means of distribution anymore. We use the internet.
That basically means that talking about specific data would be prohibited.
Think about it like classified information.
Everything about "Guns" would be "Classified" by default. "If" the manufacturer released it to the Public via an approved source, it becomes "Unclass." If it hasn't been released, the government steps in and says "no, no, you can't do that."
The problem is that, it's unenforceable. The internet is not controlled by the US for starters. The technical data is already out there. The manufacturers already release it via tradeshow & library publications (Library of Congress .pdf).
It's an asinine update that serves no purpose other than attempting bring manufacturing regulations in line with the telecommunication standards.
They can make the change, but it won't functionally do anything. Much like changing speed limit signs don't functionally do anything.
(6)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SFC William Farrell Thank you. I read A LOT, and several of these stories pass my desk.
This is absolutely worth concern, but it's tempered with practicality.
This is absolutely worth concern, but it's tempered with practicality.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
It absolutely is enforceable. There are civil and possibly criminal penalties for violating the ITAR. The ITAR is primarily used to regulate defense article manufacturers, but there is no reason that it cannot also regulate private, individual activity.
One misleading line in the article is the suggestion that this is "executive fiat." This is not an instance of the President overstepping the bounds of his authority. Congress gave the Executive Branch the authority to regulate armaments and exports in the Export Administration Act of 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Administration_Act_of_1979. The Executive Branch used that grant of authority to write the ITAR and the EAR. These regulations are jointly enforced by representatives of several three-letter-agencies (DOS, DOD, DOC, DOE, etc.). It cannot reasonably be said that this DOS plan does not faithfully execute the Export Administration Act.
This is a creative way of chilling domestic gun data speech; ostensibly, if it is on the internet, then it is available overseas and subject to Executive authority. In our brand of government, if Congress does not amend the law to except this speech from regulation, then the State Department is authorized to enforce it. People should call their representatives if they're worried about it, or elect different ones.
One misleading line in the article is the suggestion that this is "executive fiat." This is not an instance of the President overstepping the bounds of his authority. Congress gave the Executive Branch the authority to regulate armaments and exports in the Export Administration Act of 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Administration_Act_of_1979. The Executive Branch used that grant of authority to write the ITAR and the EAR. These regulations are jointly enforced by representatives of several three-letter-agencies (DOS, DOD, DOC, DOE, etc.). It cannot reasonably be said that this DOS plan does not faithfully execute the Export Administration Act.
This is a creative way of chilling domestic gun data speech; ostensibly, if it is on the internet, then it is available overseas and subject to Executive authority. In our brand of government, if Congress does not amend the law to except this speech from regulation, then the State Department is authorized to enforce it. People should call their representatives if they're worried about it, or elect different ones.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC (Join to see) The ITAR is enforceable, but because of the anonymity aspects the internet has (among other things) trying to enforce Speech related issues nearly impossible. Like a battle plan, I doubt it would survive first contact.
That said, it is definitely a creative (& chilling) way to attempt to regulate Speech.
That said, it is definitely a creative (& chilling) way to attempt to regulate Speech.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
I doubt this will happen. It's a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. Just because the anti gun nuts don't like it doesn't make it illegal. They want to force their liberal opinions on us, they have to accept that we too have rights even if they're not in line with their own twisted belief systems.
(3)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
Yes, but he is corrupt through and through. You dont think he hasn't already violated the Constitution?
(1)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
I wish this fascist president would try! Â I would LOVE to see this go to the SCOTUS!! Â I will NOT comply!
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
First thing I noticed on the GOA site is a plea for $$.
This is how these fringe groups work ... call "fire" and hit you up for $20.
It is interesting that the only places this topic is mentioned is GOA AND RallyPoint.
How about just one more independent reference to confirm something like this?
This is how these fringe groups work ... call "fire" and hit you up for $20.
It is interesting that the only places this topic is mentioned is GOA AND RallyPoint.
How about just one more independent reference to confirm something like this?
(2)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
You are right SPC Allbright but I do believe GOA is doing a much better job than the NRA (which I am life member) in protecting our rights and unfortunately this does cost money. I support them fully.
(0)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
What I see is a lot of unsubstantiated, inflamitory talk that pumps up the price of weapons which puts more money in Colt's pockets
(1)
(0)
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
SFC William Farrell, "Do you believe as I do that he is crazy enough to even think that he can get away with this?"
Yes. His record is clear up to this point.
Yes. His record is clear up to this point.
(1)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
i do believe he has done nothing good for this country and I would not put it past him to even consider something like this. He is selling us down the tubes CAPT Waddell.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SFC William Farrell, agreed. He is the 21st century's Neville Chamberlain in a nuclear world, IMHO.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Can, yes, anything can be done to ban and limit information on the web.
Will, no. Never going to happen.
Will, no. Never going to happen.
(0)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
Do not be surprised at what this corrupt administration is capable of SrA V! Thanks for your input.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I have written to my senators and congresswoman asking to stop and or vote against S.R.J. 19. I hope you will all do the same. It's not just about 2A this time, it's about 1A, a particularly nefarious act. And I didn't think it could get any worse.
(0)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
MAJ Matthew Arnold You need to keep up that lobbying on your own behalf. I think with what is happening around the world today, such as the tragedy where innocent civilians are murdered for no reason whatsoever, all responsible Americans should be armed. While I live in an anti second amendment state, go ahead and try something on my watch.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A scare tactic, then a plea to join their group.... Don't believe half of what you read on the internet and question the other half!
(0)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
You have a pint but they are doing their best to limit our rights. While I am a Life Member of the NRA, I do believe Gun Owners of America does an excellent job of informing us and lobbying for us, perhaps more so than the NRA.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think that the administration has nothing else to lose. I am just wondering if it is their goal to see just how much damage can be caused in order to secure votes for the future. After blaming everyone else first.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google