New ITAR "interpretation" ....and this Forum

[johnwilliamson062]

Has TFL investigated a foreign hosting service?
Even if those of us in the US can't post, we can still view the international communities posts and possibly the archives if "exported" befor ethe changes take effect.

Just like the information regarding 3D printed firearms is quite available on international sites. There is no law against imports.

[ronl]

Are we really free? It is the crux of the entire debate. Such limitations as are intended in these new "laws" are a clear violation of our first amendment rights. I find it utterly appalling that we have to even discuss the subject. How far we are removed from the ideals upon which this country was founded. Next will come the banning of gun magazines as they extend the tentacles of their regulatory power. Will we only be allowed to discuss such things in the privacy of our own homes, or will that, too, ultimately be unlawful, as our "smart" homes stand guard to protect us from ourselves? Am I the only one here who finds the debate horrifying? Okay, sheeple, we think you're going to be far better off in this pasture, and keep in mind that is for your own good, because we, the wisest of all humanity have deemed it so. This discussion should not be happening.

[barnbwt]

The foreign host option I have heard bandied about as a cure-all for these regulations. I just don't see it, at least not so long as you expect to have American contributors.

The crime I'm worried about is not hosting the stuff, it's tossing it up there for the world to see in the first place. A foreign host would be fine and unreachable by the US (maybe not the owners, however), but the only way to safely upload content would be to use encrypted proxy networks like Tor or something, basically shifting operations over to a shady dark net.

That shady subterfuge aspect is what I object to the most, since there is nothing whatsoever immoral or illegal about designing, building, and talking about gun technology. I refuse to be made into a Dale Gribble by my own government.

This whole expansion of ITAR is utterly unwarranted. I've said before and I'll say again; no firearm technology is capable of constituting a national security risk, they are simple too small-scale a weapon. The hostile army wielding them is the national security risk. ITAR was passed to protect nuclear missiles and strategic bomber technology from passing out of the nation through proxies posing as customers to defense contractors. The overly broad law is finally coming home to roost.

ronl, ITAR has been looked at sideways by civil rights types since its inception, but until fairly recently (the encryption code debacle) has not been abused to the extent that private citizens could claim damages. But here we have a spokesman openly admitting that is exactly who this latest change would apply to.

'Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.' Wise words from a video game that should be mandatory playing in civics class.

TCB

[motorhead0922]

Comment submitted. Thanks for the reminder, barnbwt.

[barnbwt]

It appears we are finally getting some influential figures paying attention to the issue, Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA). More importantly, it is in the form of an impeccably well-written and official request for comment from The Honorable Mr. Kerry while he convalesces somewhere. Appears to have been announced three days ago, though I've seen no mention anywhere of it (letter is actually from a week before that). Very significant, since the last 'comment' on the matter from the State Department did not inspire confidence that this proposal does not constitute a massive threat to both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. I ask everyone reading to look over the letter; this is not some rabble-rousing boilerplate meant to play to the constituents; it is a very official request/order seeking clarification on articulated concerns. 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.

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.

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.

Not only do they seem to confirm my/our/the senators' worries, but the reporter actually appeared to volunteer an end to the line of questioning when it appeared the spokesman was floundering and about to say something really stupid. What the spokesman was getting at was hardly a misplacement of our concerns.

Until this letter, there has been literally zero news or effort on this subject since the press conference. We have only ten days left, people. Submit your comments now if you have not done so already. Please forward the letter to whatever blogs or forums you frequent, since there is precious little time remaining to bog down this comment process. The State Department has far more resources to sift through these than the ATF, and a random sampling of the submitted objections shows that a large fraction of them will be discounted out of hand as garbage. 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.

My hope is that the issue will take off now that there is a letter to rally behind, much as happened with the M855 issue toward the end of the comment period. Hit up your senators, get them on board as co-signors. Don't bother trying to explain the issue or why you care about it to them, they will just reply that they oppose assault weapon bans (at best). None other than Mr. Cruz and other local 'tea party' types did exactly this; the issue is simply too complex to relay in a handful of sentences, so just demand they support these two senator's well-wrought efforts.

TCB