U.S. State Department Seeks to Restrict Firearms “Technical Data”
The U.S. Department of State has proposed new Federal Rules which could severely restrict the exchange of information about firearms, gunsmithing, and reloading on websites and in internet forums. Draconian penalties could be imposed on websites such as AccurateShooter.com. Restrictions on dissemination of “technical data” could impact reloading forums, and perhaps even block the publishing of gunsmithing information in print and on the internet.
Steve Johnson, Editor of The Firearm Blog (TFB), writes: “The State Department is considering expanding rules to prevent U.S. manufacturers, or U.S. citizens, from publishing unclassified technical information relating to the manufacture of any weapons, including firearms and ammunition. If the information is distributed in any way that a non-citizen could access it (which essentially means any transmission of the information to the general public even if the information never leaves the USA) it would need to be first cleared first by the State Department. Publishing includes, but [is] not limited to, blog posts, posting comments on blogs, gun forums, in books, on DVDs and on Youtube. This could spell the end of TFB, other non-political guns blogs, reduce the type of content gun magazines would publish, [and] prevent the publication of books on gunsmithing[.]” Read TFB Article.
The NRA-ILA reports:
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.
Time is of the essence! Public comment will be accepted on the proposed gag order until August 3, 2015. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.”
Finally, please contact your U.S. Senators and Member of Congress. Urge them to oppose the State Department’s attempt to censor online speech concerning the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition. Use the “Write Your Lawmakers” feature on our website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121.
Could be political, I wouldn’t want to dabble in this. I could offend some Libtard
what a joke, if the government really cared about technical data falling into the wrong hands they would do a better job of protecting their own computer systems from Chinese and Russian web hacks
Here is the link to the Proposed Rule and associated links on the Federal Register website – https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/03/2015-12844/international-traffic-in-arms-revisions-to-definitions-of-defense-services-technical-data-and-public
Stand up and be counted or live to regret it! I’ve already prepared my “response” and will shortly send it to the Federal Register POC, my Congressman, and my Senator. PLEASE do likewise.
This must be plain embarrassing to any intelligent American. As if it would matter a rat’s posterior to any terrorist
FYI – “Parties who wish to comment anonymously may do so by submitting their comments via http://www.regulations.gov, leaving the fields that would identify the commenter blank and including no identifying information in the comment itself. Comments submitted via http://www.regulations.gov are immediately available for public inspection.”
Yet another sign of a federal gov’t that does not believe in or follow its founding documents. Until we the people clean house and excise the traitors its only going to get worse. I hope I don’t live to see Civil War II but honestly where else is this heading?
So you could buy a set of reloading dies but not get the instruction leaflet unless the manufacturers jumped through hoops for clearance? Being in Australia I couldn’t ask an American mate about reloading Hodgson in a .243? A new bolt action rifle will not have a parts list? This will kill American business, have they considered that?
We need to get these clowns out of office, whether they be elected or appointed. As far as I’m concerned there are many in this administration who are outright criminals and traitors.
What Chris said
I think this is oriented to specific kind of data, like DIY print a rifle… lets be even more specific, print a AR lower yourself. But by suggesting a rule with words incorporating all the knowledge found on the internet it kinds of contradict the rules of firearm itself witch is that people need to be informed on specific technical data to be safe, like disassemble a rifle for safe cleaning. Furthermore internet is world wide web. Will we see manufacturer start to host there website outside of country not to violate the new rule?
Makes me wonder if there is information I’m missing out on. Is there DIY night vision out there? I’d like to know how to make a nano pore phosphorus amplification assembly. A link would be great!
Perhaps they don’t want code out there to churn out 3d printed firearms. Are 3D printers available everywhere? It is a new era.
Nuke tech is wide spread,we give away main battle tanks,various AKs are every where in the undeveloped world,firearms manufactures are everywhere just what dumbey came up with this idea o never mind
Here is a good article on why these new rules are being proposed.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/10/obamas-gun-speech-gag-order-is-retaliation-against-group-that-sued-the-govt-last-month/#disqus_thread
Never going to happen.
Too many good lawyers on the side of free speech.
What Eliseo said
This has almost no remote chance of passing. I hope Defense Distributed wipes the floor with them!
It would seem you only alow the emails that agree with you to remain visible. Thinking independently is not encouraged on this site.
weii since I’m not a federal employee, china doesn’t have my statistics
This is a ploy to suck money out of the firearms industry. Someone will have to sue to protect the 1st Amendment and that costs money. This is how the left has always worked.
This makes me think of some retard that shows up at some of the matches I go to. He likes to stand somewhere where I can’t see him and start asking me questions about how I learned to chamber rifle barrels and how can I be licensed or insured without a degree in gun smithing.
I have yet to find out who he is or how he knows me but he has made it clear that he thinks anyone that takes on gun smithing should have a degree to do it.
I’m sure the communist minded retard is all for legislation to prevent sharing technical information even if it violates our right to free speech.