President Obama is not shy about his mission when it comes to the Second Amendment. To his credit, he is not deterred by failure. Instead, the President dreams up new ways to roll back the rights of law-abiding citizens. The latest attempt is a proposed Executive Order that would mean we here at GunsAmerica would have to submit everything we want to publish to the State Department for approval.<\/p>\n
\u201cI will do everything in my power as president to advance these [gun control] efforts,\u201d he said following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. \u201cBecause if there\u2019s even one thing we can do in the country to protect our children, we have a responsibility to try.\u201d<\/p>\n
So far, most of what the Obama administration has tried has come up short. Universal background checks, failed to clear the Senate. Bans on black rifles and magazines over 10 rounds also died in the Senate. The United Nation\u2019s Global Arms Trade Treaty, although signed by Secretary of State John Kerry, was neutered by staunch opposition from a large faction of U.S. senators. More recently, the ATF\u2019s proposed ban on \u201carmor-piercing\u201d ammo was also rebuffed after concerned gun owners turned out in great numbers to oppose the measure.<\/p>\n
The new proposal by the State Department could chill the First Amendment rights of citizens by regulating speech that relates to firearms. This rather misguided power grab appears to be in retaliation to Defense Distributed, the game-changing open-source organization that brought you the \u201cwiki weapons\u201d known as \u201cThe Liberator,\u201d the first 3-D printable gun, and the \u201cGhost Gunner<\/a>,\u201d the CNC mill that finishes 80 percent lowers.<\/p>\n In December of 2012, when Defense Distributed first released the files for \u201cThe Liberator\u201d online the government panicked. Several months later, in May of 2013, the State Department told DD to remove the files because it was releasing \u201ctechnical data\u201d without government approval.<\/p>\n Despite the fact that DD\u2019s files were all assembled from information that was in the public domain, they complied with the request from the state department and removed the files from its website. Though, from a political standpoint, DD had made the statement it was aiming to make as the digital blueprints for \u201cThe Liberator<\/a>\u201d were downloaded tens of thousands of times and were appearing on various websites across the Internet. The toothpaste was out of the tube, and the government had no way to put it back in. People everywhere were free to arm themselves if they wished.<\/p>\n After removing the files from its website, DD submitted them to the State Department for review and pre-approval so that one day they could put them back up without fear of government reprisal. Not surprisingly, the State Department dithered and dithered (for two years) until DD finally said enough is enough, rights delayed are rights denied, and with the help of the Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit May 6, 2015, against the State Department, Secretary of State John Kerry and other federal officials.<\/p>\n The lawsuit alleges that the government\u2019s \u201crestraint against the publication of this critical information, under the guise of controlling arms exports, violates the First Amendment right to free speech, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and the Fifth Amendment right to due process.\u201d<\/p>\n Interestingly enough, a month later, on June 3, the Obama administration (via the Federal Register) announced a proposal to overhaul the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA), so that it can more closely regulate firearm-related speech uploaded to the Internet.<\/p>\n Under current law ITAR covers \u201ctechnical data\u201d as it relates to firearms and ammunition, which includes “detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information. So, for instance, firearm or ammo blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation are all examples of \u201ctechnical data\u201d and therefore are all subject to government oversight \u2014 UNLESS the data is in the public domain.<\/p>\n As the NRA-ILA <\/a>pointed out, the public domain is 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.”<\/p>\n DD\u2019s material for \u201cThe Liberator\u201d was in the public domain, as mentioned. But now the Obama administration is trying to change the rules of the game by arguing that ITAR was created before the Internet, and that any gun-related \u201ctechnical data\u201d uploaded to the Internet has been essentially been \u201cexported\u201d \u2014 as countries around the world now have access to it \u2014 and now must be evaluated by the State Department.<\/p>\n \u201cBefore posting information to the Internet, you should determine whether the information is \u2018technical data.\u2019 You should review the [United State Munitions List], and if there is doubt about whether the information is \u2018technical data,\u2019 you may request a commodity jurisdiction determination from the Department,\u201d reads the State Department\u2019s filing. \u201cPosting \u2018technical data\u2019 to the Internet without a Department or other authorization is a violation of the ITAR even absent specific knowledge that a foreign national will read the \u2018technical data.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n However, lawyers for DD argue that the case is not about regulating technical data but about censorship.<\/p>\n \u201cJust because information can be used for some bad purpose doesn\u2019t make it illegal to publish it,\u201d Matthew Goldstein, an export control lawyer representing Defense Distributed told Wired<\/a>. \u201cThis isn\u2019t just a firearms case, even though it deals with firearms. It\u2019s really a free speech case.\u201d<\/p>\n But a State Department official told Wired that the concern is allowing foreign states to require gun-related technical data.<\/p>\n \u201cFor us, it\u2019s not about free speech. This is about securing defense technology,\u201d said the official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. \u201cIf two US citizens want to email each other CAD files, that\u2019s not our concern. But they need to follow the International Trade in Arms Regulations. ITAR compliance is ITAR compliance.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cLet\u2019s be clear: general descriptions, public discussions, and imagery of defense articles, including firearms, have never been subject to these regulations and will remain unaffected under these proposed revisions,\u201d said the official in a follow-up email.<\/p>\n While the State Department claims that an expanded ITAR won\u2019t effect gun bloggers, websites, forums, hobbyists, collectors, etc., there is no way to ensure that it won\u2019t. In a matter of speaking, the goal posts for what the government considers technical data will constantly be shifting if the proposal goes through. Consider this definition of \u201cpublic domain\u201d culled from the document (H\/T: The Federalist<\/a>):<\/p>\n (b) Technical data or software, whether or not developed with government funding, is not in the public domain if it has been made available to the public without authorization from: (1) The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls; (2) The Department of Defense\u2019s Office of Security Review; (3) The relevant U.S. government contracting entity with authority to allow the technical data or software to be made available to the public; or (4) Another U.S. government official with authority to allow the technical data or software to be made available to the public.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, all technical data is subject to government review before it is considered to be in the public domain, even if it already exits online. If it wasn\u2019t approved by the government, it is subject to regulation and censorship.<\/p>\n A slope can\u2019t get more slippery than that! Seriously. Under the guise of weapons export control, the Obama administration\u00a0is actively seeking to censor gun-related speech online. There is no other way to see it.<\/p>\n The proposal to expand ITAR is open for public comment until August 3, 2015. If you\u2019re concerned by its potential to inhibit your First and Second Amendment rights, you can submit comments to: online at regulations.gov<\/a> or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov<\/a> with the subject line, \u2018\u2018ITAR Amendment\u2014Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.\u201d<\/p>\n GunsAmerica reached out to Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, to get the skinny on the DD\u2019s lawsuit. Gottlieb said his lips are sealed until after they have their first court hearing on the suit. \u00a0Hopefully, they prevail and the State Department faces sanctions for violating DD\u2019s right to share gun-related content in the public domain.<\/p>\n (H\/T to GunsAmerica reader Will Drider for bringing this story to our attention. \u00a0Thanks Will!<\/em>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Under the guise of weapons export control, the federal government is actively seeking to censor gun-related speech online. There is no other way to see it. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":34,"featured_media":38382,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_specdata_upc":"","_specdata_placement":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[244,7,261,216,240],"tags":[132,122],"featured":[],"hunt365":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-38381","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-2nd-amendment-r2kba","8":"category-gunsamerica-authors","9":"category-police-state","10":"category-s-h-blannelberry","11":"category-this-week","12":"tag-buzz","13":"tag-r2kba"},"yoast_head":"\nIs it a moot (mute?) point?<\/h2>\n