"Executive Order Banning Online Gun Talk – What To Do About It"

BostonFJ40

BostonFJ40

Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,776
Likes
243
Location
Reading, MA
Feedback: 17 / 0 / 0
I didn't see this posted yet...

A recently-announced change in law–via “executive order,” which in itself is an illegal way to create or modify law–has proposed to ban something that most gun owners hold near and dear: The ability to talk about, read about, learn about, and show off our guns online.
Click to expand...

Here's the link...

“Under his new orders, commonly used Internet discussions or videos on guns and ammo on the Internet and print media could be shut down permanently.”

“Failure to get Uncle Sam’s permission to ‘distribute data’ on firearms would result in your arrest. You could face a fine of up to one million dollars or up to 20 years in jail.”

“…it would include any web blog or forum discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition.”

“That would mean that the common blogger that posts a photo of his or her new AR-15 would be in violation of the new ITAR regulations.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Executive order limiting the first amendment? I'll tell you exactly what I'll do about it if it happens - completely disregard it. Screw the tyrant, his cronies, and everyone that voted for him. I'll follow the advice in that link and comment when I get home though.
 
What does this have to do with Obama (it's from the State Dept.) and I 100% guarantee this won't have anything to do with online discussions of guns. Sounds like fearmongering.
 
Periphery said:
What does this have to do with Obama (it's from the State Dept.) and I 100% guarantee this won't have anything to do with online discussions of guns. Sounds like fearmongering.
Click to expand...


This doesn't pertain to sites like this?

"“…it would include any web blog or forum discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition.”
“That would mean that the common blogger that posts a photo of his or her new AR-15 would be in violation of the new ITAR regulations.”​
 
robjax said:
This doesn't pertain to sites like this?

"“…it would include any web blog or forum discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition.”
“That would mean that the common blogger that posts a photo of his or her new AR-15 would be in violation of the new ITAR regulations.”​
Click to expand...


That is a bloggers characterization of it and not what it actually says. Because it doesn't say that.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201410&RIN=1400-AD70
 
Nope it does not apply to anything as:

All*laws*which are*repugnant to the Constitution*are*null and void.” (Marbury vs. Madison, 1803.)*..

robjax said:
This doesn't pertain to sites like this?

"“…it would include any web blog or forum discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition.”
“That would mean that the common blogger that posts a photo of his or her new AR-15 would be in violation of the new ITAR regulations.”​
Click to expand...
 
United We Stand; Divided We Fall. They want us to stay divided so we cannot band together. The anti's know the internet is a powerful too and have probably recently experienced how it can not only work for them but it can also work against them.

BS moves like this shows just how afraid they really are.
 
Periphery said:
What does this have to do with Obama (it's from the State Dept.) and I 100% guarantee this won't have anything to do with online discussions of guns. Sounds like fearmongering.
Click to expand...
Isn't the president the one that issues executive orders? I stand by what I said either way though.
 
new guy said:
Serious?
Click to expand...

It says it's an EO, but from the State Department as it says. Regardless, it doesn't say what is being claimed. Do people really think they could ban discussion of guns from the internet or if they did it would be unchallenged? Come on.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Information_and_Regulatory_Affairs

So it isn't an EO, it's under the authority of an OLD EO from 1993. Guess I was right.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the old your 1st Amendment speech on freely available technical material constitutes an ITAR violation...that old chestnut.

https://archive.org/details/ArmyTechnicalManualforM16Rifle-Tm9-1005-249-23p
oh snap...[shocked]...what did I just link?!?!

But it's okay when they ship thousands of M-16's and training materials on said rifles to hell holes overseas, because the State Department said so.
 
Last edited:
They're using that exact interpretation of ITAR to stop distribution of printed gun files.

While the author is being grandiose, the ITAR law is being expanded in EXACTLY that fashion incrementally. The same exact way the ATF keeps using existing law to try and ban specific ammo as armor piercing.
 
Gun gun gun... gun gun gu gun. Sir you can't say gun on the Internet. I said it's not like I have a gun. You still said gun focker
 
Periphery said:
It says it's an EO, but from the State Department as it says. Regardless, it doesn't say what is being claimed. Do people really think they could ban discussion of guns from the internet or if they did it would be unchallenged? Come on.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Information_and_Regulatory_Affairs

So it isn't an EO, it's under the authority of an OLD EO from 1993. Guess I was right.
Click to expand...

The absurdity of the blogger's interpretation aside, my point was that State is a department of the executive branch, reporting to Obama. If it has to do with them it has to do with him.
 
xtry51 said:
They're using that exact interpretation of ITAR to stop distribution of printed gun files.

While the author is being grandiose, the ITAR law is being expanded in EXACTLY that fashion incrementally. The same exact way the ATF keeps using existing law to try and ban specific ammo as armor piercing.
Click to expand...

This.

It is really disappointing when people like the author of that and several other blogs, feel the need to be intentionally disingenuous about the facts of the matter. Is this important? Maybe. Might they use this this to try and expand their authority and prevent other lawful things? Likely. Is this an Obama issued executive order banning the talk about firearms on internet forums? No. Lying about the facts detracts from the truth and the truth may be just as egregious.
 
Bonesinium said:
That is a bloggers characterization of it and not what it actually says. Because it doesn't say that.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201410&RIN=1400-AD70
Click to expand...

The link you posted isn't what it says either, it's the abstract of the rule change. The full change is in the June 2015 Federal Register.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf

Starts bottom of the first page, and continues on for about 12 pages.

It's an interesting example of how to creep the scope of regulations outwards, without attracting a lot of notice. The base ITAR reg from 93 isn't changed, but the definitions that feed into it have been expanded.
 
Periphery said:
What does this have to do with Obama (it's from the State Dept.) and I 100% guarantee this won't have anything to do with online discussions of guns. Sounds like fearmongering.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether this is bogus or not, nice job of outing yourself, Barry. [grin] Having a "Ready For Hillary" party soon?
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to fight this?
Could someone post a link or a draft of an email as to what to say fight this bill?
Regardless of the actual language in the bill, and it being a valid constitutional issue,
I actually think this is but another step on that "slippery slope".\
ggboy
 
In my understanding, in England this kind of thing already happens. I read a few accounts of people who downloaded or order the book about making machine guns written by Luty that were grabbed by the cops. IIRC they threw Luty in jail (once for actually making the gun) then harassed him for putting his books out there for people to download. Similar charge about aiding the enemy.
 

Similar threads

Talk to me about 38 Super?
2
Replies
34
Views
604
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Sometimes it doesn’t pay to reload.
2
Replies
32
Views
957
Broc Tuah
Broc Tuah
Gun Parlor does it again…
4 5 6
Replies
178
Views
4K
Ncq722
N
Talk to me about an IWI Galil Ace Gen II
2
Replies
33
Views
910
Varmint
Varmint
Under A Gun Confiscation Order? Can The Police Obtain Cell Phone Location Data To See Where You Hid Your Guns?
Replies
17
Views
387
Rivers556
R
Back
Top Bottom