FN Herstal Firearms banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
961 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a "gag order on firearm-related speech," the National Rifle Association is warning.
In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail...

NRA: Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation | WashingtonExaminer.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
961 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I agree. It is wise to be aware as 'they' don't recognize that [The Constitution] "damned piece piece of paper," to quote W.

Silly and outrageous EO's, bills, and acts do pass and some get repealed (although not fully in some cases). Just look at the most recent and impactful boondoggle in the Affordable Care Act (not to forget the NDAA). We are still fighting to have that repealed/amended. The only rights we have are those we choose to acknowledge and excercise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
961 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I had not seen this. IMHO, informed jurors of their rights as a juror, jury nullification specifically, would deal a significant blow to any of these BS laws and infractions the government imposes. I don't want to play their game when they keep changing the rules when they begin to lose. I want to play by the original rules and hold folks accountable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,051 Posts
I had not seen this. IMHO, informed jurors of their rights as a juror, jury nullification specifically, would deal a significant blow to any of these BS laws and infractions the government imposes. I don't want to play their game when they keep changing the rules when they begin to lose. I want to play by the original rules and hold folks accountable.
I wonder if we can even hold them to the original rules. Given that without being able to prove harm, one cannot bring suit against illegal laws unless I'm mistaken. And harm is such a nebulous term.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
Posted on NRA-ILA: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech

There is precedent for this. Public domain encryption software has been export restricted in the past. And recently Defense Distributed were told to pull their 3D printable guns from their web site because of export restrictions.

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 [email protected] 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.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,218 Posts
Posted on NRA-ILA: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech

There is precedent for this. Public domain encryption software has been export restricted in the past. And recently Defense Distributed were told to pull their 3D printable guns from their web site because of export restrictions.

I would agree, but stoping me from posting on this forum the specifications of a FNFirearm or any other firearm for that matter is an intrusion into the 1st amendment. This is an end run around the Constitution with the sole purpose of shutting down any conversation about firearms in the US.

Precedent be damned....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
Monsterdog, check the asterisk. I wish i could have taken the time to say something more eloquent.
Yeah I saw that it only covers comments submitted to their commenting system, and not via email. The thing is, how often are government emails (or entire servers) lost at this point? :tongue: At least public comments are, well, public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,051 Posts
/beware - slight thread derailment
I was discussing similar things with our PR dept at work. I work in Oil and Gas in PA (I think you know this). Gov. Wolfe is proposing the very hefty severance tax and our company was asking people to comment. The whole thing is frightening and frustrating. To the point, Gov. Wolfe removed Gov. Corbett's method - which was to accept emails. He know has a site up for comments and has a warning at the bottom. With his demonization of his opposers (he's way worse than Obama at this) and given that I made an emotional appeal using my son's surgeries, I'm actually somewhat concerned.
Here's the warning: PLEASE NOTE that correspondence received by and from the Office of the Governor may be considered “public record” information under the Right-to-Know Law and such correspondence may be made available for public access.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
I had not seen this. IMHO, informed jurors of their rights as a juror, jury nullification specifically, would deal a significant blow to any of these BS laws and infractions the government imposes. I don't want to play their game when they keep changing the rules when they begin to lose. I want to play by the original rules and hold folks accountable.
The problem with this is that these are not laws passed by congress and these are not handled by a section III court, let alone a jury. These are 'rules' passed by 'agencies' who have their own court and judge, who also made the rules, and administer the fines. Takes herculean effort to get it to a regular court. They've covered all their bases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
Here is an interesting perspective on this issue.


The Government Wants You to Get Its Permission Before Discussing Gunmaking Information on the Internet (or Anywhere)


[Cody] Wilson this morning tells me that in making this regulatory move public, it's almost like the people he's suing are begging for an injunction to stop them. The proposed regulation is even signed by one of the same people Wilson is suing, C. Edward Peartree, director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy. (One might argue that this is a person being sued in some sense backtracking to cover his own legal ass by stating that the seemingly objectionable actions he's being sued over are settled lawful regulations, though I don't know if a court would agree with that argument one way or the other.)

The State Department, Wilson says, could have gone to the next hearing on his case on July 6 "and say we are changing the rule, we will address [Wilson's complaints about the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendment issues with their censorious practice], moot the case." Instead they are "completely explicit" with these new announced regs, "doubling down" on their supposed power to require government license for certain kinds of speech related to weapons usable for self-defense.

Wilson says his suit had to try to demonstrate that the government had such a policy for prior approval of speech. Now the government is "saying our policy is literally that there is such a requirement and always has been." Wilson seems to think it might make it easier to get an injunction against the government's threats to him to take down from his servers information related to the home-making of plastic guns via 3D printers. We'll see.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top