ITAR

[woodchip]

or Traffic in Arms Regulations, has new wording that prevents you or I from discussing anything that may be deemed technical information about firearms. So if I wanted to talk about what .22 I use for squirrel hunting, I couldn't tell you what type of .22 ammo the rifle could use nor could I talk about if it was a bolt act, pump or semi-auto. Pretty chilling stuff if the rules are interpreted correctly:



" Paragraph (b) of the revised definition explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.

The requirements of paragraph (b) are not new. Rather, they are a more explicit statement of the ITAR's requirement that one must seek and receive a license or other authorization from the Department or other cognizant U.S. government authority to release ITAR controlled ''technical data,'' as defined in § 120.10. A release of ''technical data'' may occur by disseminating ''technical data'' at a public conference or trade show, publishing ''technical data'' in a book or journal article, or posting ''technical data'' to the Internet.

This proposed provision will enhance compliance with the ITAR by clarifying that ''technical data'' may not be made available to the public without authorization. Persons who intend to discuss ''technical data'' at a conference or trade show, or to publish it, must ensure that they obtain the appropriate authorization."

Now I don't see anything that defines just what is technical date. I would understand if the data was concerning high tech military weaponry but I see just generic statements. If anyone has any information to flesh this out more please post. As it stands it would appear the govt may inadvertently be stifling free speech. Thoughts?

[Vander]

Probably to fight the dissemination of schematics for 3d printed weapons. Though, good luck with that.

[Tunnelcat]

Also to stop discussions online about modifying weapons for other uses I'm guessing as well. But now, thanks to a 2002 law called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, it's now illegal to delete your browsing history if you DO talk about things like weapons and ammo and the government decides they want to know about it.

http://www.wkbw.com/newsy/deleting-your ... u-in-court

[callmeslick]

not a big weapons guy, but a layman's read would seem to indicate that they are focused on military hardware, as opposed to your squirrel gun. But, like you say, the wording in the cited parts is vague, although the overall act itself seems to refer to military arms.

[Tunnelcat]

Since it's vague, there's a slippery slope towards abuse of the law.

[woodchip]

although the overall act itself seems to refer to military arms.

Where do you see this?

[callmeslick]

although the overall act itself seems to refer to military arms.

Where do you see this?

in the preamble wording of the act(will go back and locate it....I read it quick before responding to you). To paraphrase, the thrust of the Act is around International Arms Trafficking, and generally, there isn't much trade on that level in sporting arms.

[Isaac]

They can't regulate the 2nd enough, now they got to go after the 1st.

[callmeslick]

They can't regulate the 2nd enough, now they got to go after the 1st.

you all are getting worked up over an internatonal arms trafficking law. Back away a bit, and you'd see that they aren't after your 1st OR 2nd Amendment rights here. If you need to, look into arms dealers worldwide and what they do.

[callmeslick]

woodchip--this link will get you to any current part of the whole act(which is published in book form, the government page informs us ), I was noting the section on purpose, at page 120, if I recall. Seems pretty focused on import/export of weapons. I can't see how that can be impacted by your squirrel gun discussion. I can see how Isaac fears 'freedom of speech' incursions, upon reflection, but those, as best as I've learned reading up on the story in the OP, are(as noted in earlier post)an effort to thwart 3D weapon design information becoming widespread. As noted in that post, lotsa luck there.

linkage:http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SI ... 7&rgn=div5

[fliptw]

back when the playstation 2 was first introduced, ITAR was the reason why news outlets of the time were calling it a super computer.

You'd fall under ITAR rules based upon where you would export, then what.

[woodchip]

woodchip--this link will get you to any current part of the whole act(which is published in book form, the government page informs us ), I was noting the section on purpose, at page 120, if I recall. Seems pretty focused on import/export of weapons. I can't see how that can be impacted by your squirrel gun discussion. I can see how Isaac fears 'freedom of speech' incursions, upon reflection, but those, as best as I've learned reading up on the story in the OP, are(as noted in earlier post)an effort to thwart 3D weapon design information becoming widespread. As noted in that post, lotsa luck there.

linkage:http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SI ... 7&rgn=div5

I looked at your link but I don't think it is the correct one. This link may be better
https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... and-public

From that we get:

"Paragraph (b) of the revised definition of “technical data” excludes non-proprietary general system descriptions, information on basic function or purpose of an item, and telemetry data as defined in Note 3 to USML Category XV(f) (§ 121.1). Items formerly identified in this paragraph, principles taught in schools and “public domain” information, have been moved to the new ITAR § 120.6(b)."

To clear things up a little:

"Dissemination of publicly available “technical data” or software is not an export-controlled event, and does not require authorization from the Department, in the absence of knowledge that it was made publicly available without authorization."

In short, if the knowledge is out there, there is no need for a license and firearm blogs are safe. What appears to have happened is, the article I linked in my OP appears to have been cherry picked for shock value. The NRA, while I have been a member and like the general work they do, can be a bit obtuse for hitting up members for more money. Surprised I said that slick?

[callmeslick]

The NRA, while I have been a member and like the general work they do, can be a bit obtuse for hitting up members for more money. Surprised I said that slick?

not so much surprised as heartened. Falls in line with my contention that restraining over the top rhetoric comes from within a given side, not best from outside. Good for you seeing the rhetoric and calling them on it. Have you, by any chance, written to the NRA or posted on their FB page your findings? Not demanding you do so, but curious the response you would get, should you do so.

[snoopy]

I'm familiar with ITAR and can say that the restrictions are looser than they used to be in many respects. I'm no lawyer (or necessarily all that well trained on the latest and greatest nuances) but info that's published into the public domain is by definition non-ITAR, so if your squirrel gun has published manuals or books about what you want to discuss you're okay. [Be careful about stuff you can find on the internet, because that's not necessarily considered publishing.]

The spirit of the law is to prevent foreign powers/people from acquiring new material or technology to make/acquire new (to them) weapons of war.

[snoopy]

One more comment: ITAR deals with the export of items/information.

So... if you want to discuss your squirrel gun on the internet, or in some sort of public forum, be careful. If you're having a private conversation with another American citizen then ITAR doesn't apply because you're not passing the information to a foreign person.