Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/06/10 19:05:37
Subject: US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
The Obama administration’s latest anti-gun salvo isn’t about reducing gun violence or stopping the export of dangerous weapons, it’s about pure retaliation against a non-profit that sued the government in federal court last month.
Defense Distributed, a pro-Second Amendment non-profit organization that provides blueprints, plans, and machinery to fabricate or finish firearm components, has been at war with the State Department for nearly two years.
According to a complaint it filed in federal court last month, the organization began to make its data, compiled entirely from publicly available information, available for free on the Internet in December of 2012. Just a few months later, in May of 2013, Defense Distributed received a letter from the State Department alleging that the group was illegally exporting technical data. The federal government then demanded, in contravention of long-standing policy dating back to 1984, that Defense Distributed submit its proposed speech to the federal government for pre-approval.
You read that right: the Obama administration demanded that a pro-Second Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech, consisting of publicly available information, to the federal government for approval prior to publishing.
For nearly two years, Defense Distributed tried to comply with the State Department’s demands. The organization submitted its data for pre-approval. Then it waited. And waited. And waited. After asserting a lawless requirement that the government must pre-approve speech by Defense Distributed, the government refused to do anything but sit on its hands.
After nearly two years of trying in vain to comply with these new restrictions on free speech, Defense Distributed filed suit against the federal government on May 6, 2015. This is no rinky-dink lawsuit. According to court filings, the lead counsel for Defense Distributed is Alan Gura, the same attorney who successfully argued the landmark Heller case, in which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional several gun bans in Washington, D.C. By all appearances, Defense Distributed is bringing out the big guns in its legal fight against the Obama administration’s gun speech gag rule.
On June 3, just four weeks after Defense Distributed filed its complaint in federal court, the State Department suddenly decided to propose a new rule giving it the authority to pre-approve speech related to publicly available firearm plans. The State Department’s play here is obvious: it hopes to promulgate a new rule making its previous anti-speech efforts superficially legal in order to short-circuit Defense Distributed’s court case. If that were to happen, the non-profit would then have to file a new and separate suit alleging the unconstitutionality of the new rule.
Only in Washington, D.C. in 2015 can you blatantly violate the law, get called to court for it, and then unilaterally and retroactively change the law you violated in order to avoid accountability.
Even worse, the federal government issued its proposed regulation before it ever even responded to Defense Distributed’s complaint. In fact, the government and all of the officials named in the suit have yet to file a single response to the complaint with the court. Why? Because they’re hoping to run out the clock on the case. If the State Department can promulgate its lawless prior restraint on free speech before a court can rule on the merits of Defense Distributed’s case, then the case is moot. And while a high-profile constitutional court case like this one can drag on for years, the State Department only needs to wait 60 days from the notice of its proposed rule before it can issue a final rule neutering Defense Distributed’s case against it.
At issue are two definitions under a 1976 law governing the import and export of defense articles. Long story short, the Obama administration proposes to throw aside more than three decades of federal precedent, going all the way back to 1984, in order to target Defense Distributed.
First, the administration proposes to change the definition of “technical data” in such a way that mere public discussion of technical gun data–virtually identical to what you can find on any gunowner forum on the Internet–will be treated as a violation of federal weapons export laws. Second, the administration proposes to treat software itself as a “defense article,” a move that would put open source computer code in the same category as nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The State Department’s proposed June 3 rule even includes a bogus “public domain” exception that would make George Orwell proud. In one section, the proposed rule states that any technical data in the public domain–such as information that can be found on a publicly available website or at a public library–is totally kosher:
§ 120.11 Public domain.
(a) Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, unclassified information and software are in the public domain, and are thus not technical data or software subject to the ITAR, when they have been made available to the public without restrictions upon their further
dissemination[.]
Problem solved, right? Not so fast.
In the very next section, the federal government informs us that information can only be considered in the “public domain” if the federal government, via unelected State Department bureaucrats, has issued a prior ruling declaring the information to be in the public domain. In other words, even if speech is obviously in the public domain, it doesn’t count as being in the public domain unless the federal government says so:
(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’s 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.
This is not how representative government is supposed to work. Our system was not designed so that one branch of the federal government could lawlessly harass its citizens and then turn around and unilaterally enact new laws by administrative fiat when citizens finally decided to take their grievances to court. The system was not designed to give unelected government bureaucrats the right to promulgate new laws on the fly in order to avoid court sanctions. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a grant of authority to the federal government to demand pre-approval of political speech prior to its public dissemination.
If Congress wishes to pass a law banning fabrication of firearms by non-federal firearms licensees, and if the president wishes to sign that law, that is their prerogative. It is not, however, the prerogative of unaccountable bureaucrats to rewrite laws just so they can get around pesky court cases alleging government violation of those very laws.
The State Department did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article. A court hearing on Defense Distributed’s request for a preliminary injunction against the government is set for July 6 in Austin, TX.
Seems to me that the States Department needs remedial education on the 1st & 2nd amendment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thanks for moving this here mysterious mod!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/10 19:17:43
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/06/10 20:19:17
Subject: US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
Part of the problem is that in the State's eyes, DD had plans for undetectable guns they're releasing for free. From my point of view, the problem is that the State is trying to detect them using metal detectors, not gundetectors. It sounds like a shortcoming with the detector vendor, not DD.
The Obama administration’s latest anti-gun salvo isn’t about reducing gun violence or stopping the export of dangerous weapons, it’s about pure retaliation against a non-profit that sued the government in federal court last month.
Defense Distributed, a pro-Second Amendment non-profit organization that provides blueprints, plans, and machinery to fabricate or finish firearm components, has been at war with the State Department for nearly two years.
According to a complaint it filed in federal court last month, the organization began to make its data, compiled entirely from publicly available information, available for free on the Internet in December of 2012. Just a few months later, in May of 2013, Defense Distributed received a letter from the State Department alleging that the group was illegally exporting technical data. The federal government then demanded, in contravention of long-standing policy dating back to 1984, that Defense Distributed submit its proposed speech to the federal government for pre-approval.
You read that right: the Obama administration demanded that a pro-Second Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech, consisting of publicly available information, to the federal government for approval prior to publishing.
For nearly two years, Defense Distributed tried to comply with the State Department’s demands. The organization submitted its data for pre-approval. Then it waited. And waited. And waited. After asserting a lawless requirement that the government must pre-approve speech by Defense Distributed, the government refused to do anything but sit on its hands.
After nearly two years of trying in vain to comply with these new restrictions on free speech, Defense Distributed filed suit against the federal government on May 6, 2015. This is no rinky-dink lawsuit. According to court filings, the lead counsel for Defense Distributed is Alan Gura, the same attorney who successfully argued the landmark Heller case, in which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional several gun bans in Washington, D.C. By all appearances, Defense Distributed is bringing out the big guns in its legal fight against the Obama administration’s gun speech gag rule.
On June 3, just four weeks after Defense Distributed filed its complaint in federal court, the State Department suddenly decided to propose a new rule giving it the authority to pre-approve speech related to publicly available firearm plans. The State Department’s play here is obvious: it hopes to promulgate a new rule making its previous anti-speech efforts superficially legal in order to short-circuit Defense Distributed’s court case. If that were to happen, the non-profit would then have to file a new and separate suit alleging the unconstitutionality of the new rule.
Only in Washington, D.C. in 2015 can you blatantly violate the law, get called to court for it, and then unilaterally and retroactively change the law you violated in order to avoid accountability.
Even worse, the federal government issued its proposed regulation before it ever even responded to Defense Distributed’s complaint. In fact, the government and all of the officials named in the suit have yet to file a single response to the complaint with the court. Why? Because they’re hoping to run out the clock on the case. If the State Department can promulgate its lawless prior restraint on free speech before a court can rule on the merits of Defense Distributed’s case, then the case is moot. And while a high-profile constitutional court case like this one can drag on for years, the State Department only needs to wait 60 days from the notice of its proposed rule before it can issue a final rule neutering Defense Distributed’s case against it.
At issue are two definitions under a 1976 law governing the import and export of defense articles. Long story short, the Obama administration proposes to throw aside more than three decades of federal precedent, going all the way back to 1984, in order to target Defense Distributed.
First, the administration proposes to change the definition of “technical data” in such a way that mere public discussion of technical gun data–virtually identical to what you can find on any gunowner forum on the Internet–will be treated as a violation of federal weapons export laws. Second, the administration proposes to treat software itself as a “defense article,” a move that would put open source computer code in the same category as nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The State Department’s proposed June 3 rule even includes a bogus “public domain” exception that would make George Orwell proud. In one section, the proposed rule states that any technical data in the public domain–such as information that can be found on a publicly available website or at a public library–is totally kosher:
§ 120.11 Public domain.
(a) Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, unclassified information and software are in the public domain, and are thus not technical data or software subject to the ITAR, when they have been made available to the public without restrictions upon their further
dissemination[.]
Problem solved, right? Not so fast.
In the very next section, the federal government informs us that information can only be considered in the “public domain” if the federal government, via unelected State Department bureaucrats, has issued a prior ruling declaring the information to be in the public domain. In other words, even if speech is obviously in the public domain, it doesn’t count as being in the public domain unless the federal government says so:
(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’s 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.
This is not how representative government is supposed to work. Our system was not designed so that one branch of the federal government could lawlessly harass its citizens and then turn around and unilaterally enact new laws by administrative fiat when citizens finally decided to take their grievances to court. The system was not designed to give unelected government bureaucrats the right to promulgate new laws on the fly in order to avoid court sanctions. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a grant of authority to the federal government to demand pre-approval of political speech prior to its public dissemination.
If Congress wishes to pass a law banning fabrication of firearms by non-federal firearms licensees, and if the president wishes to sign that law, that is their prerogative. It is not, however, the prerogative of unaccountable bureaucrats to rewrite laws just so they can get around pesky court cases alleging government violation of those very laws.
The State Department did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article. A court hearing on Defense Distributed’s request for a preliminary injunction against the government is set for July 6 in Austin, TX.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: Part of the problem is that in the State's eyes, DD had plans for undetectable guns they're releasing for free. From my point of view, the problem is that the State is trying to detect them using metal detectors, not gundetectors. It sounds like a shortcoming with the detector vendor, not DD.
Indeed.
My biggest beef is the fact that the bureaucrats are dicking around with this...
Also, not that really believe it would explicitedly happen, but the RAW regulations would regulate things like blog posts and forums of just about any gun discussions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/10 20:35:34
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/06/10 20:40:40
Subject: US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
It sounds pretty bad, but why would Defence Distributed bother to publish information that has already been published?
The real question ought to be... why not?
I've frequented that site a few times, and it's cool as hell.
The law was designed to keep a lid on sensitive technical data for advanced defense equipments... like smart bombs, cruise missles, advance weapony like rail gunz.
Not a diagram to how to disassemble a mosin nagant or CNC plans for an AR build.
It sounds pretty bad, but why would Defence Distributed bother to publish information that has already been published?
I guess, if I read the article right, what these guys have done is basically done all the google searching for you. As in, if I were building a civilian M-4 from scratch, or modding out a firearm, this one site could provide me with all kinds of information in one place, rather than having to search through hundreds and thousands of websites, some of which that may be giving dodgy information. (I would hope that DD vets it's sources and is publishing only "good" info)
2015/06/10 23:38:18
Subject: US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
I'm not going to comment on whether this mob is doing anything, as I just don't know enough about what they're doing or the law in this situation.
But the 'OMG they want us to submit for prior approval' thing is inane. If you've got anything which is pushing any kind of legal buttons, then submission and discussion before publication is the adult way to do things. Insisting on publishing first, before there's any clarity over whether your publication is legal is a very fething stupid thing.
I'm getting a real vibe 'oh yes, oppress me federal government, oppress me harder' from this.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2015/06/11 02:48:33
Subject: US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
For our friend down under (I used to think that people who lived in OZ and NZ actually spent their lives upside-down, the imagination of an 8 year old boy)
Undoubtedly you have heard of a little thing that is in this country that is called the Bill of Rights. It is the first five amendments to the Constitution. In it there is the guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This means that the government cannot review or censor or censure anyone or anything that is written by that person.
There are very few things that are restricted speech.
Considering that the information in the report was in fact public domain is no more than someone making a list, a compendium if you will, and publishing it. No laws were broken in the access of said information and no state secrets were revealed.
This is pretty much law by agency, not law by decree.
It is a way for the guvment to try and skirt the constitution.
Also I'm sure you know about the three branches (or 'estates') of the government here: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial; those are the ones that the Constitution specifically sets up. These 'estates' are meant to balance and check each other, however while not being a part of the government, it has often been said that a 'free press' acts as a fourth branch as it informs the people (the 'of the people' part of the guvment) and exposes the workings of the representation.
TLDR: The State really isn't allowed to review articles or speeches per the 1st amendment. In this instance, because the current administration has a political agenda against the speech (firearms) they seek to suppress the information.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/11 03:01:42
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
Yes, BA, you are correct, I'm just so used to only ever discussing the first five as they cause the most controversy that I always forget about 6-10.
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
xraytango wrote: Yes, BA, you are correct, I'm just so used to only ever discussing the first five as they cause the most controversy that I always forget about 6-10.
And yet, it seems we should be having a discussion over the 10th amendment more and more each day, but we dont.
@sebster, I partially agree with you, and partially dont.... I think these guys are coming across as the same type who want to say, "im a third year law student, I have a camera phone, now watch me totally be a legal douche to this police officer over here" So while I know, at least based on what has been published so far, that these guys are well within their rights to continue doing what they have been doing... I simply think, as you do, that they should hit the "pause" button while this thing plays out.
2015/06/11 05:57:56
Subject: US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
xraytango wrote: It is the first five amendments to the Constitution.
... God damnit US Education system...
This means that the government cannot review or censor or censure anyone or anything that is written by that person.
This is false. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of the government to censor and restrict speech and the press (No yelling 'fire' in crowded theaters, and gag orders for example)
There are very few things that are restricted speech.
National Security is a bottomless black hole that pretty much anything can be pigeoned into.
Also I'm sure you know about the three branches (or 'estates') of the government here: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial; those are the ones that the Constitution specifically sets up. These 'estates' are meant to balance and check each other, however while not being a part of the government, it has often been said that a 'free press' acts as a fourth branch as it informs the people (the 'of the people' part of the guvment) and exposes the workings of the representation.
First you butcher civics, and now you're just butchering Edmund Burke...
TLDR: The State really isn't allowed to review articles or speeches per the 1st amendment.
It in fact is, and regularly does. You've never heard of the Pentagon black lining memoirs to avoid the release of information they don't want released?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/11 05:58:43
LordofHats wrote: It in fact is, and regularly does. You've never heard of the Pentagon black lining memoirs to avoid the release of information they don't want released?
Usually where it concerns military matters, classified information, and other national security concerns. None of which appear to be at play here.
2015/06/11 09:33:13
Subject: Re:US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
that provides blueprints, plans, and machinery to fabricate or finish firearm components.
Forgive my ignorance, American Dakka members, but I thought you couldn't this (make your own guns or parts) because of the ATF regulations or something?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/06/11 09:38:20
Subject: Re:US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
that provides blueprints, plans, and machinery to fabricate or finish firearm components.
Forgive my ignorance, American Dakka members, but I thought you couldn't this (make your own guns or parts) because of the ATF regulations or something?
You can make your own firearms for personal use. But not automatic capable, and not for resell. There are plenty of what are called 80% lowers where the owner just needs to finish up creating some channels, etc. to make it a functional firearm (per ATF definitions).
2015/06/11 10:44:26
Subject: Re:US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
sebster wrote: I'm not going to comment on whether this mob is doing anything, as I just don't know enough about what they're doing or the law in this situation.
But the 'OMG they want us to submit for prior approval' thing is inane. If you've got anything which is pushing any kind of legal buttons, then submission and discussion before publication is the adult way to do things. Insisting on publishing first, before there's any clarity over whether your publication is legal is a very fething stupid thing.
I'm getting a real vibe 'oh yes, oppress me federal government, oppress me harder' from this.
No, it's not the "adult" way to do things.
Freedom of speech is still sacrosanct here. There is nothing classified about the information that they share. It's public information that anyone can find elsewhere, if so inclined. To need to get the governments permission to disclose public information, or face a 1 million dollar fine and up to 20 years in prison... that is scary as hell.
The "adult" thing to do is to stand up to this bullying.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/11 10:44:41
Full Frontal Nerdity
2015/06/11 11:10:48
Subject: US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
Seeing that we just "lost" some 70,000 U.S. machine guns to ISIS when they overran Mosul, it seems somewhat disingenuous to be so concerned over the "secrecy" of AR blueprints.
I mean, it's like 1970s tech....
2015/06/11 12:24:15
Subject: Re:US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
The "adult" thing to do is to stand up to this bullying.
It is childish. It's childish because they went out of their way to put themselves in this situation on purpose so all the gun nuts in the US would start crying. The OP article is rubbish. The people behind this publication are baiting the federal government by writing up a paper, then submitting it through a publication process where DD approval is standard so they can raise a bunch of fuss and boost their readership.
Congrats on being duped dakka But I know everyone will just ignore this because complaining about the big mean government is more convenient, so I leave the whine to continue.
I have plans for a 50MT thermonuclear device in my closet (c. <1970).
ALL of the information contained in those plans can be obtained in public records, somewhere (save for modern triggers, post-1970).
Yet gathering in one place, and publishing that information is subject to government censure (and Censorship).
The U.S. Statutes concerning weapon production allow the government the right to control the publication of that technology as a matter of national security, among other things (public safety being another one).
This is the same for handguns as it is for hydrogen bombs.
It's just that MOST of the technology dealing with handguns, or other firearms is so basic that the government does not exercise its right to censor.
This is similar to the laws concerning sales of certain computers to other countries.
Only a publication is not a direct sale to another country, it is providing enemies of the USA aid and succor by providing them with easy access to technologies that could be used against US citizens, at home or abroad.
THAT is why the U.S. government wishes to exercise its rights of redaction over the possible publication of instructions on how to make/print certain weapon parts.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: This will take me several posts to get the various quotations and links relevant to this issue posted (being on an iPad, it reloads a page if I leave it, and to copy a link, I have to leave the page):
First, here is the main link concerning the relevant laws:
U.S. control lists correspond directly with the lists maintained by the various multinational export control regimes, but are augmented by unilateral controls when necessary to ensure national security and foreign policy imperatives. The three major lists of export-controlled items are the Commerce Control List (CCL), the United States Munitions List (USML), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Controls (NRCC).
The CCL includes the following:
• Items on Wassenaar Arrangement Dual-Use List
• Nuclear-related dual use commodities (compiled in the Nuclear Suppliers Group's Nuclear Referral List)
• Dual-use items on Missile Technology Control Regime List
• CW Precursors, biological organisms and toxins, and CBW-related equipment on the Australia Group lists
• Items controlled in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy and other objectives, including anti-terrorism, crime control, Firearms Convention, regional stability, UN sanctions, and short supply reasons
• Unlisted items when destined for specified end-uses or end-users (catch-all controls)
I have highlighted the relevant sections of the Commerce Control List which the government is using to restrict the publication by the group in question.
Since it concerns a digital and/or information technology, publication is considered an "export" of the technology.
While there remain all manner of complications, and complex issues surrounding the use of the CCL in this fashion, it remains the law, and as such can be used to limit what some are calling "speech."
This remains at the heart of this issue.
Is the publication of technology that could be used by/for:
• Items controlled in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy and other objectives, including anti-terrorism, crime control, Firearms Convention, regional stability, UN sanctions, and short supply reasons
• Unlisted items when destined for specified end-uses or end-users (catch-all controls)
Something that legitimately falls under the Commerce Controls?
Or is it a form of Speech that is free from government interference.
I would tend to err on the side of the CCL, since I have experience in working with people who tend to use technology for the worst possible means and ends (having worked to fight against the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's, and seen what our "allies" did with what we provided them when they became our enemies - technically they were ALWAYS our enemies, and many of us tried to point this out to our superiors only to be overruled with the "because Communism" reply), rather than allow the technology to be more easily disseminated in a compacted, organized set of instructions.
I will use a non-weapon analogy to further my point.
Some people have said:
"Everything they wish to publish is available somewhere else. . . ."
This is true.
Now, think about miniature painting.
Everything you need to know to be a master miniature painter is available somewhere in a book, which was not written explicitly for the application to miniature painting.
Yet you can find, online, tutorials, which people have created by assembling all of that disparate information in one place, where they have systematically organized it into step-by-step instructions in video and text tutorials.
How many of you took the trouble to go out to search EVERY BOOK on art to find the relevant techniques for painting gaming miniatures at a master level prior to the availability of the organized, step-by-step tutorials being published?
The answer is: Very few, but not none.
The same thing applies to what the government hopes to achieve in reviewing their publication for possible redaction.
The government knows that it cannot stop those few dedicated people who are going to invest their lives in tracking down the relevant knowledge (law enforcement, and technology controls are NOT ABOUT ABSOLUTE CONTROL), but rather it seeks a minimization of the numbers of those with such knowledge, and not making the enemy's job easier by providing them with a step-by-step tutorial.
MB
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/11 12:51:56
2015/06/11 14:43:38
Subject: Re:US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
that provides blueprints, plans, and machinery to fabricate or finish firearm components.
Forgive my ignorance, American Dakka members, but I thought you couldn't this (make your own guns or parts) because of the ATF regulations or something?
EDIT: to make a distinction, you ARE allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater... when it's actually on fire. It's only prohibited when it's maliciously used as a means to create an unsafe environment.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/11 19:34:40
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/06/11 19:26:25
Subject: US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
The biggest problem with that is that the US State Department is basically saying that the enemies of the US would start producing their own copes of AR15s which are basically M-16s but worse...if such a thing were possible
An M-16 has 1 sole advantage over an AK and that is accuracy at mid-long range. Otherwise the AK pretty much wins every other competition. It fires a bigger round (7.62) it is far more durable. It has a significantly higher Rate of Fire and it is incredibly cheap to make. When I was in Afghanistan the going price for an AK-47 and 2 extra magazines was about $250 USD since then I believe the price has gone up but right now in most African countries the price is still around $300 USD.
Wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy a bunch of AK"s then finding and buying the equipment necessary to machine rifles? not to mention learning how to make them and then purchasing the metals required to make the rifles?
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
2015/06/12 00:13:19
Subject: Re:US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
sebster wrote: I'm not going to comment on whether this mob is doing anything, as I just don't know enough about what they're doing or the law in this situation.
But the 'OMG they want us to submit for prior approval' thing is inane. If you've got anything which is pushing any kind of legal buttons, then submission and discussion before publication is the adult way to do things. Insisting on publishing first, before there's any clarity over whether your publication is legal is a very fething stupid thing.
First Amendment;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
2015/06/12 16:51:55
Subject: Re:US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
sebster wrote: I'm not going to comment on whether this mob is doing anything, as I just don't know enough about what they're doing or the law in this situation.
But the 'OMG they want us to submit for prior approval' thing is inane. If you've got anything which is pushing any kind of legal buttons, then submission and discussion before publication is the adult way to do things. Insisting on publishing first, before there's any clarity over whether your publication is legal is a very fething stupid thing.
First Amendment;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
If one takes a pathological stance (absolutism - which is another word for "Totalitarian") then one will be continually descending into paranoia, because the USA has any number of laws restricting the "free exercise of speech."
In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times on what constitutes "Freedom of Speech" in different arenas.
So, you are going to have to do better than trotting out the first amendment, as the case law and statutes regarding JUST the first amendment fill several rooms full of books in most Law Libraries.
Resorting to absolutist interpretation leaves a society that is incapable of operating properly. That is one reason why absolutist governments are often referred to as being "Totalitarian," because they leave no room for responding to new contingencies that threaten their existence.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The biggest problem with that is that the US State Department is basically saying that the enemies of the US would start producing their own copes of AR15s which are basically M-16s but worse...if such a thing were possible
An M-16 has 1 sole advantage over an AK and that is accuracy at mid-long range. Otherwise the AK pretty much wins every other competition. It fires a bigger round (7.62) it is far more durable. It has a significantly higher Rate of Fire and it is incredibly cheap to make. When I was in Afghanistan the going price for an AK-47 and 2 extra magazines was about $250 USD since then I believe the price has gone up but right now in most African countries the price is still around $300 USD.
Wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy a bunch of AK"s then finding and buying the equipment necessary to machine rifles? not to mention learning how to make them and then purchasing the metals required to make the rifles?
The issue is not just about the production of any one weapon.
The M-16 is just one instance to which this technology can be applied.
TECHNICALLY it can be applied to any weapon for which the appropriate digital files are available.
The AR15/M16 is just a particular instance of a weapon that is being used in this specific case.
MB
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/12 16:54:56
2015/06/12 17:02:15
Subject: Re:US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
It does seem silly to attempt to shut down open source info on rifles when we let this get out:
Open source info is, well, open source. Out there. If we spent the resources trying to tighten up security and stop the infiltration and theft of actual classified tech we would be better off.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/06/12 17:21:48
Subject: Re:US States dept demanded that a pro-2nd Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech for approval
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So if I'm understanding this correctly, we have to let this proposed speech pass to know what's in it?
*Slow clap*
Well played, sir, well played.
See, you're trying to use people logic. DM uses Mandelogic, which we've established has 2+2=quack. - Aerethan
Putin.....would make a Vulcan Intelligence officer cry. - Jihadin
AFAIK, there is only one world, and it is the real world. - Iron_Captain
DakkaRank Comment: I sound like a Power Ranger.
TFOL and proud. Also a Forge World Fan.
I should really paint some of my models instead of browsing forums.