|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NRA: Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation
Submitted by:
Anonymous
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
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.
According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(6/8/2015)
|
IMNSHO this isn't another cry of "Wolf" ! We already know our President's stance on private firearms ownership. And we've seen just how "transparent" his campaign promise of a "new level of transparency in government" is. He told the absolute truth, and never again visited it.
ITAR proscriptions span everything from antiques to commonplace sporting arms to anything that might be characterized as a "military weapon". Since that encompasses muzzle loaders to .22RF to just about every caliber and cartridge ever created, and the wording is so vague, gun owners are left with scraps. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(6/9/2015)
|
I don't think it will withstand SCOTUS scrutiny if/when it gets there.
The information at issue is not privileged, classified or secret in any way, nor is it seditious, so the "national security" dog won't hunt.
As well, "export" under commerce clause powers means actual commerce, i.e. monetary transactions or activity that materially affects commerce per se under Wickard v. Filburn. Communal conversations on public forums in no way can be stretched to fit that definition. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
