down load it today

[WasrNwarpaint]

QUOTE: All this means is that people will meet in back rooms, instead of talking on forums

you do what us hackers do......... close open registration now..........password the forum.........go underground
screw the govt they are no longer friends of the American People

 

[balaperdida]

QUOTE: All this means is that people will meet in back rooms, instead of talking on forums

you do what us hackers do......... close open registration now..........password the forum.........go underground
screw the govt they are no longer friends of the American People

I have no doubt that the NSA monitors every word published on every gun/ammo forum, and will continue to do so regardless of what technology, short of 2048-bit encryption. Even then, it will be only a matter of time before that is broken, too.

 

[Sstrand]

It means a reincarnation of the STASI only this time under an American flag!!!

Sheldon

 

[Jamie6.5]

Okay, let's hear it.
How many of you guys actually thought the FCC's takeover of the net under Title II regulations was really about "Net Neutrality?"

Did you not see crapola like this coming if the net fell under Title II regs?
SMFH.

Leftist keep handing this guy the keys, and then get pizzed when he comes back while no one's paying attention, and takes their rights, and their country away from them.
There is no governmental altruism. That's a fallacy cooked up to dupe the ignorant into believing they'll benefit from government actions.

 

[U201494]

He did tell the Russians to hang in there and wait. After his re-election he can be more flexible.

Nothing gay about that statement

 

[AMProducts]

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...internet-except-when-it-comes-gun-enthusiasts

This is a very interesting read and one we should all take notice of. Given that at the moment, NWFA is an open forum that discusses a significant amount of technical information regarding firearms, some new regulations will essentially shut this site and many others like it down for committing the cardinal sin of liking firearms.

Take notice! This is an issue that really needs to be shut down faster than the proposed rule making about SS109.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

I have no doubt that the NSA monitors every word published on every gun/ammo forum, and will continue to do so regardless of what technology, short of 2048-bit encryption. Even then, it will be only a matter of time before that is broken, too.

if that were the case all the Hacker sites would be gone .....no piracy....& all hacker would be in jail

 

[The Heretic]

More evidence of the on going assault by the left wing DEMOCRAT party, on our Constitutional freedoms. Naturally this is for our own good and safety. Only left wing democrats care about such things. We as citizens aren't capable of making good decisions when it comes to what is good for us. Then again left wing liberal politicians keep getting re-elected and we citizens keep complaining about loosing freedom and high taxes. Guess I'm missing something.

As already mentioned, this kind of thing has been around for a while, and not just firearms. Republican conservative admins fought with the public for years over allowing people to encrypt their files and emails/etc., because they considered (and still do to a degree), encryption software to be an "arm" that could not be exported.

Once in power, there is really very little difference between democrats or republican politicians and bureaucrats. They are two heads of the same snake.

 

[Raidingtime]

 

[U201491]

NRA WARNING IN BREIF.


State's proposal is highly technical. It took 14 pages in the Federal Register to explain. But the NRA boiled it down for gun owners with this warning:

"In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the 'public domain.' Essentially, this means data 'which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public' through a variety of specified means. These include 'at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.' Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.

"The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been 'exported,' as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.

"With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be 'clarifying' the rules concerning 'technical data' posted online or otherwise 'released' into the 'public domain.' To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the 'authorization' of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible."

Below are the State changes drawing the NRA fire:



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.

 

[U201491]

Why does this thread have no "last response" and no numbers stats for viewed or posts. Did someone censure this thread from view for some purpose or what is with that? There is a blue curved arrow and no stats on it ??

 

[Jamie6.5]

Why does this thread have no "last response" and no numbers stats for viewed or posts. Did someone censure this thread from view for some purpose or what is with that? There is a blue curved arrow and no stats on it ??

You have been redirected to the "Download it Today" thread, started by Just Jim.
NWFA consolidated the two threads since they both deal with the same subject.

 

[AMT]

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/nra-feds-seek-gag-order-on-gun-talk/


"The NRA pointed to the State Department's updates on international arms sales' regulations and said a provision within would mandate anyone who wants to post particulars about guns and ammunition on the Internet first receive approval from the federal government. Those who don't could face fines of $1 million as well as 20 years in jail, Fox News reported.

And that provision would impact even bloggers and social media posters, the NRA warned.

"Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzles under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities," the NRA said in a statement.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND's Email News Alerts!

"This latest regulatory assault," the NRA went on, "published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First AMendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published."

The State Department regulation spans 14 pages."

 

[Boboclown]

... And they said I was crazy for saying they would also target our 1st Amendment rights...

"Rights for me, but not you peasants." I can imagine them saying that, and I wouldn't be too far off.

 

[Ralgha]

Do they say where this provision is or do I have to slog through all 14 pages to find it?

 

[bolus]

This is about putting technical information about military hardware online. This is about "Defense Articles" defined as:

"An article or service may be designated or determined in the future to be a defense article (see §120.6) or defense service (see §120.9) if it: (a) Is specifically designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified for a military application, and (i) Does not have predominant civil applications, and (ii) Does not have performance equivalent (defined by form, fit and function) to those of an article or service used for civil applications; or (b) Is specifically designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified for a military application, and has significant military or intelligence applicability..."

Which is already illegal to deliver to a foreign government I believe

 

[U201491]

If that were true the NRA would not be so concerned about it.

 

[balaperdida]

The presumption in the proposed regulations is that once the information is on the Internet, it is available anywhere on earth.

It would also be the end of americanrifleman.org and americanhunter.org, along with all online gun-related catalogs (e.g., Cabela's), and sites like gunbroker.com, because they all contain some particulars about guns or ammo.

 

[Ralgha]

The NRA puts out propaganda just like any other group does. Blindly following what they say is just as bad as blindly following what anybody else says.

My brief perusal of the regulation comes up with

§ 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 such as through any of
the following:
(1) Subscriptions available without
restriction to any individual who
desires to obtain or purchase the
published information;
(2) Libraries or other public
collections that are open and available
to the public, and from which the public
can obtain tangible or intangible
documents;
(3) Unlimited distribution at a
conference, meeting, seminar, trade
show, or exhibition, generally accessible
to the interested public;
(4) Public dissemination (i.e.,
unlimited distribution) in any form (e.g.,
not necessarily in published form),
including posting on the Internet on
sites available to the public; or
(5) Submission of a written
composition, manuscript or
presentation to domestic or foreign co-
authors, editors, or reviewers of
journals, magazines, newspapers or
trade publications, or to organizers of
open conferences or other open
gatherings, with the intention that the
compositions, manuscripts, or
publications will be made publicly
available if accepted for publication or
presentation.

Which most gun data falls into. I don't doubt that the current administration would try something that would stifle gun talk, but I'm not seeing it here. Show me the provision they're worried about and maybe I'll change my tune.

 

[Just Jim]

The NRA puts out propaganda just like any other group does. Blindly following what they say is just as bad as blindly following what anybody else says.

My brief perusal of the regulation comes up with

Which most gun data falls into. I don't doubt that the current administration would try something that would stifle gun talk, but I'm not seeing it here. Show me the provision they're worried about and maybe I'll change my tune.

Ya, the current administration would never lie to you...