8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1 Timothy 1:8-9New King James Version (NKJV)
Obama Is Taking Away My Right… To Write
By de Andréa, Opinion Editorialist
for ‘THE BOTTOM LINE’:
for ‘THE BOTTOM LINE’:
Published June 11, 2015
Your Muslim Jihadist President has yet another oppressive trick up his sleeve.
He realizes if he can’t ban guns outright, he might at least be able to limit your ability to talk about them.
Illegally twisting an international law (which doesn’t supersede our constitution by the way) known as the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) he is attempting to regulate what I say about guns on the Internet, and you must know by now that I say plenty about GUNS.
This is all being fast tracked under the premise that talking about guns is “exporting” data which would somehow violate the ITAR.
The NRA reports: “It’s happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.”
Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration’s “Unified Agenda” of regulatory objectives, (see accompanying story). The Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, 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.
To understand the proposal and why it’s so serious, some background information is necessary.
For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called “defense articles” and “defense services” in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part “U.S. Munitions List,” which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.
Also regulated under ITAR are so-called “technical data” about defense articles. These include, among other things, “detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information” about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.
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 legal points of view and technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized “export,” including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.
Writers, Constitutionalists, Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers, could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most illegal regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.
But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means he wants, to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation? Like Hitler disarm the people then the government has full control without fear of retaliation.
So what does this mean for you, the common American?
It means if you want to submit a review on a gun you just purchased to YouTube, or write about the Constitutionality of the right to keep and bear arms, it could land you in prison.
A fine of up to $1 million dollars are foreseeable if you so much as comment on ammo, magazines, tactics, or anything similar.
You can definitely see this is as another federal tune up to get us underneath the thumb of an out of control criminal government. Arms in the hands of a free people are necessary to the security of a Free State. Without them we are certain to lose our Free State for good.
Some maintain this won’t be enforceable. Even if that is true, and let’s hope it is, the problem here is the precedent being set by Obama’s Federal Gestapo. They’re slowly trying to chip away at our liberties when they should be doing everything they can to strengthen and support them.
Is this why you voted for them?
THE BOTTOM LINE: My response to the Muslim Jihadist Obama…”GO SUCK AN EGG!” I am under two laws in this world, the first is the Ten Commandments, and the second is the U.S. Constitution. I will die at my keyboard writing the truth and what is on my mind, before I will ever bow in subjection to a Muslim. President or no!
Come and get me Obama but you had better bring your SS Gestapo with you... I have already had threats from your ISIS Brotherhood sons of Satan and they don’t scare me either, it just emboldens me.
In case you missed it at the top: 8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1 Timothy 1:8-9New King James Version (NKJV)
Thanks for listening – de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list. It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved - Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.