|
07-24-2015, 07:47 AM,
|
|
|
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
0
|
|
GOA / ITAR
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
0
I just got a letter from GOA asking me to contribute to fight Obama's ITAR reg's and to send postcards to my legislators..etc.
As one not to blindly believe everything I'm told or hear, I am reading up on what the ITAR says.
GOA says: ITAR restricts our ability to "talk" about guns.
ITAR says: restricts the export of defense or technical data. I know by way of using the internet, that can be considered "export" as the internet is global, but it doesn't say we can't "talk" about guns.
GOA has a powerful statement here, and on the postcard it draws out some specifics, but then says "Making it a crime to talk about guns and ammunition is a blatant violation of the First and Second Amendments".....this sort of over-simplifies IMO.
I'll send those cards in, but I think GOA should not "dumb" down flat statements like using the word "talk" instead of words like "restrict communication". Semantics, probably, but it bothers me a bit.
Two cents...
As one not to blindly believe everything I'm told or hear, I am reading up on what the ITAR says.
GOA says: ITAR restricts our ability to "talk" about guns.
ITAR says: restricts the export of defense or technical data. I know by way of using the internet, that can be considered "export" as the internet is global, but it doesn't say we can't "talk" about guns.
GOA has a powerful statement here, and on the postcard it draws out some specifics, but then says "Making it a crime to talk about guns and ammunition is a blatant violation of the First and Second Amendments".....this sort of over-simplifies IMO.
I'll send those cards in, but I think GOA should not "dumb" down flat statements like using the word "talk" instead of words like "restrict communication". Semantics, probably, but it bothers me a bit.
Two cents...
|
|
|
Find
|
07-24-2015, 08:44 AM,
|
|
|
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
|
|
RE: GOA / ITAR
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
As far as dumbing down, the liberals have succeeded in creating an educational system where college students are less educated than 8th graders 40 years ago, and 6th graders 40 years before that.
I went to college late in life and even 15 years ago when I did, I was amazed. I took a college freshman level test in a government class that was easier than my 8th grade constitution test had to take in 1975. I had to pass that just to get into high school, now high school students can graduate with knowing less.
So the average high school grad today would read "restrict communication" and their eyes would glaze over.
I went to college late in life and even 15 years ago when I did, I was amazed. I took a college freshman level test in a government class that was easier than my 8th grade constitution test had to take in 1975. I had to pass that just to get into high school, now high school students can graduate with knowing less.
So the average high school grad today would read "restrict communication" and their eyes would glaze over.
|
|
|
Find
07-24-2015, 09:37 AM,
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2015, 09:42 AM by rwhite135.)
|
|
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: GOA / ITAR
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
07-24-2015, 09:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2015, 09:42 AM by rwhite135.)
This actually is not an oversimplification. You need to pay attention to the exact wording and the decisions made by the courts in the past.
1. According to the Supreme Court, congress can decide what is imported/exported by the states to the other states. This goes way back to the Wilson Administration. Back then congress said that they could halt farmers from taking their crops across state lines to sell them and the Supreme Court agreed. That same decision has already been applied to gun sales, which is why a firearm bought online has to go through a FFL dealer for you to get it. The same background check process could easily be done by the retailer you bought it from but based on that earlier decision the courts have ruled that congress can say how firearms go across state lines. They have actually gone so far as to say that if even one little part, such as a screw or rivet, is made in another state or country then congress can rule on that firearm. They point to the commerce clause in the US Constitution to make such rulings. If one reads the Federalist Papers you see that the commerce clause doesn't give congress the power to stop trade but to make sure that it keeps flowing. The above court rulings do the exact opposite. This is why the commerce clause is the most misinterpreted clause in the constitution.
2. Obama and the head of the BATFE have both said that they want to do with ITAR exactly what the GOA says it will do. They want to stop the discussion on how to improve your firearms. This site would be a prime target as we have those kinds of threads here. Just look at the posts I've recently made on upgrading an AK rifle for examples.
3. The same people also want to use ITAR to stop the sale of firearms and firearms accessories online. This would again have an affect on this site as Red Dot does engage in internet sales. This could also hurt small rural businessmen who get an FFL just so that they can process internet sales in a small town, which doesn't have a gun shop in the area, to supplement their incomes. I have met farmers that do this.
When you look at anything like ITAR, you have to pay careful attention to how it's worded as much as what it says.
1. According to the Supreme Court, congress can decide what is imported/exported by the states to the other states. This goes way back to the Wilson Administration. Back then congress said that they could halt farmers from taking their crops across state lines to sell them and the Supreme Court agreed. That same decision has already been applied to gun sales, which is why a firearm bought online has to go through a FFL dealer for you to get it. The same background check process could easily be done by the retailer you bought it from but based on that earlier decision the courts have ruled that congress can say how firearms go across state lines. They have actually gone so far as to say that if even one little part, such as a screw or rivet, is made in another state or country then congress can rule on that firearm. They point to the commerce clause in the US Constitution to make such rulings. If one reads the Federalist Papers you see that the commerce clause doesn't give congress the power to stop trade but to make sure that it keeps flowing. The above court rulings do the exact opposite. This is why the commerce clause is the most misinterpreted clause in the constitution.
2. Obama and the head of the BATFE have both said that they want to do with ITAR exactly what the GOA says it will do. They want to stop the discussion on how to improve your firearms. This site would be a prime target as we have those kinds of threads here. Just look at the posts I've recently made on upgrading an AK rifle for examples.
3. The same people also want to use ITAR to stop the sale of firearms and firearms accessories online. This would again have an affect on this site as Red Dot does engage in internet sales. This could also hurt small rural businessmen who get an FFL just so that they can process internet sales in a small town, which doesn't have a gun shop in the area, to supplement their incomes. I have met farmers that do this.
When you look at anything like ITAR, you have to pay careful attention to how it's worded as much as what it says.
|
|
|
Find
|
07-24-2015, 10:57 AM,
|
|
|
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
|
|
RE: GOA / ITAR
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
What you want people to read laws Congress doesn't even bother to read, and the President unilaterally changes or ignores if he doesn't like them?
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
|
|
|
Find
|
07-24-2015, 03:08 PM,
|
|
|
Posts: 958
Threads: 21
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
|
|
RE: GOA / ITAR
Posts: 958
Threads: 21
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
(07-24-2015, 10:57 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: What you want people to read laws Congress doesn't even bother to read, and the President unilaterally changes or ignores if he doesn't like them?
It sure appears that way...
Click Here ~~~~>Glock Often Imitated....Never Duplicated
(07-24-2015, 10:57 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: What you want people to read laws Congress doesn't even bother to read, and the President unilaterally changes or ignores if he doesn't like them?
It sure appears that way...
Click Here ~~~~>Glock Often Imitated....Never Duplicated
|
|
|
Find
|
07-24-2015, 04:37 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: GOA / ITAR
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
(07-24-2015, 03:08 PM)Brian S Wrote: (07-24-2015, 10:57 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: What you want people to read laws Congress doesn't even bother to read, and the President unilaterally changes or ignores if he doesn't like them?
It sure appears that way...
Somebody has to.
(07-24-2015, 03:08 PM)Brian S Wrote: (07-24-2015, 10:57 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: What you want people to read laws Congress doesn't even bother to read, and the President unilaterally changes or ignores if he doesn't like them?
It sure appears that way...
Somebody has to.
|
|
|
Find
|
07-25-2015, 08:37 AM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
|
|
RE: GOA / ITAR
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
It doesn't matter what the laws actually say, they make things up anyway.
Take the story of HIPPA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
Notice the word in there "portability".
In the early 90's when electronic transfer of any data was underway, old 28K modems if you can remember - 9 hours to move a 10 mb file.
Anyway, healthcare claims were being transmitted then. You had hundreds of insurance and government agencies, medicare, etc. all building unique systems. A doctor who wanted to send to all of them was in trouble.
So from that was born the Electronic Claims Clearinghouse. I worked for one. The doctor could send to us in a single format and we translated to the others for him.
Then the government decided that was not good enough and said everyone should send the same way, hence the "portability" part.
Of course, this cost the healthcare industry billions of dollars, and some of my hair, making these changes.
So after the law was passed and we did our work, we woke up one day and found a myriad of things blamed on HIPPA that had nothing to do with it. When you go to a medical facility now and fill out some paperwork, etc. and are told it is because of HIPPA, that simply is not true. They made all that stuff up later and had nothing to do with what was passed.
Take the story of HIPPA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
Notice the word in there "portability".
In the early 90's when electronic transfer of any data was underway, old 28K modems if you can remember - 9 hours to move a 10 mb file.
Anyway, healthcare claims were being transmitted then. You had hundreds of insurance and government agencies, medicare, etc. all building unique systems. A doctor who wanted to send to all of them was in trouble.
So from that was born the Electronic Claims Clearinghouse. I worked for one. The doctor could send to us in a single format and we translated to the others for him.
Then the government decided that was not good enough and said everyone should send the same way, hence the "portability" part.
Of course, this cost the healthcare industry billions of dollars, and some of my hair, making these changes.
So after the law was passed and we did our work, we woke up one day and found a myriad of things blamed on HIPPA that had nothing to do with it. When you go to a medical facility now and fill out some paperwork, etc. and are told it is because of HIPPA, that simply is not true. They made all that stuff up later and had nothing to do with what was passed.
|
|
|
Find
|
07-25-2015, 09:13 AM,
|
|
|
Posts: 2,382
Threads: 376
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation:
1
|
|
RE: GOA / ITAR
Posts: 2,382
Threads: 376
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation:
1
(07-25-2015, 08:37 AM)Dutz Wrote: It doesn't matter what the laws actually say, they make things up anyway.
No it really does not matter how the law is written or what the intents was of the law. This circus of a court system we have, directed and ran by the "O" team will enforce it how the see fit. Thats the sad part...
(07-25-2015, 08:37 AM)Dutz Wrote: It doesn't matter what the laws actually say, they make things up anyway.
No it really does not matter how the law is written or what the intents was of the law. This circus of a court system we have, directed and ran by the "O" team will enforce it how the see fit. Thats the sad part...
|
|
|
Find
|
07-28-2015, 03:14 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: GOA / ITAR
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
0
(07-24-2015, 09:37 AM)rwhite135 Wrote: This actually is not an oversimplification. You need to pay attention to the exact wording and the decisions made by the courts in the past.
1. According to the Supreme Court, congress can decide what is imported/exported by the states to the other states. This goes way back to the Wilson Administration. Back then congress said that they could halt farmers from taking their crops across state lines to sell them and the Supreme Court agreed. That same decision has already been applied to gun sales, which is why a firearm bought online has to go through a FFL dealer for you to get it. The same background check process could easily be done by the retailer you bought it from but based on that earlier decision the courts have ruled that congress can say how firearms go across state lines. They have actually gone so far as to say that if even one little part, such as a screw or rivet, is made in another state or country then congress can rule on that firearm. They point to the commerce clause in the US Constitution to make such rulings. If one reads the Federalist Papers you see that the commerce clause doesn't give congress the power to stop trade but to make sure that it keeps flowing. The above court rulings do the exact opposite. This is why the commerce clause is the most misinterpreted clause in the constitution.
2. Obama and the head of the BATFE have both said that they want to do with ITAR exactly what the GOA says it will do. They want to stop the discussion on how to improve your firearms. This site would be a prime target as we have those kinds of threads here. Just look at the posts I've recently made on upgrading an AK rifle for examples.
3. The same people also want to use ITAR to stop the sale of firearms and firearms accessories online. This would again have an affect on this site as Red Dot does engage in internet sales. This could also hurt small rural businessmen who get an FFL just so that they can process internet sales in a small town, which doesn't have a gun shop in the area, to supplement their incomes. I have met farmers that do this.
When you look at anything like ITAR, you have to pay careful attention to how it's worded as much as what it says.
Thanks; good points!
(07-24-2015, 09:37 AM)rwhite135 Wrote: This actually is not an oversimplification. You need to pay attention to the exact wording and the decisions made by the courts in the past.
1. According to the Supreme Court, congress can decide what is imported/exported by the states to the other states. This goes way back to the Wilson Administration. Back then congress said that they could halt farmers from taking their crops across state lines to sell them and the Supreme Court agreed. That same decision has already been applied to gun sales, which is why a firearm bought online has to go through a FFL dealer for you to get it. The same background check process could easily be done by the retailer you bought it from but based on that earlier decision the courts have ruled that congress can say how firearms go across state lines. They have actually gone so far as to say that if even one little part, such as a screw or rivet, is made in another state or country then congress can rule on that firearm. They point to the commerce clause in the US Constitution to make such rulings. If one reads the Federalist Papers you see that the commerce clause doesn't give congress the power to stop trade but to make sure that it keeps flowing. The above court rulings do the exact opposite. This is why the commerce clause is the most misinterpreted clause in the constitution.
2. Obama and the head of the BATFE have both said that they want to do with ITAR exactly what the GOA says it will do. They want to stop the discussion on how to improve your firearms. This site would be a prime target as we have those kinds of threads here. Just look at the posts I've recently made on upgrading an AK rifle for examples.
3. The same people also want to use ITAR to stop the sale of firearms and firearms accessories online. This would again have an affect on this site as Red Dot does engage in internet sales. This could also hurt small rural businessmen who get an FFL just so that they can process internet sales in a small town, which doesn't have a gun shop in the area, to supplement their incomes. I have met farmers that do this.
When you look at anything like ITAR, you have to pay careful attention to how it's worded as much as what it says.
Thanks; good points!
|
|
|
Find
|
Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
