Greetings, Mr. Govt Sanctioned Bum,
I am writing to seek your opposition to the proposed changes regarding the ITAR which amount to a digital "assault weapons ban" to be passed without congressional action and implemented by restrictions on public speech; namely the re-definition of the term "defense articles" subject to restriction of foreign-export. It appears the reclassification of assorted "technical data" pertaining to previously-classified "defense articles" represents an unprecedented expansion of the scope of regulation.
Specifically, how this newly claimed authority pertains to the area of firearms. Throughout the entirety of this nation's history, the lawful design, construction, and discussion of firearms amongst the public has been thoughtfully protected, in keeping with the first and second amendments to the US Constitution. The rule changes described in the federal register appear to usurp this intentional protection, using the justification of the appearance of internet communication, yet the regulatory changes extend far beyond mere internet exchange.
The rule requires anyone creating newly defined ITAR "defense article" data or media to first seek State Department approval and registration before proceeding with its release into the public sphere. Apart from the prohibitory tax burden imposed by mandatory ITAR registration, this approval process constitutes a severe prior restraint on speech that has until now has been clearly protected by US statutes. Anyone interested in learning the details of firearms operation, design, construction, or performance would inevitably become entrapped by these far reaching regulatory changes that seek to restrict access to all new firearms technical data not already in the public sphere. Such a result would be a fiscal and legal nightmare for both the government and those seeking to operate within this scheme, and is unacceptable.
Apart from the severe impacts on online information sharing, which is now the predominant form of communication for technical data of all kinds, the new material classification rules would prevent the publishing of detailed technical articles and manuscripts regarding firearms in assorted print or broadcast media, even though the claimed justification for these newly claimed powers is the ascendance of the internet. The internet has been repeatedly held as no more threatening and no less protected than any other form of publication, and for the ITAR or State Department to determine online communication as especially dangerous speech is unacceptable.
The justification to classify as "defense articles" sensitive to our nation's strategic standing, the various firearm technical data, is also unsupportable. Small arms up to and including .50 caliber are perfectly legal devices for American civilians to purchase, own, build, and operate in accordance with federal and state laws. Far from constituting a national security threat, our governing documents make it clear this information and its free disclosure are absolutely critical to our security as a free nation. They cannot therefore constitute such a significant strategic or existential threat to our nation's security domestically or abroad that mere technical speech pertaining to them must be restricted severely. Such a broad restriction on speech regarding an entire class of technology in common lawful use by the public fails even the thinnest scrutiny.
I implore you to oppose this administration's proposed changes to the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulation). Allowing all new discussion of 'gun technology' to be stricken from the public discourse will have an impact much like an "assault weapons ban," leading to the stagnation and atrophy of the civilian shooting sports, much as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did. Opposition to this proposed change is already widespread. I am certain you are already receiving letters, and will continue to receive many more in the coming months as popular opposition organizes around the NRA's call to action. The circumstances surrounding this change strongly suggest they are politically motivated, in order to keep certain gun rights activists' lawsuits from proceeding, so it is likely the administration will go ahead with the regulations, regardless of the results from the public comment period ending in August. Action on your part is needed to halt this rule change in its tracks; removing from ITAR purview all technical information pursuant to the design, construction, function, operation, and service of firearms in accordance with federal firearms laws (those accessible to civilians) would be a good place to start. Removing from their oversight, all small arms and related information, is a more thorough solution, as none constitute such an existential threat to national security as to justify restrictions on our core freedoms.
In conclusion; the proposed changes to ITAR must not be adopted. They are far too sweeping beyond the claimed purpose, the claimed purpose itself is so sweeping it falls outside the existing regulatory authority of the State Department, the type of data that would be restricted has both historical precedent and legal protection spanning centuries, and the security threat claimed in order to justify this threat is wildly exaggerated if not fabricated outright.
Once again, I seek your opposition and assistance in defeating this proposal. Thank you for your time, and your service to the state & nation.
TCB
) so it is very easy.