# So whats the deal?



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I've been hearing rumblings that the feds are going to take a run at shutting down gun related discussions on the internet. Apparently the almighty pen of executive order has been idle for a while and is chafing at the bit to spread some fresh ink. 

Is there truth to this or is it bunk.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

"Chomping at the bit" is the phrase you were looking for. And no, at this time the wording of the legislation is designed to prohibit release of information on government systems produced by, with, or for the government, on the internet. It is an addition to the law that already prohibits sale or release of such information by other forms of media. It's purpose is to prevent the release of military/government secrets to other countries or the enemies of the government. 

It's is, however, worded quite vaguely at the moment, so keeping an ear out for further development.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Legislation that is vaguely worded? How strange. That never happens!


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Early stages. It'll be "more" "specific" (separate air quotes there) when it's voted on.


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

Jakthesoldier said:


> Early stages. It'll be "more" "specific" (separate air quotes there) when it's voted on.


Well now don't forget,, "You need to vote on it to see what's in it"

And it's our own fault for letting things get this far out of hand.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Kill 2a and disarm the people, Limit 1a to keep them stupid... Typical gubmint agenda....&#55357;&#56398;


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

For government, the vaguer the better. Look at how the he real welfare and regulation of commerce clauses of the Constitution have been twisted and abused.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Chomping at the bit, that's the phrase I was looking for, thanks Jake.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

Pretty much


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

well Obama is on the way out so even though his administration has sold more guns and ammo than all the others combined, so I bet he has some real doosey's lined up


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Well they recently took a run at lifting the exemption on M885 ammo, so is this maneuver in the same vein (agenda) or is there a legitimate need.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The overall intention would be to limit the availability of weapon specifications online.
The Chicken Littles of the world don't want "terrorists" to be able to make their own weapons using technical specs available on the internet.
However, no real detail is given on what constitutes a restricted weapon, and what doesn't.
Thus, it *could* be used to limit the spreading of tech specs on any firearms the general public likes to talk about.
That's what some folks fear.
No more exploded diagrams of your favorite pistol, no more measurements for an AR-15 for home manufacturing, etc...


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Medic33 said:


> well Obama is on the way out so even though his administration has sold more guns and ammo than all the others combined, so I bet he has some real doosey's lined up


 When Obama leaves office no armed guards for him not one ever. And we will mix up his community with some boys from the hood to move in next door


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Thanks Kauboy,

If the language of the law is vague then some people, rather than risk running afoul of it will opt to remain silent. 

While it may be sold as a measure to keep technical data from falling into the wrong hands, it's bound to have a chilling effect on free speech.


----------

