Arms Control

US Lifting Restrictions on Arms Exports

Arms control apparently just a domestic concern

|

can i buy a military aircraft too?
Reason 24/7

President Obama is easing the rules for arms exports, which critics say* will make it easier for countries like Iran to get access to spare parts they need to keep their aging jets running.

From Pro Publica:

The United States is loosening controls over military exports, in a shift that former U.S. officials and human rights advocates say could increase the flow of American-made military parts to the world's conflicts and make it harder to enforce arms sanctions.

Come tomorrow, thousands of parts of military aircraft, such as propeller blades, brake pads and tires will be able to be sent to almost any country in the world, with minimal oversight – even to some countries subject to U.N. arms embargos. U.S. companies will also face fewer checks than in the past when selling some military aircraft to dozens of countries.

Arms control, apparently for US citizens covered under the Second Amendment only!

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247

*updated

Advertisement

NEXT: Researchers Find Blood-Filled Mosquito Fossil

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Arms control, apparently for US citizens covered under the Second Amendment only!

    Oh come on! The word “militia” means government! So the 2A gives governments the right to keep and bear arms! Everyone knows that!

    1. I’m not sure what he’s doing is a terrible idea, but it is striking that he trusts foreign governments with fighter jets more than he trusts his fellow Americans with small arms.

      I guess that shows us who he’s afraid of.

  2. I expect the vast anti-war movement to take to the streets over this!

    What?

    Why are you all laughing?!

    1. He has a Nobel Peace Prize.

      His peace credentials are nonpareil.

      1. Pretty much unparalleled, too

  3. Arms control, apparently for US citizens covered under the Second Amendment only!

    Ed Krayewski steals my comment even before putting it up on the blog!

    1. Yeah.

      And, Ed, do please let us know when the Federal Gummint lifts the ban on having any .22LR ammo anywhere ever for any price.

      Cause I’ve finally managed to score 9mm, .357Mag, .38SPL, 30-30 and 30-06. But haven’t even SEEN .22 in over a year.

      1. ummm…call me.

        seriously though, at thh Tanner gun show it was $230 for a box of 200…unbelievebale. I bought a brick of 500 for $8.99 several years ago.

        1. Pretty sure I can get 500/$20 still here in NC. Haven’t been to the store in about a month though.

          7.62×39 is only 5 bucks/20 rnds.

          1. I agree that “regular” prices are in existence around town but at the quarterly show it was fucking ridiculous. Fear was driving the prices. It would be a great study in mob psychology.

      2. I guess I stocked up at the right time. I still have like 3000 rounds of .22LR.

    2. Is it still illegal to import surplus weapons from South Korea leftover from the Korean War?

      I should hope so, since the M1 rifle or a BAR is undoubtedly the weapon of choice for a mass shooter.

      1. Wait, m1a or m1 garand?

        1. South Korea has thousands of M1 Garand’s just sitting around. They’ve been asking the US for years to let them export them so collectors can buy them.

          1. I just bought an M1 Garand. It is a superior weapon. And the one I got is absolutely beautiful.

            Icluding the BAYONET it came with!

            HEY!!11111?.fkndf

            *carried off by SWAT team after they shoot my dog*

            1. I remember trying to convince my dad to buy me a M1 Garand w/ bayonet at a gun show when I was about 8 years old.

            2. I’ve seen them before, never fired one but I’ve always wanted to own one later in life since it’s the rifle my grandpa used in Korea.

              1. Deos anyone have one of the remakes made by Fulton Armory? I am considering one of those.

              2. I got my grandpa’s M1 Carbine from WWII. And an Arisaka that he got from a captured Japanese weapons shipment.

              3. I gotta say, for being designed by a Canuck, it’s a damned fine-shooting weapon 🙂 I LOVE it!

            3. Wait, it has a bayonet? That means it has a bayonet lug, which makes it an assault rifle.

              You monster.

              1. Dude, that sold me. It was a beautiful Springfield Armory orig (I haven’t figured out which army had it – ours or someone else’s)…but the FUCKING BAYONET was the kicker.

                “Never fired and only dropped once!” – Cowboy

                1. “Never fired, dropped once” is an advertisement for a French military weapon.

                  1. I have a MAS 36 with bayonet. It’s a fine weapon. Shame about the ammo situation though.

      2. Wasn’t the BAR Bonnie & Clyde’s gun of choice?

        1. Yes; Clyde was trained on one when in the Army for WWI, and he taught Bonnie to use one.

          1. Really? Shees, seems like overkill, no?

            1. BAR’s make a REALLY big hole in shit

              1. I am sure (.30-06, right?) but for going around shooting up the countryside and robbing banks & stuff wouldn’t a Tommy be better? Or were Thompson’s to cliche and gauche by then…

                1. The BAR’s could shoot auto, too. THINK about auto 30-06….. 8o

  4. in a shift that former U.S. officials and human rights advocates say could increase the flow of American-made military parts to the world’s conflicts and make it harder to enforce arms sanctions.

    I see Obama is familiar with the Rules of Acquisition. Rule 34: War is good for business.

    1. No, dude. Rule 34 is something else entirely.

      1. yeah…i read that and my mental Rule 34 started laughing.

      2. I’m pretty sure the Ferengi Rule 34 predates the Rule 34 you’re thinking of.

    2. “I see Obama is familiar with the Rules of Acquisition. Rule 34: War is good for business.”

      He doesn’t usually care about that. My guess is that there’s a union involved in this somehow.

      1. I knew I’d find something!

        I just dug this up:

        “At a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to weigh proposed changes to U.S. export policies, senior Democratic member Brad Sherman (CA) cited a March 19 letter from IAM President Tom Buffenbarger that raised concerns about outsourcing, technology transfers and the potential impact on domestic employment.”

        http://www.goiam.org/index.php…..ct-us-jobs

        This is about the IAM (the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) protecting their union members from foreign competition.

        Obama doesn’t give a crap about whether something is in the best interests of American security or world peace–not if either of those things get in they way of some union.

      2. What’s involved in this is the fact that US commercial aerospace companies are losing billions of dollars in business to European competitors because they don’t have to deal with the retarded monstrosity of a regulatory regime that Americans do.

        Also SpaceX has lobbied extensively for this.

        1. Yeah, the unions are arguing that lifting export controls isn’t enough. They apparently want more to protect domestic industries, too.

          http://wtonewsstand.com/index……MwOTMxMC8=

  5. Come tomorrow, thousands of parts of military aircraft, such as propeller blades, brake pads and tires will be able to be sent to almost any country in the world, with minimal oversight

    DO YOU ANARCHISTS SEE WHAT YOU HAVE WROUGHT WITH YOUR FREE TRADE!?

    1. brake pads and tires

      No one NEEDS assault brakes and 10 clip tire magazine dumpers..thingies.1!11!

    2. OMFG! US companies will be able to talk to foreign suppliers without official government permission!!!

      Do you know what could happen? Someone could say something in the hallway that is overheard by their South Korean co-worker, and that South Korean co-workers could send it in an email to a relative in South Korea, and then the relative in South Korea could read that email while travelling on a bus through north Korea and then next thing you know, North Korea will have nuclear weapons.

      We can’t allow Americans with technical knowledge to talk to each other without permission! This has to be stopped!

  6. It will be interesting to see how the details of this change work out. If you work at a university you learn about ‘export controls’ that actually apply within the United States.
    This is how it works: if you have a student from certain countries (particularly Iran, North Korea, Syria or Cuba) and you have certain kinds of equipment in your lab (say an infrared camera) you must not permit the student to touch, or even see that equipment. There’s the concept of ‘deemed export’, which is that if a citizen from a forbidden country comes into contact with a ‘dual use’ object (i.e. one that could have a military weapon use) that object is ‘deemed’ to have been exported.

    So, ask any engineering or physics professor about ‘deemed exports’, and be prepared to duck.

    Incidentally, this rule is not just winked at, because real professors have gone to real US jails over this one.

    I helped design some training materials on this topic a few years ago, and it has not gone away.

    1. How do you know the item in question has a dual use?

      Is there a list somewhere?

      1. Yes, there is a list. Or you can subscribe to a special search engine. Also, the manufacturer is supposed to tell you.

        1. Most universities have an entire office dedicated to ‘Export Control’. Just type the phrase into a search engine at any randome university.

          Here’s an article about the list incidentally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…..ion_Number

          When university administrators talk about rising tuition being driven in part by unfunded mandates, this is the kind of regulatory shit they are talking about. That search engine I referred to isn’t cheap to rent either.

      2. US munitions list, which contrary to its name, includes many things that are not munitions.

    2. Incidentally, this rule is not just winked at, because real professors have gone to real US jails over this one.

      That is correct. It basically means that if you deal with anything aerospace related that you’d better not have any foreign grad students in your lab.

      And PRISON TIME is quite a different ball of wax from fines.

      1. Just ask Wen Ho Lee

        1. And Lee Ho Fook.

  7. O/T: Filner Arrested for False Imprisonment

    Ah, the struggles of those who aren’t Clintons.

    1. I would honestly say that “Fingers” Filner probably can’t get a fair trial.

      1. He already pled out.

  8. Of course the U.S. government trusts terrorists and radical theocrats more than it trusts its own citizens. We’re the real enemy. The terrorists keep them in business.

  9. Before you go making your snarky comments, you might want to do a little research and find out how awful the current export regulations are and how they impede R&D in the US. Revising these regs is long overdue.

    1. Revising these regs is long overdue.

      Nobody here said otherwise.

      1. And yet, it’s more important to criticize Obama, even when he’s doing something right, than it is to celebrate ACTUAL DEREGULATION.

        Are we interested in ACTUAL DEREGULATION or are we interested in scoring stupid political points against a Democrat?

      2. Where’s the Reason post praising this bit of sanity out of the Obama administration then? Instead we get this stupid post about how this is somehow related to the second amendment.

        1. I don’t know. Why don’t you line up behind the thousands of others who’ve asked why Reason hasn’t written about some issue X and use it as proof that Reason doesn’t care about issue X?

        2. I thought the Reason office was filled with obama slurping cosmotarians that would put us in camps built using mexican labor if they could get an invite to an abortion party in deecee.

          Geeze, I’m having trouble keeping up here.

  10. Shall I hold my breath waiting for progressives to start screaming about evil defense contractors who run the government? Or is that only a bad then when the administration is republican?

  11. Apparently Reason only hates regulations when Democrats are in favor of them. As soon as Obama starts deregulating something, we should oppose deregulation?

    ITAR has stifled the US commercial aerospace industry for well over a decade, causing billions in lost business as “ITAR-free” competitors in Europe take over the market.

    Under the ITAR controls that Obama is easing, it is illegal to transfer “technical data” about a commercial communications satellite to a foreign national who is legally employed at the same company at you in the US.
    Under the ITAR controls Obama is easing, you can’t even SEND EMAIL to a foreign supplier without permission from the state department.
    You have ot have a special department specifically devoted to reading your email to make sure that no foreigner could possibly infer anything that would allow them to improve their technology from your email.
    Thus bullshit cots US companies billions every year in wasted resources poring of insignificant details like the exact wording of the “Contains ITAR controlled data” disclaimers that you’re forced to plaster all over your documents.

    You should be CELEBRATING this. Not using it as a stupid bullshit excuse to bitch about Obama.
    He’s doing something right for once.

    1. I didn’t see them bitching about it. It looks to me like they’re only bitching about Obama’s inconsistency.

      1. The ITAR regime is so blindingly fucking horrible that the fact that is being deregulated is FAR FAR more important than whether Obama is being inconsistent or not.

        1. FAR FAR more important

          To whom? I can’t think of any way that ITAR impacts my daily life, as I am not a part of the defense industry. However, I can think of a multitude of ways that domestic regulation of arms effect my life and the lives of millions of other Americans.

          Jus’ sayin’ bro.

          1. That’s only because you don’t see those effects directly. But in fact they impede software development, R&D, and lots of other US industry. You may not realize its hurting you, but it is.

            1. Hurting me more than the gun-grabbers?

              C’mon son! That’s balderdash and poppycock.

              By the way, it’s not mutually exclusive, you know. One can see deregulation as a good thing but also call out Obama on his hypocrisy concerning regulation over something else.

              1. One can see deregulation as a good thing but also call out Obama on his hypocrisy concerning regulation over something else.

                I can’t believe this even needed to be said.

          2. ITAR has impacted MY LIFE in VERY DEEP , VERY PERSONAL, VERY DRAMATIC WAYS.

            To wit, I was effectively FORBIDDEN from working in my chosen industry forbecause a retarded government regulation decided that talking to me or exposing me to information was a weapons export.

            I was one of those students who couldn’t look at equipment because my professor might get sent to prison if I did.

            It took me 10 years to get through immigration before I could resume my career.

            So go fuck yourself.

            1. ITAR has impacted MY LIFE in VERY DEEP , VERY PERSONAL, VERY DRAMATIC WAYS.

              I can tell. You’re very passionate about the subject.

              So go fuck yourself.

              Come now, was that really necessary?

              1. Come now, was that really necessary?

                Maybe she has an autocoitus fetish?

            2. So is Obama easing these particular restrictions, or just the ones where his favored unions can sell more shit overseas?

      2. What’s the inconsistency? Allowing companies to talk to foreigners about brake pads is inconsistent with gun control?

        1. Whether or not you agree with Reason’s point about Obama’s inconsistency is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are in fact complaining about (what they perceive to be) his inconsistency.

          1. Reason’s point shows the writer has not friggin idea what he’s writing about.

            1. Really? So he’s wrong about the differential treatment between government agencies and U.S. citizens?

    2. It’s called irony. Look it up.

      1. I, for one, would far prefer selling people the equipment they want and profit from it to invading (insert random country we have no business in here).

    3. Good comment. Who knew Reason of all places was in favor of stupid, overbearing, and costly regulations?

      1. Please point out where Reason said they were in favor of export restrictions.

        1. I take that as the implication of wildly inaccurate statements like: “President Obama is easing the rules for arms exports, which will make it easier for countries like Iran to get access to spare parts they need to keep their aging jets running.”

          1. Precisely. Statements like that play into the insane bullshit that the PRO-regulation side uses to OPPOSE export deregulation.

            What the fuck, Reason?

            1. Statements like that point out the irony of making it easier for people who want to kill Americans to fix their planes while making it more difficult for Americans to defend themselves.

              Irony. Look it up.

              1. Except these regulation changes do nothing of the sort.

                1. Look up obtuse while you’re at it.

              2. Get a grip, sarcasmic. You’re now pro-regulation because you find it politically expedient to come up with some reason to criticize something Obama did?

                You have no fucking clue what ITAR did to American industry. Go do some fucking research before you comment again.

                1. You’re now pro-regulation…

                  When did I say that? Talk about missing the point.

                2. You’re now pro-regulation because you find it politically expedient to come up with some reason to criticize something Obama did?

                  *Facepalm*

    4. What HazelMeade said. This is one of those few cases where Obama is pushing the government to stop over-regulating things. This isn’t about making it easier to sell explicitly military hardware–most of that is staying ITAR controlled, or is being placed with restrictions on the commerce side that still prohibits its sale to countries like Iran. This is about removing dual-use stuff that isn’t directly military related, and letting ITAR focus on stuff that is predominately military in nature.

      ~Jon

      1. This is about appeasing the IAM (and others) as Ken Schultz noted above.

        Yeah, I’m glad President Shithead is lowering barriers. No – I don’t for a minute think he’ll keep it up. This isn’t a change in approach or philosophy – it’s a typical one off “exception” for a favored crony.

        And FUCK THAT.

        So yeah – nice some barriers were lowered (temporarily, no doubt). As usual, it’s for reasons of cronyism, which I will never celebrate.

        As my older daughter said, “Fuck Joe Biden and socialized medicine.” And the president.

        1. Bullshit. It is not acbout appeasing any unions. It is straight up a case of the regulations being so fucking insane that it was literally destroying US technical capacities due to our total inability to do business with anyone outside of the US.

          1. Right. Obama has a long history of helping people cut through onerous red tape. Oh, wait, no, it’s the exact opposite of that.

            1. So instead of celebrating that he’s seen the light on one issue, we just bitch and gripe that he’s not a die-hard libertarian?

              I want to see the reason article saying “Holy fucking shit, isn’t this awesome?”

              Because I care more about actually deregulating stuff then scoring political points.

              1. I want to see the reason article saying “Holy fucking shit, isn’t this awesome?”

                Then write your own fucking article.

              2. It’s NOT awesome. Obama did the right thing for the wrong reasons. He’s not turning over a new leaf. He’s very much the same piece of crap he was yesterday, only today (surprise!) he also kowtows to unions for votes. I’m not going to start celebrating that the boot on my neck isn’t being pressed quite as hard.

              3. If Obama ever sees the light on deregulation, it’ll burn into his flesh until he disintegrates like a Vampire.

                If Obama’s seen the light on this, what’s his next deregulation project–Wall Street?

                If it works for the defense industry, when is he going to deregulate the rest of the country?

                I don’t think people are being obtuse in refusing to recognize Barack Obama as a deregulator. Given his regulatory behavior over the past five years, it’s reasonable to be skeptical that he’s suddenly seen the light on deregulation.

          2. Except it’s not bullshit, Hazel.

            We can all see you’re very passionate about this. But Obama NEVER makes a move based on principle or “what’s right’ or “good for the country?”.

            He’s an utter, complete, fucking self-centered authoritarian who only does things that are advantageous for him.

            That includes this.

    5. And how exactly does all of that make up for Obama’s rank hypocrisy on domestic arms control?

    6. Are you talking about Ed’s post? Because it doesn’t contain any criticism of deregulation, only a little snark about arms control abroad vs. here at home.

      1. This isn’t criticism? “President Obama is easing the rules for arms exports, which will make it easier for countries like Iran to get access to spare parts they need to keep their aging jets running.”

        1. Followed by “Arms control, apparently for US citizens covered under the Second Amendment only!”

          Context. Look it up. And look up irony while you’re at it.

          1. You’re going to have to explain the irony then, because these regulations have absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.

            1. You’re going to have to explain the irony then

              It’s been explained enough already. It’s not my fault you’re obtuse.

              because these regulations have absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.

              No one said they did.

        2. No, it isn’t criticism. Well, maybe a light criticism of Iran’s aging air force.

    7. “Apparently Reason only hates regulations when Democrats are in favor of them. As soon as Obama starts deregulating something, we should oppose deregulation?”

      If we’re going to go after Reason’s integrity on this, I think it’s important to remember which president we’re talking about here.

      If Obama’s deregulating something, I think it’s safe to say it isn’t for the sake of deregulation. He’s trying to help his union buddies (or whomever else), and if that involves doing something that’s good from a deregulation standpoint, then I think it’s safe to assume Obama sees that as merely a coincidence.

      1. “If that involves doing something that’s good from a deregulation standpoint, then I think it’s safe to assume Obama sees that as merely a coincidence.”

        I didn’t go far enough…

        If doing something for his union buddies involves having to deregulate something, then I think it’s safe to assume that Obama sees that as a necessary evil.

      2. Honestly, I could give a crap if he did it because some unions somewhere might benefit from it, or if it’s because SpaceX wanted it really bad, or because there was overwhelming support for it in the business community.

        Maybe the unions finally felt some real actual pain because of really terrible regulations. Should we hate them for occasionally noticing that regulation hurts them too?

        1. The point is that there are lots of angles to talk about here–not just the one where we praise Obama for being a deregulator.

          They might have pointed to this as yet another example of Obama not living up to his anti-war billing…

          Krayewski actually pointed to Obama’s eagerness to deny Americans their Second Amendment rights–and contrasted that with Obama’s behavior in regards to exports…

          I don’t see where anybody at Reason was criticizing deregulation, per se.

  12. Ed,
    The Pro Publica article I think does a really poor job of explaining the situation. Right now there are a whole bunch of items which have almost no connection with “military technology” that are regulated under ITAR as munitions. It’s particularly bad on the space side, anything that has to do with space launch vehicles or satellites is ITAR controlled, even if it was for a purely-civilian application like a commercial comms sat. So a coax cable for a commercial commsat was being treated with the same level of regulation as a tank, or missile, or jet fighter.

    The Obama administration with the help of many on both sides of Congress has been trying to fix this, to go through and move dual-use items off of ITAR and onto the state department side of things. The thing that the Pro Publica article screwed up is that I’m pretty sure if a part is explicitly designed for military usage–like an F-14 brake pad, it will still be covered under ITAR. And even on the commerce control side, if it is a technology that is directly militarily related, it will still be banned from being sold to countries like Iran based on their “reason for controls” country list.

    Fixing this mess is a *good* thing, and not at all what Pro Publica is trying to make it sound like.

    ~Jon

    1. THANK YOU.

    2. And also, it might make the lives of university teachers, students (and some administrators) easier, which was the point of my post up north of here at 12:55.

      1. You should be ashamed of yourself.

        1. Why? He’s not the one throwing a public tantrum.

            1. +1 kicking and screaming to be used at a time you see fit

        2. Believe it or not, it is possible to both recognize irony in arming enemies while opposing arming Americans, while also favoring deregulation.
          You know? Like, golly that’s ironic that Obama’s loosening regulation involving selling arms related parts to foreigners while wanting to strengthen regulations on Americans arming themselves. It’s good that he’s loosening regulation, but ironic at the same time. Get it?

          1. I get the irony. But it’s stupid. The moment when the government implements some long-overdue deregulation is a moment to celebrate, not a moment for juvenile snark.

            1. It’s always a good moment for a juvenile snark.

              1. K, next time, when the government deregulates something that has personally had a huge negative impact on your life, I’ll remember to make juvenile comments about how stupid it is that they deregulated THAT, and not something really important like the size of a big gulp.

                1. Ed didn’t say that it was stupid that they deregulated arms exports. Get a grip.

  13. YAAAAAAAY President Obama! Thank you SO much for lifting some obtuse regulations!

    1. HEY! My little hearts made from [GREATERTHANSIGN] and[THENUMBER3SYMBOL] didn’t show up!

      I am disappoint 🙁

    2. You’re so ungrateful.

      1. That sounds sarcastic…

      1. Thank you for the equipment, My Main Man!

      2. That almost looks like a rap video.

  14. Good talk guys, good talk!

  15. Some people here (by which I mean Hazel and Adam) are getting ridiculously upset and oever-torqued over other posters’ noting of the irony of this deregulation. Calm down and realize it is possible to both celebrate deregulation and note that O is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, which is as good as it gets with him.

  16. Dude seems to knoww htats gon on man. Wow.

    http://www.AnonWonders.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.