Are we really training PLA SF soldiers?

[TGS]

This is the first thing I thought of. Maybe it's just 15+ years of compliance and ITAR training, but this seems like it would qualify as an export/transfer to a non-approved party. As there are people here who are much more well versed in such things, is there a way that ITAR/EAR rolls in as a factor to something like this? I've worked with companies that were foreign owned and worked with items on the USML and other controlled things. We were always mindful of compliance on that and I was always very conscientious about running things through our compliance officer/legal even through there was a TAA in place.

Does training like this constitute an export even though it's not technical data, but could be?

Training on the use of defense articles is regulated under ITAR as a defense service. I'm not sure that training on semi-automatic firearms would be regulated by ITAR though, as opposed to EAR regulation, and with the EAR I'm not sure if defense services is regulated (or, rather, training on a dual-use item).

There's all sorts of related stuff that is popular in training courses which could be a regulated defense service under ITAR, I believe. Body armor, lasers/NVGs, etc.

Lastly...even if it is a regulated defense service, that doesn't mean a violation occurred. He may have even legally owned all the guns pictured, as neither citizenship or LPR status is required to purchase a firearm...there's just some extra paperwork.

ETA: I should caveat that I have no specific training or experience on ITAR or counter proliferation enforcement. This is just from my own readings when talking about it with other buddies like @HCM.

[Default.mp3]

This is the first thing I thought of. Maybe it's just 15+ years of compliance and ITAR training, but this seems like it would qualify as an export/transfer to a non-approved party. As there are people here who are much more well versed in such things, is there a way that ITAR/EAR rolls in as a factor to something like this? I've worked with companies that were foreign owned and worked with items on the USML and other controlled things. We were always mindful of compliance on that and I was always very conscientious about running things through our compliance officer/legal even through there was a TAA in place.

Does training like this constitute an export even though it's not technical data, but could be?

The relevant high level ITAR policy is rather... vague, when it comes to defining training that would fall under defense services:

Military training of foreign units and forces, regular and irregular, including formal or informal instruction of foreign persons in the United States or abroad or by correspondence courses, technical, educational, or information publications and media of all kinds, training aid, orientation, training exercise, and military advice. Source: 22 CFR 120.32(a)(3)

What is military training? IANAL (even if I do have to take my annual EX/IM training), but I think it wouldn't be too hard to argue that open enrollment manipulations classes isn't really military training per se, given that it also has sporting uses. Something like open enrollment basic CQB, on the other hand, does get a bit trickier, but it's still an extremely fuzzy line to me.

[crosseyedshooter]

When I took an NRA instructor course, ITAR was mentioned and the advice was that general safety and safe handling of firearms would not fall under ITAR. Anything beyond that has no clear line or definition. This sort of explains the videos on the internet of firearms tourists, who appear to barely know how to hold a firearm, spraying an entire hillside with a full auto.

[HCM]

Training on the use of defense articles is regulated under ITAR as a defense service. I'm not sure that training on semi-automatic firearms would be regulated by ITAR though, as opposed to EAR regulation, and with the EAR I'm not sure if defense services is regulated (or, rather, training on a dual-use item).

There's all sorts of related stuff that is popular in training courses which could be a regulated defense service under ITAR, I believe. Body armor, lasers/NVGs, etc.

Lastly...even if it is a regulated defense service, that doesn't mean a violation occurred. He may have even legally owned all the guns pictured, as neither citizenship or LPR status is required to purchase a firearm...there's just some extra paperwork.

ETA: I should caveat that I have no specific training or experience on ITAR or counter proliferation enforcement. This is just from my own readings when talking about it with other buddies like @HCM.

Legally owning the guns is possible if he was in status on a non-immigrant visa and he possessed a valid state hunting license. The origins of this exception (18 USC 922(y)) to 922(g)(5) are in hunting and organized target shooting.

However legally purchasing or possessing the firearm would not be a defense against a defense services violation.

There are differing opinions regarding whether basic marksmanship instruction is covered. The NRA official position has been anything beyond safe handling, even basic marksmanship instruction is covered under ITAR. There are people conducting training / coaching clear cut “sporting” uses such as trap /skeet or even USPSA which some consider a “gray area.”

However, once the material has any tactical or defense application (including personal self defense) it’s clearly a violation.

The language of 922(y) is specific to “lawful hunting or sporting purposes.”

[TGS]

However legally purchasing or possessing the firearm would not be a defense against a defense services violation.

Right, and I didn't mean to convey such if that's how it came across.

I'm just trying to point out that there's a whole lot of assuming going on (starting with the garbage article). Just because a thing is regulated doesn't mean that a violation occured if you did that thing.

The thought train on the article is so fucked up that it reeks of xenophobia, as if the author is discovering for the first time that "'Murica!" applies to people other than WASPs. I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt that he's well intentioned and just doesn't know how to properly frame and analyze things....but god damn this shit is retarded.

[Joe in PNG]

There's always been a market for paranoid panic pr0n clickbait- and I wouldn't be surprised if some of that actually originated as foreign psyops. Bots & troll farms are a thing.

[HCM]

Right, and I didn't mean to convey such if that's how it came across.

I'm just trying to point out that there's a whole lot of assuming going on (starting with the garbage article). Just because a thing is regulated doesn't mean that a violation occured if you did that thing.

The thought train on the article is so fucked up that it reeks of xenophobia, as if the author is discovering for the first time that "'Murica!" applies to people other than WASPs. I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt that he's well intentioned and just doesn't know how to properly frame and analyze things....but god damn this shit is retarded.

The tone of the article aside, training foreign nationals who are not ITAR exempt (like NATO GOV personnel) or approved by the GOV via ITAR processes, in anything even remotely “tactical,” inside the U.S., is a violation for both the trainer and the trainee.

As it was explained to me, training an unauthorized foreign national is “exporting” the IP / defense service even if that training physically occurs inside the United States. IP like manuals are also considered “defense articles” so …

The source of the article focuses on open source information on Chinese military and strategic matters. They are not part of the 2A community and are very pro Taiwan so I would hold off on throwing the race card.

[HCM]

There's always been a market for paranoid panic pr0n clickbait- and I wouldn't be surprised if some of that actually originated as foreign psyops. Bots & troll farms are a thing.

If there’s a Psyop going on here, it was us convincing the PLA plant that Tu Lam is a legitimate source of information….

[HCM]

The relevant high level ITAR policy is rather... vague, when it comes to defining training that would fall under defense services:

Military training of foreign units and forces, regular and irregular, including formal or informal instruction of foreign persons in the United States or abroad or by correspondence courses, technical, educational, or information publications and media of all kinds, training aid, orientation, training exercise, and military advice. Source: 22 CFR 120.32(a)(3)

What is military training? IANAL (even if I do have to take my annual EX/IM training), but I think it wouldn't be too hard to argue that open enrollment manipulations classes isn't really military training per se, given that it also has sporting uses. Something like open enrollment basic CQB, on the other hand, does get a bit trickier, but it's still an extremely fuzzy line to me.

It’s written broadly.

You are thinking like an American, in America, i.e. with the presumption that anything not expressly forbidden is permitted.

That’s not how national security matters work with regard to foreign nationals. Either you are a “US person” (citizen or legal permanent resident aka green card holder) or you are not. That has broader application than ITAR.

You’re familiar with the phrase “if there’s doubt, there is no doubt.” For ITAR purposes, if something is dual use it falls under ITAR.

For example, the fact that you can buy night vision at Bass Pro or Academy and that it is used in certain types of hunting does not make it “fuzzy.” Particularly when night vision from those sources ends up in enemy hands being used against U.S. troops. True story.

[ragnar_d]

The tone of the article aside, training foreign nationals who are not ITAR exempt (like NATO GOV personnel) or approved by the GOV via ITAR processes, in anything even remotely “tactical,” inside the U.S., is a violation for both the trainer and the trainee.

As it was explained to me, training an unauthorized foreign national is “exporting” the IP / defense service even if that training physically occurs inside the United States. IP like manuals are also considered “defense articles” so …

The source of the article focuses on open source information on Chinese military and strategic matters. They are not part of the 2A community and are very pro Taiwan so I would hold off on throwing the race card.

This was my thinking as well on the matter and very much how those above me approached it in training and application. When I worked for a company that was foreign owned, we had very specific rules we were supposed to follow in discussing/transmitting anything with our compatriots that weren't US residents, even with TAA's in place. A point that was made very clear in our training was that talking to non-US Citizens about IP/Technical Data was an export and we needed to act accordingly (For example: Engineers from the mother ship were there to witness a test we were doing. They wanted copies of the data sheets, even though they were there and working for the same company, it still went to compliance for them to clear before the data was transferred).

It’s written broadly.

You are thinking like an American, in America, i.e. with the presumption that anything not expressly forbidden is permitted.

That’s not how national security matters work with regard to foreign nationals. Either you are a “US person” (citizen or legal permanent resident aka green card holder) or you are not. That has broader application than ITAR.

You’re familiar with the phrase “if there’s doubt, there is no doubt.” For ITAR purposes, if something is dual use it falls under ITAR.

For example, the fact that you can buy night vision at Bass Pro or Academy and that it is used in certain types of hunting does not make it “fuzzy.” Particularly when night vision from those sources ends up in enemy hands being used against U.S. troops. True story.

The part about dual use and if there's doubt, go to compliance/legal and clear it. That was something that I had always been instructed to operate under. Then again, I came into the industry right after ITT got a $100M pee-pee slap, so everyone was very cautious about anything that could be an export and that has probably colored my view on with anything ITAR/EAR related. As my mentor said, "There's not a single damn person in this building worth going to jail for."