Obama Signs New Gun Control Executive Order. Puts Gunsmiths Out of Business

[LOKNLOD]

When I was looking into ITAR stuff last year, as far as the gadget goes, here are the apparently applicable sections from the munitions list:



and



It would seem that the Gadget is an accessory (since it is not necessary for operation but enhances the usefulness or effectiveness) and not a component or part, and therefore not covered by §121.1 Category I since that only includes firearms and their components and parts, but not accessories. Or is it a component since the Gadget by itself isn't useful unless used in conjunction with a an end-item (firearm). Or is it a part? Or does the part where it says "all components and parts for such firearms" actually include accessories as well.

As I previously noted, no matter what this means I get to spend at least a couple thousand dollars. I wonder if I can use the "You didn't built that" argument to get other people to pay it.

Since it prevents the gun from firing, we can make an argument that it actually decreases the usefulness and effectiveness of the firearm, and is therefore exempt.

[senorlechero]

I have no dog in this fight particularly as I am not nor will ever be an FFL, but I think we all can agree that POTUS using executive powers to attempt to limit gun business is bad, right?

[joshs]

BehindBlueI's has the right of this. ^^^

There is very little new here, but that doesn't keep the American Internet Gun Owner from being the easily-stampeded herd animal they usually are.

Basically, if you have a Type 07, you need to be paying ITAR fees. If you're a "gunsmith" and you are regularly buying firearms, modifying them speculatively, and then reselling the modified firearms at a profit, you need to have a Type 07. But that interpretation's been out for years and dates back to before the current administration, IIRC.

That's not what this DDTC document says. If you thread a single barrel for profit, the DDTC thinks you need to register.

[joshs]

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/...uring-license/

This article was posted on the other forum, and explains it a bit better. A manufacturing license isn't required if a gunsmith is taking in a gun, modifying it for a customer, and then returning it to that customer. A manufacturing license is not required to make gun parts, as parts aren't firearms. My understanding is this changes nothing in that regard.

If you make frames (or lowers) to sell, you need a manufacturers license. If you buy guns, modify them in the ways listed up thread, with the intent to resell them, then you need a manufacturer's license. So, I send my M1903 off to be drilled and tapped for a scope and muzzle device, whoever does it does not need a manufacturer's license. However, you can't buy M1903s, "sporterize" them in the same way with the intent to resell unless you do get a manufacturer's license.

ITAR registration and licensing as an FFL are two different things. "Manufacturing" a "defense article" just also happens to be one of the triggers for registration under the Arms Export Control Act (the Act that ITAR implements). In normal gov't fashion, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is interpreting "manufacturing" for purposes of the AECA in a completely different manner than ATF interprets the same term under the Gun Control Act.

[LorenzoS]

Forget the Red Dawn fantasies of civil war with blue helmeted troops trying to confiscate your guns. Executive Orders like this are actually how the civilian ownership of firearms will be eliminated. Not with a bang, but a long slow death by a thousand bureaucratic cuts.

Slowly, over a generation, it will get just a bit harder and harder to own a gun, have it repaired, or transfer it. Penalties for minor administrative errors will become severe. Eventually people just won't bother any more and finally give up trying. Mission accomplished, circa 2050.

[11B10]

Forget the Red Dawn fantasies of civil war with blue helmeted troops trying to confiscate your guns. Executive Orders like this are actually how the civilian ownership of firearms will be eliminated. Not with a bang, but a long slow death by a thousand bureaucratic cuts.

Slowly, over a generation, it will get just a bit harder and harder to own a gun, have it repaired, or transfer it. Penalties for minor administrative errors will become severe. Eventually people just won't bother any more and finally give up trying. Mission accomplished, circa 2050.

I just hate it when somebody says exactly what I'm thinking ^^^! Lorenzo - I hope and pray we're BOTH wrong.

[BehindBlueI's]

ITAR registration and licensing as an FFL are two different things. "Manufacturing" a "defense article" just also happens to be one of the triggers for registration under the Arms Export Control Act (the Act that ITAR implements). In normal gov't fashion, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is interpreting "manufacturing" for purposes of the AECA in a completely different manner than ATF interprets the same term under the Gun Control Act.

I'm feeling my way around and certainly not claiming to understand it.

As a result, not every firearm controlled by the ATF regulations is also controlled by the ITAR.

Persons who do not actually manufacture ITAR-controlled firearms (including by engaging in the activities described below, which DDTC has found in specific cases to constitute manufacturing) need not register with DDTC – even if they have an FFL from ATF.

So what kind of firearm are controlled by ITAR? That seems quite relevant to who this order applies to.

[joshs]

When I was looking into ITAR stuff last year, as far as the gadget goes, here are the apparently applicable sections from the munitions list:



and



It would seem that the Gadget is an accessory (since it is not necessary for operation but enhances the usefulness or effectiveness) and not a component or part, and therefore not covered by §121.1 Category I since that only includes firearms and their components and parts, but not accessories. Or is it a component since the Gadget by itself isn't useful unless used in conjunction with a an end-item (firearm). Or is it a part? Or does the part where it says "all components and parts for such firearms" actually include accessories as well.

As I previously noted, no matter what this means I get to spend at least a couple thousand dollars. I wonder if I can use the "You didn't built that" argument to get other people to pay it.

Those definitions have since been amended.

Category I—Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns
(a)Nonautomatic and semi-automatic firearms to caliber .50 inclusive (12.7 mm) . . . Components, parts, accessories and attachments for the articles in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this category.

22 C.F.R. § 121.1(a),(h).

[joshs]

So what kind of firearm are controlled by ITAR? That seems quite relevant to who this order applies to.

"Nonautomatic and semi-automatic firearms to caliber .50 inclusive"

"A firearm is a weapon not over .50 caliber (12.7 mm) which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or which may be readily converted to do so."

"This coverage by the U.S. Munitions List in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this category excludes any non-combat shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer, BB, pellet, and muzzle loading (black powder) firearms."

[BehindBlueI's]

"Nonautomatic and semi-automatic firearms to caliber .50 inclusive"

"A firearm is a weapon not over .50 caliber (12.7 mm) which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or which may be readily converted to do so."

"This coverage by the U.S. Munitions List in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this category excludes any non-combat shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer, BB, pellet, and muzzle loading (black powder) firearms."

What's "nonautomatic"? Like bolt actions and revolvers?