ITAR Registration -- Plan on Paying your Gunsmith more...

[jim_k]

There is a bolded statement a few pages back, that this is not an Executive Order. This is a guidance rule coming from the DDTC. The origin of the ruling is the ITAR, an international treaty signed by the US, probably by our State Department or UN representatives, and so it is through the Executive Branch. However, there should be a Senate overview of such a treaty, since the Senate is responsible for approving treaties. I am not aware of any Senate action approving this decision. ITAR has been around awhile, but this is a modification of the previous interation, and should require a new decision by our elected representatives in the Senate. If there is something that can be done, the Senate leadership is responsible for that. OK, it's not an Executive Order, but the Executive Branch, through both/either UN representative or Secretary of State, authorized US participation in this. IIRC, when US "signs" such an international treaty, our government has the option of deciding whether the treaty's rules will apply within our borders. This basically changes US law, or should, since it is a new tax, fee, whatever, and there must be legal "wire-diagramming" for enforcement and oversight purposes, so as to determine which court has jurisdiction in a legal case or appeal. Somebody WHO KNOWS, please correct if this is a mistake.

 

[22BRGUY]

There is a bolded statement a few pages back, that this is not an Executive Order. This is a guidance rule coming from the DDTC. The origin of the ruling is the ITAR, an international treaty signed by the US, probably by our State Department or UN representatives, and so it is through the Executive Branch. However, there should be a Senate overview of such a treaty, since the Senate is responsible for approving treaties. I am not aware of any Senate action approving this decision. ITAR has been around awhile, but this is a modification of the previous interation, and should require a new decision by our elected representatives in the Senate. If there is something that can be done, the Senate leadership is responsible for that. OK, it's not an Executive Order, but the Executive Branch, through both/either UN representative or Secretary of State, authorized US participation in this. IIRC, when US "signs" such an international treaty, our government has the option of deciding whether the treaty's rules will apply within our borders. This basically changes US law, or should, since it is a new tax, fee, whatever, and there must be legal "wire-diagramming" for enforcement and oversight purposes, so as to determine which court has jurisdiction in a legal case or appeal. Somebody WHO KNOWS, please correct if this is a mistake.

I believe this is exactly right. The UN Small Arms Treaty has been around a long time but none of our previous presidents or Secretaries of State signed it before as they felt it conflicted with the Second Amendment. This all changed with the present administration is my understanding.

 

[JRS]

I believe this is exactly right. The UN Small Arms Treaty has been around a long time but none of our previous presidents or Secretaries of State signed it before as they felt it conflicted with the Second Amendment. This all changed with the present administration is my understanding.

How is the Second Amendment affected by ITAR rules?It has nothing whatsoever to do with our right to keep and bear arms!

 

[22BRGUY]

View attachment 988018How is the Second Amendment affected by ITAR rules?It has nothing whatsoever to do with our right to keep and bear arms!

I simply stated it is "my understanding" that previous administrations did not sign the UN small arms treaty because they felt it would "infringe" on the Second Amendment or perhaps be "perceived" to infringe on it.
When I say "I believe" and/or "it is "my understanding" I assumed others reading it would realize it is an opinion. As far as my opinions go, I am always willing and hope to always be open minded enough to change my opinions based on new EVIDENCE to the contrary. If you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, please share it and explain why previous administrations were apparently unwilling to sign it.

 

[JRS]

I simply stated it is "my understanding" that previous administrations did not sign the UN small arms treaty because they felt it would "infringe" on the Second Amendment or perhaps be "perceived" to infringe on it.
When I say "I believe" and/or "it is "my understanding" I assumed others reading it would realize it is an opinion. As far as my opinions go, I am always willing and hope to always be open minded enough to change my opinions based on new EVIDENCE to the contrary. If you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, please share it and explain why previous administrations were apparently unwilling to sign it.

I'll respond with one simple question. How does the rules and regulations of ITAR affect our "right to keep and bear arms" as stated in the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment states nothing at all about the manufacture of, nor modification of firearms. Obviously, someone signed onto the ITAR rules long before our current administration, or we wouldn't be a part of it. "Evidence": ITAR was implemented in 1976 under the Gerald Ford (republican) administration. Evidently, ITAR was created by the United States. We also implemented the Nuclear Arms Treaty, of which we have proven to be the worst offenders. We aren't as squeaky clean as we have been trained to believe!

 

[clowdis]

The ITAR regulations simply define the term "manufacturer" as the Department of Defense sees it. It does not infringe on the second amendment. Forcing a gunsmith to buy a license to manufacture does not infringe. Nothing here says that you cannot have your firearm. They are just defining "manufacturer" with too broad a scope. On the other hand, since this has been around a while, has anyone ever been contacted by the DoD about compliance?

 

[22BRGUY]

I'll respond with one simple question. How does the rules and regulations of ITAR affect our "right to keep and bear arms" as stated in the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment states nothing at all about the manufacture of, nor modification of firearms. Obviously, someone signed onto the ITAR rules long before our current administration, or we wouldn't be a part of it. "Evidence": ITAR was implemented in 1976 under the Gerald Ford (republican) administration. Evidently, ITAR was created by the United States.

Thanks for reply. I will respectfully disagree that the Second Amendment says "nothing at all about the manufacture of, nor modification of firearms". My opinion...perception of the "shall not be infringed" means it is inherent and obvious that if "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms, they must also be free to manufacture (and modify) or else the Second Amendment would be useless to begin with.
As far as the origination of ITAR, all I see is that it has had very little if any affect on gun owners or gunsmiths in the U.S. until now. I do also know it was John Kerry that signed the UN small arms treaty. I do not know nor ever will know all of the intricate political details that went into this recent decision, and I doubt anyone else does for that matter except maybe a very few, but I do know a very significant change has occurred and very different interpretation from previously has been implemented. and in my opinion, it definitely INFRINGES on the Second Amendment.

 

[JRS]

Thanks for reply. I will respectfully disagree that the Second Amendment says "nothing at all about the manufacture of, nor modification of firearms". My opinion...perception of the "shall not be infringed" means it is inherent and obvious that if "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms, they must also be free to manufacture (and modify) or else the Second Amendment would be useless to begin with.
As far as the origination of ITAR, all I see is that it has had very little if any affect on gun owners or gunsmiths in the U.S. until now. I do also know it was John Kerry that signed the UN small arms treaty. I do not know nor ever will know all of the intricate political details that went into this recent decision, and I doubt anyone else does for that matter except maybe a very few, but I do know a very significant change has occurred and very different interpretation from previously has been implemented. and in my opinion, it definitely INFRINGES on the Second Amendment.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Nowhere, does the Second Amendment specify anything regarding the manufacture or modification of firearms. Words have meaning, and the meaning doesn't change. If that were actually the intent of our Founding Fathers, they would have worded it to reflect that very notion. Does the Second Amendment state we can manufacture, or even own a RPG? Do you really believe our Founding Fathers were really that naive and dumb? The Second Amendment, like the other Amendments, is not unlimited. ITAR has been in place, thanks to a Republication Administration for 4 decades. Don't blame it on the current administration, whether Obama, or Kerry. ITAR has simply decided to expand on, or make clear the intent. Facts are facts, and any bit of Jiggery Pokery is not going to change those facts, no matter who we choose to place the blame on. We allowed it to take place via our votes for the self serving clowns we put in office. Shame on all of us!

 

[22BRGUY]

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Nowhere, does the Second Amendment specify anything regarding the manufacture or modification of firearms. Words have meaning, and the meaning doesn't change. If that were actually the intent of our Founding Fathers, they would have worded it to reflect that very notion. Does the Second Amendment state we can manufacture, or even own a RPG? Do you really believe our Founding Fathers were really that naive and dumb? ITAR has been in place, thanks to a Republication Administration for 4 decades. Don't blame it on the current administration, whether Obama, or Kerry. ITAR has simply decided to expand on, or make clear the intent. Facts are facts, and any bit of Jiggery Pokery is not going to change those facts, no matter who we choose to place the blame on. We allowed it to take place via our votes for the self serving clowns we put in office. Shame on all of us!

I totally agree with your last statement but we are no different as a human race than countless previous generations. "Give them bread and circuses" to keep them distracted, is as true today as it was during the Roman Empire.
You said "words have meaning". that depends on the mind of the interpreter I would suggest.
Our founding fathers had one over riding motive in mind during the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in my perception, and that was to give "the people" the right to defend themselves against tyrannical government by ANY AND ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. Our founding fathers had studied human history and themselves had experienced the inevitable consequences of consolidated power. My OPINION is that if "the people" felt the need for an RPG to defend against tyranny, the founding fathers would have whole heartedly supported it. JMHO

 

[JamesinAsheville]

I totally agree with your last statement but we are no different as a human race than countless previous generations. "Give them bread and circuses" to keep them distracted, is as true today as it was during the Roman Empire.
You said "words have meaning". that depends on the mind of the interpreter I would suggest.
Our founding fathers had one over riding motive in mind during the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in my perception, and that was to give "the people" the right to defend themselves against tyrannical government by ANY AND ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. Our founding fathers had studied human history and themselves had experienced the inevitable consequences of consolidated power. My OPINION is that if "the people" felt the need for an RPG to defend against tyranny, the founding fathers would have whole heartedly supported it. JMHO

Pish on all owe them i'm gonna keep on going what im going

 

[JRS]

I totally agree with your last statement but we are no different as a human race than countless previous generations. "Give them bread and circuses" to keep them distracted, is as true today as it was during the Roman Empire.
You said "words have meaning". that depends on the mind of the interpreter I would suggest.
Our founding fathers had one over riding motive in mind during the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in my perception, and that was to give "the people" the right to defend themselves against tyrannical government by ANY AND ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. Our founding fathers had studied human history and themselves had experienced the inevitable consequences of consolidated power. My OPINION is that if "the people" felt the need for an RPG to defend against tyranny, the founding fathers would have whole heartedly supported it. JMHO

Your spine is intact I wish everyone had the will and tenacity to display the same.

 

[/VH]

 

[D2x shooter]

What does this new ruling mean to reloaders?


June 2016 - Addendum August 31, 2016
Nitrocellulose - Update
ATF’s June 2016 Explosives Industry Newsletter included a brief discussion of Nitrocellulose, and attempted to clarify the circumstances under which wetted Nitrocellulose is considered a high explosive under 27 CFR, Part 555. As with all explosives, ATF’s focus is on the potential public safety risks associated with materials that can be misused or diverted to unlawful purposes. Subsequent contact from industry members who import, transport, store or employ wetted Nitrocellulose in the production of ammunition, however, has brought to our attention issues that were not fully addressed in the Newsletter and require further consultation and consideration with the industry. Accordingly, ATF has and will conduct further industry outreach concerning wetted Nitrocellulose. In the interim, previously authorized industry practices concerning wetted Nitrocellulose will not be affected.

I am totally confused.
I think I need to take up golf like your president.

 

[joshb]

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The beauty and simplicity of that statement is magnificent. In these times of flourishing lawyer speak adnauseum everybody wants to question it's "real meaning". It's all right there! Genius!

 

[JRS]

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The beauty and simplicity of that statement is magnificent. In these times of flourishing lawyer speak adnauseum everybody wants to question it's "real meaning". It's all right there! Genius!

The majority opinion, written by the late conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited".

 

[spclark]

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/action-on-itar.3908855/

 

[TRA]

What does this new ruling mean to reloaders?


June 2016 - Addendum August 31, 2016
Nitrocellulose - Update
ATF’s June 2016 Explosives Industry Newsletter included a brief discussion of Nitrocellulose, and attempted to clarify the circumstances under which wetted Nitrocellulose is considered a high explosive under 27 CFR, Part 555. As with all explosives, ATF’s focus is on the potential public safety risks associated with materials that can be misused or diverted to unlawful purposes. Subsequent contact from industry members who import, transport, store or employ wetted Nitrocellulose in the production of ammunition, however, has brought to our attention issues that were not fully addressed in the Newsletter and require further consultation and consideration with the industry. Accordingly, ATF has and will conduct further industry outreach concerning wetted Nitrocellulose. In the interim, previously authorized industry practices concerning wetted Nitrocellulose will not be affected.

I am totally confused.
I think I need to take up golf like your president.

Probably nothing. The ruling I read stated small arms ammo is not covered under this ruling. I highly doubt that any individual reloading ammunition has any access to "wetted nitrocellulose". Wetted Nitrocellulose is the bulk form for transit and is then used in making propellants. It has always been an explosive. There's nothing new here. Same goes for Nitroglycerin. Both compounds are dangerous until manufactured into powder. Yes, powder is dangerous if misused. Other than misuse they are rather stable and of little danger.

The ITAR ruling states the requirement was to those that manufacture "Defense Articles and Weapons" for export. It never mentions one word about drilling a hole and threading it for a "sporting firearm".

The usual firestarters on forums and blogs tend to leave out pertinent wording to suit their purpose or egos.

The ITAR says nothing about registering and the fee being mandatory for all gunsmiths, only that it was advisable for manufacturers to do so. I'm sure that is intended for someone who may manufacture and ship it off shore. I'm pretty sure those that responded that they were registered and paid the fee are involved in foreign sales. If you guys would read a little slower almost anything today that is gun related says-----this item cannot be exported. Ask yourself this---why are those making these parts saying this? It's pretty obvious if you read the actual regulations and not what someone pasted on a forum from some bloggers site.

Read the actual documents from a reliable source and take all the rumors with a grain of salt and we will all be a lot better off. These fire starters have turned Obama into a saint within the firearms marketing and manufacturing community.

As for the claims that these rumors are infringing on anyone's rights, the biggest infringement I see, is the outrageous prices we are paying these days for guns and ammo. Blame that on the industry milking the consumer.

 

[shortgrass]

Go visit the US Munitions List, section 121.1, catagory 1, (a)... There is no seperation of sporting arms and military arms. "Words have meaning and the meaning doesn't change".. Unless you're still trying to figure out what the definition of "IS" is. Why would both the House of Representitives and the Senate send letters to John Kerry and the State Department asking the definition be changed and further more 'sporting arms' be moved to the Department of Commerce? A move that would relieve regulatory burden from several American industries which would enhance trade and be good for American jobs. A move that has been 'in the works' for the past 7 1/2 yrs. , but stalled by the Administration. They , (both the House and the Senate) have had an army of lawyers examining this. If it is as the the post above says it is, the House and Senate would not have sent letters to the State Dept. How much military 'hardware' has been given away as 'foreign aid' , dropped on a battelfield or left behind during the Great Obama Bug-Out from Iraq, hardware that's now in the hands of Isis. Hardware that 'gunsmiths' don't and won't 'deal' with. If some of you don't quit drinking so much 'cool-aid' you are going to wet the bed!

 

[gme]

It appears we've been heard, here's a copy of the letter from the Senate addressed to Kerry on this issue
http://www.acgg.org/images/20160829_ITAR_DDTC_Letter.pdf

 

[shortgrass]

An

It appears we've been heard, here's a copy of the letter from the Senate addressed to Kerry on this issue
http://www.acgg.org/images/20160829_ITAR_DDTC_Letter.pdf

An identical letter has been sent by The House of Representitives. Look to see if your Senators and Congressman are signatories on these letters. If not, call them and ask why not! ( Besides using gmes' link these letters can be found on the home page of the American Custom Gunmakers Guild website [www.acgg.org], scroll to the bottom of the page for PDFs)