Just in Time for DNC Convention, Obama Releases More Executive Gun Control
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Just in Time for DNC Convention, Obama Releases More Executive Gun Control

  1. #1

    Just in Time for DNC Convention, Obama Releases More Executive Gun Control

    Just in Time for DNC Convention, Obama Releases More Executive Gun Control
    .
    On Friday, July 22 2016, just as members of his party were gathering in Philadelphia to coronate Hillary Clinton as their presidential nominee, the Obama Administration once again released a sweeping gun control measure by executive fiat.
    .
    This time the bad news came via the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), which is primarily responsible for administering the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing rules, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
    .
    The upshot is that DDTC is labeling commercial gunsmiths as “manufacturers” for performing relatively simple work such as threading a barrel or fabricating a small custom part for an older firearm. Under the AECA, “manufactures” are required to register with DDTC at significant expense or risk onerous criminal penalties.
    .
    As with prior executive actions on guns, the administration released its dictate suddenly and without advance warning to or prior input from affected businesses, completely bypassing the normal formalities associated with a significant rulemaking.
    .
    The guidance is also likely to result in more confusion than clarity and may significantly chill heretofore legal conduct associated with gunsmithing.
    .
    By way of background, the AECA and ITAR concern rules by which military materiel is exported from, and imported to, the United States. The so-called “defense articles” governed by the AECA/ITAR are compiled in what is known as the U.S. Munitions List and include some, but not all, firearms and ammunition, as well as their parts and components. Thus, for purposes of the regime, a spring or floorplate from the magazine of a controlled firearm is subject to the same regulatory framework as the firearm itself.
    .
    The AECA/ITAR require anybody who engages in the business of “manufacturing” a defense article to register with DDTC and pay a registration fee that for new applicants is currently $2,250 per year. These requirements apply, even if the business does not, and does not intend to, export any defense article. Moreover, under ITAR, “only one occasion of manufacturing … a defense article” is necessary for a commercial entity to be considered “engaged in the business” and therefore subject to the regime’s requirements.
    .
    Adding to the confusion, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and its amendments (GCA) also regulate firearm manufacturing, importing, and exporting. Both of the laws also use the same or similar terms but apply them in different ways. Thus, what triggers the legal requirement for an entity to be registered as a “manufacturer” under the AECA/ITAR may or may not also bring that entity within the scope of the GCA, and vice versa.
    .
    DDTC’s new “guidance” only makes this situation worse by coming up with a confusing and counterintuitive list of activities that it considers “gunsmithing” versus “manufacturing” (despite the fact that it insists it relies on the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning” of those terms).
    .
    For example, DDTC generally labels procedures that involve cutting, drilling, or machining of an existing firearm in order to improve its accuracy or operation or to change its caliber as “manufacturing,” even if they do not create a new and distinct firearm. This includes threading a muzzle for a muzzle brake or blueprinting that requires machining of a barrel.
    .
    Gunsmithing
    .
    The AECA/ITAR require anybody who engages in the business of “manufacturing” a defense article to register with DDTC and pay a registration fee that for new applicants is currently $2,250 per year.
    .
    On the other hand, DDTC contends that gunsmithing includes only very simple procedures, such as the one-for-one drop-in replacement of parts that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining for installation. But even then, if the parts “improve the accuracy, caliber, or other aspects of firearm operation,” “manufacturing” may occur. Finishing treatments for firearms generally are not considered manufacturing under the guidance, nor are cosmetic flourishes such as engraving. Meanwhile the mounting of a scope that involves the machining of new dovetails or the drilling and tapping of holes may or not be “manufacturing,” depending on whether the scope improves the accuracy of the firearm beyond its prior configuration.
    .
    For those who are confused by the guidance, DDTC offers the option of requesting an advisory opinion through the agency. The regulation providing for such opinions, however, states they “are not binding on the Department of State, and may not be used in future matters before the Department.” Moreover, the request involves typical bureaucratic hoops to negotiate, including providing both an original and seven copies of the request and supporting information in hardcopy form.
    .
    DDTC’s move appears aimed at expanding the regulatory sweep of the AECA/ITAR and culling many smaller commercial gunsmithing operations that do not have the means to pay the annual registration fee or the sophistication to negotiate DDTC’s confusing maze of bureaucracy. Like ATF’s early “guidance” this year on the GCA’s licensing requirement for firearm “dealers,” it is also likely to have a significant chilling effect on activity that would not even be considered regulated.
    .
    The administration’s latest move serves as a timely reminder of how the politicized and arrogant abuse of executive power can be used to suppress Second Amendment rights and curtail lawful firearm-related commerce.
    .
    That lesson should not be forgotten when voters go to the polls this November.
    .
    Read More: Obama Releases More Executive Gun Control
    .
    Memo from the gun shop I work at in Virginia:
    .
    We have our congressman looking into this and many other smiths have also contacted their reps.
    .
    Once we get clarification and if we have to pay we will do so immediately.
    .
    The sad news is this $2250 tax per year will fall onto the shoulders of customers. We will not hide this fee within our billing. It we be a flat fee labeled exactly what it is and every bill will be accompanied by a letter for the customer to send to their elected official.
    .
    If you haven't contacted your elected officials....get off your hind parts.
    .
    Bitching on social media won't do any good. Go to the ones that make the laws!
    .
    This was an executive order by our "King".
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    I haven't posted this when it was reported on TTAG on July 28, as I wanted to find out how long it takes for an Executive Order to be discussed in this gun forum. It seems that the regular posters are too occupied with Chelsea Clinton and Russia to realize that their gun rights have just been infringed upon.

    The Executive Order was signed on July 22, i.e., on the Friday before the Democrat Convention. There was no reporting in this until July 28, mainly due to the Democrat Convention occupying everyone. This is certainly a way to sneak one in. Here is the important part of the Executive Order:

    1. Registration not Required – Not Manufacturing: In response to questions from persons engaged in the business of gunsmithing, DDTC has found in specific cases that ITAR registration is not required because the following activities do not meet the ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “manufacturing” that DDTC employs in implementing the ITAR and, therefore, do not constitute “manufacturing” for ITAR purposes:

    a) Occasional assembly of firearm parts and kits that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining;
    b) Firearm repairs involving one-for-one drop-in replacement parts that do not require any cutting, drilling, or machining for installation;
    c) Repairs involving replacement parts that do not improve the accuracy, caliber, or other aspects of firearm operation;
    d) Hydrographic paint or Cerakote application or bluing treatments for a firearm;
    e) Attachment of accessories to a completed firearm without drilling, cutting, or machining—such as attaching a scope, sling, or light to existing mounts or hooks, or attaching a flash suppressor, sound suppressor, muzzle brake, or similar item to a pre- threaded muzzle;
    f) Cosmetic additions and alterations (including engraving) that do not improve the accuracy, caliber, or other aspects of firearm operation beyond its original capabilities;
    g) Machining new dovetails or drilling and tapping new holes for the installation of sights which do not improve the accuracy or operation of the firearm beyond its original capabilities; and
    h) Manual loading or reloading of ammunition of .50 caliber or smaller.

    Activities limited to the domestic sale or resale of firearms, the occasional assembly of firearms without drilling, cutting, or machining, and/or specific gunsmithing activities that do not improve the accuracy, caliber, or operations of the firearm beyond its original capabilities (as described above) are not manufacturing within the context of the ITAR. If you are not manufacturing, exporting, temporarily importing or brokering defense articles or services, you are not required to register with DDTC.

    2. Registration Required – Manufacturing: In response to questions from persons engaged in the business of gunsmithing, DDTC has found in specific cases that ITAR registration is required because the following activities meet the ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “manufacturing” and, therefore, constitute “manufacturing” for ITAR purposes:

    a) Use of any special tooling or equipment upgrading in order to improve the capability of assembled or repaired firearms;
    b) Modifications to a firearm that change round capacity;
    c) The production of firearm parts (including, but not limited to, barrels, stocks, cylinders, breech mechanisms, triggers, silencers, or suppressors);
    d) The systemized production of ammunition, including the automated loading or reloading of ammunition;
    e) The machining or cutting of firearms, e.g., threading of muzzles or muzzle brake installation requiring machining, that results in an enhanced capability;
    f) Rechambering firearms through machining, cutting, or drilling;
    g) Chambering, cutting, or threading barrel blanks; and
    h) Blueprinting firearms by machining the barrel.
    Here is the statement from the NRA-ILA:

    ...

    DDTC’s new “guidance” only makes this situation worse by coming up with a confusing and counterintuitive list of activities that it considers “gunsmithing” versus “manufacturing” (despite the fact that it insists it relies on the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning” of those terms).

    For example, DDTC generally labels procedures that involve cutting, drilling, or machining of an existing firearm in order to improve its accuracy or operation or to change its caliber as “manufacturing,” even if they do not create a new and distinct firearm. This includes threading a muzzle for a muzzle brake or blueprinting that requires machining of a barrel.

    On the other hand, DDTC contends that gunsmithing includes only very simple procedures, such as the one-for-one drop-in replacement of parts that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining for installation. But even then, if the parts “improve the accuracy, caliber, or other aspects of firearm operation,” “manufacturing” may occur. Finishing treatments for firearms generally are not considered manufacturing under the guidance, nor are cosmetic flourishes such as engraving. Meanwhile the mounting of a scope that involves the machining of new dovetails or the drilling and tapping of holes may or not be “manufacturing,” depending on whether the scope improves the accuracy of the firearm beyond its prior configuration.

    ..

  4. #3
    This really is ridiculous and will most certainly be tied up in cort for years if not decades. It seems to me like the only thing a half-wit lawyer would have to do is point out that the various government regulations and directives clearly contradict each other and until the government provides clear direction on which directives take precedence and in what order/scenario. I can't imagine a judge...especially if the lawsuit were filed in a gun friendly jurisdiction like SC would not issue an injunction against the directive until it can be sorted out by either comprehensive legislation or court review.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

  5. #4
    Obama Executive Orders don't mean sh1t to me. He is scum. He is not my President and never will be.



  6. I care not what those treasonous fools sign.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestone967 View Post


    I care not what those treasonous fools sign.
    And I'm sure the judge will find your meme a valid defense should you violate one of those executive orders you disdain and be arrested. NOT!

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

  8. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Remember folks, it's long time tradition that everyone gets to make their own unregistered weapon. Even the ATF admits as much...

    "(P)er provisions of the GCA, an unlicensed individual may make a "firearm" as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution. Individuals (doing this) are not required to submit a sample to ATF for approval. (...) Also, based on the GCA (...) marks of identification are not required on firearms that are produced by individuals for personal use. Nevertheless, ATF recommends (it) (...) (to) aid law enforcement authorities in identifying the firearm should it become lost or stolen." -- US Department of Justice, BATFE guidance from Aug. 30, 2010

    Notice the term "make" as it is used in the paragraph above, it is important that you recognize that if you are building a receiver in your own home for your own purpose and not for transfer or sale, you are not "manufacturing" or anything else. You are "making." The importance of this term will be explained further on.

    Also...

    Under the GCA (The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618), a "firearm frame or receiver" is defined as "That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."

    Eighty-percenters, raw-forgings, steel blocks, sheet metal, and assault shovels are not defined as a firearm, so you can work on them to your heart's delight (for your own purpose, not for transfer) and not be concerned about whether they'll be subjected to some silly made up rule. They're just materials you are working with.

    TL;DR, if you are a gunsmith you have cause to be concerned and should possibly join a lawsuit to challenge this Policy Guidance (not executive order) from Obama's State Department. If you just grind out your own AR receiver or finish your own AK flat at home, looks like they tried to make it apply to you, but failed, so you're fine. The reasons follow in long form below. 1) The primary reason is the US Constitution. Without it, we'd be without a legal leg to stand on. Technically, this State Department guidance has no effect because (1) it is not law, (2) it does not specifically refer to the regulated part of a firearm under federal law, which is the receiver, and (3) because, to the extent it could possibly be applied to anything, even the guidance itself acknowledges that it "is limited to domestic (U.S.) activities involving firearms (as defined in Category I(j)(1) of the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 CFR § 121.1)) and related ammunition that are .50 caliber (12.7 mm) or smaller." What is a firearm under this definition? By definition in the law, it reads, (under Category I(j)(1)) "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." And what is the regulated part of "a firearm?" Effectively, that's a lower receiver for the AR platform. It's true that in the GCA, what a firearm is, actually is more expansive than a receiver: per 18 U.S.C 921 (a)(3), the definition of a firearm is:
    (A) Any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or (B), the frame or receiver of any such weapon; or (C), any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D), any destructive device.

    Such term does not include an antique firearm, as defined in Section 921 (a)(16), e.g., "an antique ignition system firearm (e.g., matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, etc.); or a firearm made in or before 1898, etc." The point being, though, how the federal government has decided to regulate firearms is not by the upper receiver, or the barrel, or by any other part. They chose the lower receiver, for weapons such as the AR platform (though in the case of a gun like the Russian PPs-43, it's actually the upper receiver). Nowhere in the whole mess of this latest dictator's attempt at gun control by fiat is there even a reference to a receiver at all - a fatal flaw in his worthless staff's attempts to make law by memorandum. Furthermore, the term “make” is defined in the NFA to include manufacturing, putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm (26 U.S.C. 5845(i)). This guidance attempts to lead people to believe that those who "make" a firearm in their own home (by finishing a eighty percent receiver, for example) are somehow responsible to get a manufacturer's license from the State Department and pay the ITAR fee, which would also of course involve getting a FFL.

    "Manufacturing" is completely different than "making" ("manufacturing" implies that you intend to transfer and / or sell firearms that you've made, and for that, you will need to apply for permission from the State Department / pay ITAR fees plus get your Type 07 FFL), and there is simply no way that the federal government is going to be able to lead people down the road of ITAR merely for making something in their own home, no matter how they play with language in their guidance or in the courts. Nobody who makes (finishes) a receiver in their own home is a manufacturer; nobody who makes (finishes) a receiver in their own home for their own purpose needs to get any licenses from State or even an FFL, unless they plan on doing a transfer. That's the end of the story - almost. The Obama dictatorship is probably sweating it out anticipating a ruling that will not be too favorable to the government in Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State - a court case which touches on many of the issues in this so-called "guidance." That case will be ongoing for quite a while still.

    The above notes are important as means of understanding what sort of evasive action gun builders and owners should take in light of increasingly restrictive federal intepretations and/or laws. However, I would be remiss if I did not offer a valuable counterpoint to the notion that there is some sort of federal power over guns. In the ShallNot blog, the author astutely notes that there is actually no federal power over guns, and that this would be true even if the 2nd Amendment never existed. http://shallnot.org/no-federal-power...never-existed/

    AB 857 is a "ghost gun" bill signed into law in CA on July 22, 2016. It attempts to apply its provisions to (as quoted from the law) "“firearm(s),” includ(ing) the frame or receiver of the weapon." Under the GCA (The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618), a "firearm frame or receiver" is defined as "That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel." AB 857 demands that "Commencing July 1, 2018, prior to manufacturing or assembling a firearm, a person manufacturing or assembling the firearm shall (...) Apply to the Department of Justice for a unique serial number or other mark of identification (...)" and "Within 10 days of manufacturing or assembling a firearm in accordance with paragraph (1), the unique serial number or other mark of identification provided by the department shall be engraved or permanently affixed to the firearm in a manner that meets or exceeds the requirements imposed on licensed importers and licensed manufacturers of firearms."

    These "requirements" from AB 857 have no legal effect because (1) they are unconstitutional, (2) they will be challenged in court, (3) even if they were not able to be successfully challenged, they would not take effect until July 2018, (4) they can be circumvented simply by not finishing your receiver (leaving portions of it unfinished, so that it can not be deemed to be considered a finished receiver, and thus not be considered as a firearm within the meaning of AB 857). It is possible that this could be done in such a way that you would still have functionality from your receiver, but this would require extra testing on your part of your build. Thus you don't have to apply to the State prior to or after doing the work to make your receiver. It is also arguable that the subtractive machining process used in making your frame or receiver with a drill press in your own home, for example, is does not legally qualify as "assembling," which means under AB 857, to "fabricate or construct." Using your own tools in your own home, you are not "manufacturing," and you are also not "assembling." You are merely engaged in the process of "making" a receiver using subtractive machining (use of a router, drill press, or drill).

    More info at: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/calif...echnology.html
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast