Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wanted to start a clean topic (if you are not familiar with this subject read This Topic].

Thanks to one of our members, I got the telephone number to the Department of Defense Trade Controls Response Team.

I called the number and talked to a real nice guy (let's call him "Bob" as I told him I wouldn't put up his name on the internet). Bob was very pleasant to deal with and very helpful.

I asked Bob, "Can I take semi-autos out of the country?" He said, "Yes, there is an exception that allows you take 3 firearms of .50 caliber or less, but no fully automatic firearms."

We then discussed, in detail, the provisions of 123.17(c) and the term "nonautomatic". After this discussion, he agreed with me that the law, as written, does not allow one to take semi-autos out of the country. He said that he had always interpreted "nonautomatic" to mean anything other than "full automatic" but he did agree that is not what the law says.

I then asked, if that is the way the law is interpreted then is it OK to tell everyone that semi-autos may be exported without a license? He said, "No, because Customs enforces the law and it will depend on how the local Customs office interprets the law." He said, the only time he would be involved is if Customs confiscated a traveler's firearms, then his department would be contacted by Customs. They have a thing called the Gun Team which includes his department and Customs. Bob's department is primarily responsible for issuing export licenses. Bob said he would look to see if he can find anything in writing which defines the term "nonautomatic." He said he was not aware of any document but would look for one.

I asked Bob if I should call Customs and try to get this issue cleared up. He warned that calling Customs might raise the issue and cause a change in enforcement policy.

Should I call Customs? I would not call the Office of Regulations and Rulings, but instead call the General Counsel's Office and talk to a lawyer. There could be three possible outcomes to this: (1) There already exits an internal Customs policy that says its OK to export semi-auto firearms; or (2) The lawyer could agree that, as worded, the law does not allow the export of semi-autos and that Customs will issue a directive to all its field offices to start enforcing the law as written; or (3) The lawyer could agree that, as worded, the law does not allow the export of semi-autos and that Customs will issue a directive to all its field offices specifically allowing semi-autos to be exported.

Do I want to open this Pandora's Box or just leave it alone?

Regards,

Terry

i believe the old term for this is to leave sleeping dogs lie

It seems to me the only thing you might have accomplished was to close the door for everybody

Sean

Don't call.... don't kick a sleeping bear.

Also, it might be good to speak with an attorney about this. Why? There's regulations and laws, and then there is case law. There may be some case law that has bearing. (I'm not an attorney.)

Practically speaking: I don't think anyone in our government is going to make an issue of a hunter leaving the country with a semi-auto rifle or semi-auto shotgun.

-Bob F.

If the law is questionable I'd sure hate to take a chance and leave the country with a semi-auto. You are then placing yourself at the mercy of the U.S. Customs and the courts should they call you on it.

I wonder if the NRA would be inclined to involve the legislature and have the laws changed to exclude semi-auto sporting rifles from the law.

I don't know that you've opend Pandoras box. Sooner or later it will be noticed and I'd prefer to see it addressed while there is a gun friendly majority in session at the moment.

Terry,

Thanks for making an attempt to clarify this situation.

I think it is incumbent on those who want to travel outside the U.S. with semi-autos to obtain written statements from the federal agencies who involve themselves in these matters as to the legality of doing so.

George

Terry, let me add my support for sticking to the status quo.

I don't know why the law--which is, I think, clear enough on this point, but which admittedly could be clearer--is not enforced as to licensing the export of semi-autos.

But I do know that I don't want to know.

When asked for clarification, enforcement authorities, whether they be building inspectors or customs officers, will ALWAYS insist on the strictest and broadest interpretation.

Bureaucracies ALWAYS seek to expand their jurisdiction.

So, I would not ask.

Hell, I wouldn't even have called "Bob" in the first place, although he seems like a fair-minded guy and I obviously agree with his advice that you should not take this further up the totem pole.

I would imagine with all the 1100's, 1187's, Benelli's and Beretta's taken to South America to kill doves every year, if it were a problem, it would have surfaced before now.

Seems the opposite of automatic is nonautomatic and the opposite of semiautomatic is nonsemiautomatic.


Only lawyers.......

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Terry, let me add my support for sticking to the status quo.

....
So, I would not ask.

I agree. It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is permission.

I'll just drop it. The only advantage to continuing with this would be if there is written policy that specifically addresses this issue and which says that it is OK to export semi-autos. Then we would know for certain. It appears that, for whatever reason, it is not being enforced at the field level.

Regards,

Terry

I have no semi automatic guns but I do own a self loading gun.....get the message folks?

Not to hijack this thread, and realizing that this issue is bigger than we can easily address:

IMHO What we really need to do is loose the term "Semi-Automatic". Which was probably invented by someone trying to make these firearms sound like "almost" Automatic weapons.

We should have AUTOMATIC, as in more than one shot, or bullet, fired with one pull of the trigger, and NON-AUTOMATIC which is one pull of the trigger produces one bullet or shot.

The gas or recoil operated reloading of a chamber is really no more or less automatic than the next chamber revolving into position, or the inertia reset of the trigger on a single trigger side-by-side shotgun.

Les

Here is the big problem with this. I have to deal with customs and INS quite a bit and what you are told are "the rules" changes almost with every agent you deal with. One reason is the agents have to have the ability to make their own decisions based on their own take on the situation. This does happen more with INS than customs but it happens with customs also. In adition with homeland security they are all wearing three hats now. INS/customs/HS are all combined and often handle each others jobs. This has resulted in a bigger mess than previously as it was bad enough when they only had to do their own job.In other words you can jump through all the hoops cross all your t's and if the paticular person you deal with does not agree with the opinion of the guy who gave you all the information you screwed. I have had this happen simply because the agent did not know the rules and was not about to admit it. That said the only way to have any assurance of sucess is to personaly go to a customs office and ask to speak to whoever knows the most on the subject. Then go back a few days later and do it again, then cross your fingers.I once spoke to the #2 person in charge of INS in D.C and the first thing she told me was "you should understand that if you ask 10 different agents the same question you will most likely get 10 different answers".

quote:

Originally posted by T.Carr:
Do I want to open this Pandora's Box or just leave it alone?

The box may already be open, as the government has access to internet forums also.

Is it an issue? Is there an instance when an 11-87, Browning BAR, Benelli, etc has caused problems when leaving or re-entering the USA?

I probably know 40-50 people who have done the various South American wing shooting destinations in the past couple years, many of which traveled with various semi-auto firearms. Have not heard of a problem. This includes a couple pals that I went with, at least one of which posts here on A-R (code name "Mike Smith").

definition of "export"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:export

the last one might be the most applicable but if I'm going somewhere to hunt with a semi-auto rifle the location of the hunt isn't the "destination" but rather just a stop on my round-trip back to the USA>

I dunno....it seems fairly straight-forward to me , and I see that LHowell thinks the same way.

To me, "Automatic" means the same as what we usually refer to as fully automatic.

"Semi-Automatic" is not "Automatic". My mind makes a clear distinction between the two, despite the similarities.

When I read "non-automatic", I automatically ( ) think "non-fully-automatic".

Maybe its just because I am not very handgun oriented, where auto and semi-auto seem to be used more or less interchangeably.

This is one of those deals where it is likely better to let sleeping dogs lie.

Cheers,
Canuck

Which is why I asked the question in the original thread, "Has anybody ever had a sem-automatic seized and is there any jurisprudence on the issue?". It has been over thirty years since I sat in a Law Library but I understand that now it is possible to undertake computer searches which can identify case law on specific subjects. Perhaps we should check with the NRA's legal arm about this first?

Vapodog, since self-loading as a definition applies to both what are called full-automatic as well as semi-automatic, it probably can't be a term which clarifies the issue.

LHowell, I think you are on the right track with the single trigger actuated-multiple round firing capacity as opposed to single trigger-single round firing capacity. But language is definitely the issue here because it is impossible to discern the law's intent without a clear definition of the terms.

I think the people who are making a big deal about this don't understand some fundamental issues about the law.

Federal laws will often run hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of pages in length.

Often there will be mistakes or poorly worded phrases that are obvious.
Other times the mistakes will be more subtle.

For example, a law pertaining to drilling on Federal land might make reference to Section 100, subsection b.
But when you look at that section it's actually about transport of equipment through a Commonwealth, when the author was clearly making reference to Section 101, which dealt with the issue of that particular paragraph.

The courts will rule that the commonsense interpretation of that section prevails.
Precedent will also be used (i.e. if people are already doing it one way, that is how the statute was intended).

The ITAR states pretty clearly that you can take nonautomatic weapons out of the country without a permit.
People have been doing just that since semi-auto's were invented (from long before the law was passed).

Terry is hung up on Section 121.1 where Category I firearms are defined.

If we took a strict (but incorrect) interpretation of that reference like Terry does, we'd actually not be allowed to take any firearms out of the country, except BB guns and muzzleloaders.

The courts allow and require a commonsense interpretation of statute.
We would be paralyzed if they didn't.

Garrett

I deal with regulators every day and have found that if five of them look at the regulations, there will be five different opinions.

Terry has a valid point and if you read through the regulations the terms semi automatic and nonautomatic are distinct and seperate. A reading, not an interpetation, of the regulation in question does not allow one to take semi autos out of the country.

Terry should be thanked for taking the time to call and research the policy.

The historical policy however has been to allow a person to take nonautomactic weapons, which by interpetation include semi autos, out of the country.

I know companies that have been fined because they read a regulation one way and the inspector felt otherwise.

IMO I would take a semi auto out of the country.

If the intent of the Congress was to ban travel with semi-auto firearms, the courts would expect that ban to be explicit, in no uncertain terms, since the precedent has been to allow such travel.

You guys are dancing on the head of a pin.

Garrett

I think that you are getting the word export confused with a hunting gun that you will be returning with. When someone reads "EXPORT", This means this item will be sold outside this country, and not returning......
When hunters go to RSA with an 1100 or 1187, they have for all intents and purposes planned on returning with it, they are only taking it to hunt with and bring back.
If for any reason, you decide to sell one of your guns before you come back from RSA, hang onto your "ASS", someone will be bitting large chunks out of it. Many Feds will get on your case, and you will never hear the end of it, and it will get very expensive in fines and court costs. Just my 2/cents worth.

Based on how the law is applied in the field, it would appear that the intent of the law is to allow the export of semi-autos. However, the lawyer that drafted the regulations must have made a mistake in the wording. As drafted, a strict interpretation of the law would lead one to believe that semi-autos may not be exported.

So, I guess we can blame it on the lawyer.

Regards,

Terry

Intent and the letter of the regulations are two different things. You can be fined and that fine enforced becasue of the letter of the law. Even though you meet the intent of a law.

Maybe the intent of the law is to not allow the temporary export of semi automatic firearms.

For those of you that doubt what Terry has to say, call and ask the question. But make sure you ask why does'nt "semi sutomatic" appear in the verbage used for the exemption.

The nebulous language is purposeful and is intended to cover those semi-automatic firearms that can be easily or readily converted to fully automatic ones and preventing those from export.

DB

quote:

Originally posted by T.Carr:
Based on how the law is applied in the field, it would appear that the intent of the law is to allow the export of semi-autos. However, the lawyer that drafted the regulations must have made a mistake in the wording. As drafted, a strict interpretation of the law would lead one to believe that semi-autos may not be exported.

Perhaps the mistake was made by the reader, not the drafter.

500grains, do you have a contrary interpretation that you would like to advance, or are you just being provocative?

I think the meaning is clear, although divining the drafter's intent from it is difficult.

Of course, I also hold the firm opinion that we in America are plagued by poorly written laws, and that many if not most of them are randomly enforced.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
500grains, do you have a contrary interpretation that you would like to advance, or are you just being provocative?

Just pointing out that the error seems to be in one man's unilateral declaration that everyone taking semi-autos out of the country is committing a felony when the government has never taken that position, and the statute leaves plenty of leeway.

quote:

If for any reason, you decide to sell one of your guns before you come back from RSA, hang onto your "ASS", someone will be bitting large chunks out of it. Many Feds will get on your case, and you will never hear the end of it, and it will get very expensive in fines and court costs.

Strange...this certainly wasn't the case for me..... Thousands of folks return from Africa without a gun every day and no one cares at all. Further no one ever recorded the fact that I had one when I left.