I do not know if form letters cary any less wait than a personal note, but I just wrote me congressman to inform him I am opposed to the 7/22/16 State Department edict and it is arbitrary and capricious in it's enactment.

It doesn't have to be a lengthy novel, just state your opposition and respectfully demand he step in to bring this to a halt.

My FFL was issued to me by the BATFE, not the State Department,therefore only BATFE regulations are applicable to my gunsmithing activities.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:
I do not know if form letters cary any less wait than a personal note, but I just wrote me congressman to inform him I am opposed to the 7/22/16 State Department edict and it is arbitrary and capricious in it's enactment.

It doesn't have to be a lengthy novel, just state your opposition and respectfully demand he step in to bring this to a halt.

It is indeed an "Edict". And that is why it is not even Constitutional. The Executive branch has ZERO authority to create legislation and this is a direct violation of the Separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. And furthermore, this IS an infringement on all of our 2nd Amendment rights. Write your Congressmen and tell them that and that you want it reversed.

I despise Pseudo-Commie Liberals.

The problem is: It is a BOTH/And, not an either/or situation. If I read the document correctly, NO one will be allowed to fix,repair,upgrade,alter from factory issue, or create (just because you want to at home)without the DDTC approval. Doing so makes you a felon. Felons lose rights. By-by guns. Back door gun confiscation.

They came for the gunsmiths, but I was not a gunsmith, so I did nothing...

They came for semiauto handguns, but I only owned revolvers, so I did nothing. ..

They came for AR15 ' s and "assault rifles ," but as a big game hunter, I only owned bolt actions so I did nothing..

They came for high powered "sniper rifles " with powerful scopes, but all my rifles had iron sights so I did nothing..

They outlawed semiauto and pump shotguns, but I only owned doubles, so I did nothing..

Then they came for me, and there was nobody left to do anything...

quote:

Originally posted by Toomany Tools:
Again, I ask, has anyone here with an FFL been contacted by the government to inform them of this requirement? I've had an 07 license for close to ten years and no one from the government has ever brought this up to me.

Yes. When I got my 07 a few years back, the local ATF guy explained to ma that as a mfgr, I would be responsible for registering with and paying ITAR's fees. He informed me that his only involvement was to inform, not to enforce compliance, but that the State Dept would catch up with me eventually if I did not register. Definition of what ITAR regulates changes almost daily from what I see, and gun and ammo manufacturers are about 1/10th of the items covered. mil-style Clothing, optics, night vision, cameras, stationary, "tactical" gear, 2 way radios, handheld gps, etc all fall under ITAR as well. The loose definition is "for defensive purposes," so if your product falls under that broad catagory and can be used for defensive purposes, your product falls under ITAR.

Well it looks like if the ACGG does get involved, they will be the only ones. A check today of nra ila, nssf, goa, and jpfo sites turned up.... chirping crickets. This is truly an effective back door deal and so far seems to be getting by everybody. I contacted my senator's office and gave them the information, but no results yet... it is so evil and insidious, and, frankly so brilliantly executed by the Obama administration, that it's just escaping everyone's attention or is low on the priorities list. By the time anybody in a position to do anything gets it figured out, or actually decides to care, it will be too late. Probably already is.

quote:

eply

It has been brought to the attention of the ACGG. I am no longer on the BOD. I must wait just like any one else for results. James Anderson and I had a loverly go at it yesterday. He and I are not happy with what we observe so far from our Congressmen/women. Yes, I have called. My daughter works for a US Sentor from SW WA. No results or replies yet.

I have been messing around on the governments website trying to register and that alone is about to make me pull my hair out. This is not new the ITAR regulations and registration have been there for years and we have ignorantly let it slide and/or avoided it so what if you register after having been in business for years are they going to come back on you for past violations? I myself will register to keep from being turned into a criminal. Although my gunsmithing is small and part time I want to have a future with it and what other choice is there? I already have a 07 and the fee while stiff won't break me so I feel like it has to be done. I wrote my senator a letter and my Rep will be next but we need a collective voice I'm afraid to get something done about this.

I answered my question

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/registration/lr.html

Nick, it sounds like our situations are quite similar although I have an 01. I don't know yet if I will just fold up my shop or pay the fee and move forward. So far I haven't conducted any if the specified acts of manufacturing since before the edict came out. Do you anticipate having to raise prices? If so, have you settled on the amount? This is something that will have to be "cash flowed" in order to cover costs, but of course it's still necessary to try to stay somewhat reasonable and competitive.

I just spoke with someone at the DDTC response team, and he told me that as a NEW registrant, I would not be assessed any back charges for previous work, but to go ahead and answer the question about when business started as the actual date, in my case 1979. That back charge is only for businesses that were registered and allowed their registrations to lapse. He also stated that I would not be allowed to do any of the covered activities until thee registration was complete and approved, a matter of about 45 days. .
Hope this is helpful.

my main concern is registering and then being held hostage for paying lapsed dues. Keep in mind that the executive order "clarified" what is manufacturing so the way I see it is they can go back years on all of us.

I have no problem raising my prices I should anyway because I am cheap and it wouldn't hurt to cut my work load down the problem is guy like me and many other only build a small number of custom guns so it adds a lot to each build.

Thank you for clarifying that!

quote:

Originally posted by Dennis Earl Smith:
The problem is: It is a BOTH/And, not an either/or situation. If I read the document correctly, NO one will be allowed to fix,repair,upgrade,alter from factory issue, or create (just because you want to at home)without the DDTC approval. Doing so makes you a felon. Felons lose rights. By-by guns. Back door gun confiscation.

While I am not disputing the slippery slope that is gun control and laws in general, this law only applies to people who are in the business of "manufacturing" and not the guy doing it at his house from himself, only if he is charging others for his work. Not to say that next year, they wont change their rules, and make my personal work covered by the law.

Please note, I have posted in this thread, and some of the others on this site, I am firmly against this interpretation of the law, and see it as a direct attack on our ability to maintain/modify older and current firearms. I have already written and called several folks to make them aware of this attack on gunsmiths (and their livelihood).

I tried calling the response team today and got no response. Then I called a regional ATF office and spoke to a supervisor. That person told me the ATF is not involved at all in this matter and that as far as they are concerned practicing gunsmiths are covered by their FFL. They will not be taking any actions to enforce and think the whole matter is ridiculous as it concerns the general gunsmith. The comment was made that what is needed is a lawsuit. It was also stated that several FFL's had called the response team and were told not to worry about it unless you were sent the letter.

The DDTC should only be concerned with work on "defense articles", ie. guns and parts that are part of defense contracts and will or could be sold to foreign parties. So if say COLT has a gov't contract to produce M4'S and they send the barrels out to be threaded and fitted with flash hiders then that contractor would need to be registered. But Joe gunsmith who is brought an old shotgun barrel to fit choke tubes to should not be required as he/she is not altering or producing defense articles.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
I tried calling the response team today and got no response. Then I called a regional ATF office and spoke to a supervisor. That person told me the ATF is not involved at all in this matter and that as far as they are concerned practicing gunsmiths are covered by their FFL. They will not be taking any actions to enforce and think the whole matter is ridiculous as it concerns the general gunsmith. The comment was made that what is needed is a lawsuit. It was also stated that several FFL's had called the response team and were told not to worry about it unless you were sent the letter.

The DDTC should only be concerned with work on "defense articles", ie. guns and parts that are part of defense contracts and will or could be sold to foreign parties. So if say COLT has a gov't contract to produce M4'S and they send the barrels out to be threaded and fitted with flash hiders then that contractor would need to be registered. But Joe gunsmith who is brought an old shotgun barrel to fit choke tubes to should not be required as he/she is not altering or producing defense articles.

While I am happy the ATF may view this as a farce, the idea that we have different government agencies interpreting the law under different pretenses does not leave me with a "warm fuzzy." It's usually the little guy who gets caught in the middle and bears the brunt of the government's wrath until the courts work it out.

I recently had a BATF audit. I was grilled on the definition of what they considered manufacturing. When he left I had to sign a form that I was informed on the subject and consider my self warned.
Registering with ITAR, DDTC, a class 07 license and the $2250.00 fee is just the tip of the iceberg.
As I was told you have to have separate books for quote manufacturing.
You have to file monthly reports, not quarterly.
And best of all, you have to put your makers mark on every job. You also have to put an identifying number on it to correspond to your A&D book and you have to have an itemized invoice of such repair to correspond with your A&D book and keep a permanent copy.
The 10 or 11% tax depending on handgun or long gun has to be charged on the total package. Not just the work performed.

When all of this started for me I contacted everyone that I thought could help. I got no help or response. I even called Brownell's and got this response (It's our policy not to give legal advice).

After 26+ years as a full time gunsmith I have given my customers notice that I will be closing my shop, December 31 if things do not change. I'm too old and too tire to fool with this BS anymore.

James

quote:

Originally posted by J Bennett:
I recently had a BATF audit. I was grilled on the definition of what they considered manufacturing. When he left I had to sign a form that I was informed on the subject and consider my self warned.
Registering with ITAR, DDTC, a class 07 license and the $2250.00 fee is just the tip of the iceberg.
As I was told you have to have separate books for quote manufacturing.
You have to file monthly reports, not quarterly.
And best of all, you have to put your makers mark on every job. You also have to put an identifying number on it to correspond to your A&D book and you have to have an itemized invoice of such repair to correspond with your A&D book and keep a permanent copy.
The 10 or 11% tax depending on handgun or long gun has to be charged on the total package. Not just the work performed.

When all of this started for me I contacted everyone that I thought could help. I got no help or response. I even called Brownell's and got this response (It's our policy not to give legal advice).

After 26+ years as a full time gunsmith I have given my customers notice that I will be closing my shop, December 31 if things do not change. I'm too old and too tire to fool with this BS anymore. James

It is a shame ... an absolute shame ... that these "regulations" should put honest, hard-working people out of business, simply because their trade involves firearms. But that is exactly what The Regime wants! Sure .... keep your guns ... (more or less) ... but just try to get them fixed or worked on.

I never would have considered that the USA would come after it's own people. Guess LBJ got the ball rolling on that. Another reason to despise the Democrat politicians.

I'm 100% with Duane on this one. Vote for Trump. Not voting isn't an option. Can you fathom even a single term of Clinton?

Thanks to all that have PM me.

I don't like giving up, but under the conditions I don't know where to turn for help.

With Obomas war on coal, it has took a large, I mean a large bight out of the economy here.

Has anybody tried to file a commodity jurisdiction on this?
pmddt.state.gov/commodity_jurisdiction/index.html

I don't want to get into political, but if Trump don't get elected were all in a world of hurt.

James

Does anyone have a good link to the monthly report requirement?

Is this an ITAR requirement, or an ATF requirement for 07 nanufacturers?

I don't find any monthly reporting requirement for either ITAR or BATF 07 license holders. BATF does require reporting of multiple sales of handguns to the same buyer and manufacturers must submit an annual report of production and export activity. Both require maintenance of records available for inspection.

§122.5 Maintenance of records by registrants.

(a) A person who is required to register must maintain records concerning the manufacture, acquisition and disposition (to include copies of all documentation on exports using exemptions and applications and licenses and their related documentation), of defense articles; of technical data; the provision of defense services; brokering activities; and information on political contributions, fees, or commissions furnished or obtained, as required by part 130 of this subchapter. Records in an electronic format must be maintained using a process or system capable of reproducing all records on paper. Such records when displayed on a viewer, monitor, or reproduced on paper, must exhibit a high degree of legibility and readability. (For the purpose of this section, “legible” and “legibility” mean the quality of a letter or numeral that enables the observer to identify it positively and quickly to the exclusion of all other letters or numerals. “Readable” and “readability” means the quality of a group of letters or numerals being recognized as complete words or numbers.) This information must be stored in such a manner that none of it may be altered once it is initially recorded without recording all changes, who made them, and when they were made. For processes or systems based on the storage of digital images, the process or system must afford accessibility to all digital images in the records being maintained. All records subject to this section must be maintained for a period of five years from the expiration of the license or other approval, to include exports using an exemption (see §123.26 of this subchapter); or, from the date of the transaction (e.g., expired licenses or other approvals relevant to the export transaction using an exemption). The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls and the Director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls Licensing may prescribe a longer or shorter period in individual cases.

(b) Records maintained under this section shall be available at all times for inspection and copying by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls or a person designated by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (e.g., the Diplomatic Security Service) or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Upon such request, the person maintaining the records must furnish the records, the equipment, and if necessary, knowledgeable personnel for locating, reading, and reproducing any record that is required to be maintained in accordance with this section.

[70 FR 50959, Aug. 29, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 8084, Feb. 11, 2014]

Then this information needs to be shared and clarified. I am aware of the part 130 requirement (does not and will not apply to my situation.) There have been a couple of mentions of the monthly requirement and I am wondering where it comes from. Rumors and statements such as, " I heard...." tend to divert the discussion from a productive and informative direction and need to be verified before they can be relied on. This discussion is too important to allow it to devolve into a typical Internet back and forth without supporting information...

The regulations can be read in their entirety at https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/r...tions_laws/itar.html

I believe there are monthly reports if you are subject to paying federal excise tax on manufactured items, altho there is an exemption for those producing less than 50 firearms per year. This is not part of ITAR nor is it administered by BATF. See https://www.ttb.gov/firearms/faet-faqs.shtml

I believe this is correct. The excise tax is administered by the "TTB" or tobacco tax bureau out of Cincinnati. It used to be part of the ATF when they were part of Treasury, if I recall correctly.
In any case this doesn't seem to relate directly to the present ITAR situation.

quote:

Originally posted by thirdbite:
The regulations can be read in their entirety at https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/r...tions_laws/itar.html

I believe there are monthly reports if you are subject to paying federal excise tax on manufactured items, altho there is an exemption for those producing less than 50 firearms per year. This is not part of ITAR nor is it administered by BATF. See https://www.ttb.gov/firearms/faet-faqs.shtml

The TTB has been using ATFEs' definition of 'manufacturing' for excise tax purposes. TTB = Tax and Trade Bureau

quote:

Originally posted by Scrollcutter:
I never would have considered that the USA would come after it's own people. Guess LBJ got the ball rolling on that.

Remember the "Japanese" internment camps? Those were American citizens. Always the Democrats. I just call them "Pseudo-Commies" anymore. Because that is exactly what they are.

It sounds like J Bennett got a first hand look into their real intentions. They clearly want to destroy Gunsmithing altogether. I heard on "gun talk" today that a certain group is going to fight it but I didnt catch who it was. I would suggest that those considering hanging it up might just hang loose for a while and see if this BS sticks. After all, it is an election year. And the Supreme Court did overturn another of Obamas Edicts recently. You never know.

quote:

Originally posted by Nate:


While I am not disputing the slippery slope that is gun control and laws in general, this law only applies to people who are in the business of "manufacturing" and not the guy doing it at his house from himself, only if he is charging others for his work.

Are you just assuming that? If so you could be subjecting yourself and whoever else believes you to federal prosecution. I saw no such distinction whatsoever in what I have read. Only that all it takes is ONE such act. In fact, from what I have read, someone please correct me if I am wrong. But according to the definition of manufacturing, it looks to me like someone could be convicted of a felony for bedding an action or adding an aftermarket trigger..

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by Scrollcutter:
I never would have considered that the USA would come after it's own people. Guess LBJ got the ball rolling on that.

Remember the "Japanese" internment camps? Those were American citizens. Always the Democrats. I just call them "Pseudo-Commies" anymore. Because that is exactly what they are.

It sounds like J Bennett got a first hand look into their real intentions. They clearly want to destroy Gunsmithing altogether. I heard on "gun talk" today that a certain group is going to fight it but I didnt catch who it was. I would suggest that those considering hanging it up might just hang loose for a while and see if this BS sticks. After all, it is an election year. And the Supreme Court did overturn another of Obamas Edicts recently. You never know.

Don't know about others, but I'm reading it the same way you are, Wstrnhunter. I will point out, though,,,, snails move faster than the court system does, these days. This is wide coverage that can mean whatever 'they' want it to mean. This reg has been in existance for a long time, they just now have decided to enforce it on gunsmiths.

With over ten-thousand Federal statutes and many more regulations the Federal government could come after any one of us at any time if they wanted to; this is just another one. For me, I choose to do nothing new at this time. I might change my mind but for now this is my plan. No one from the government has ever told me I had to comply with this and it's not like they can't find me. I frequently have ATF agents in my shop and they've never said anything about it. From my limited research it appears to me this is being promoted mostly by lawyers and a little by the NRA to boost their revenues. If you read the only Executive Order publish on 22 July here it has nothing to do with the State Depatment or arms trade. Perhaps some day a State Department SWAT team will kick in my door and my case will be the one to go to the Supreme Court. Why did Prohibition fail? Because almost the entire nation ignored it.

It's not an executive order. It's a regulation issued by the Dept. of State on July 22.
https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/c...rmsManufacturers.pdf

A 'directive' or EO instructing the State Dept. to enforce an already existing regulation.

It is a statement of policy.

The laws already exist. This is new State Department policy saying their interpretation of existing International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR ) means these restrictions and requirements also apply to gunsmiths who are not engaging in exporting or making firearms, ammunition, or parts for export. It won't hold up in court but it will have to be litigated to be struck down. The only other way is for the next President to change it back. The only candidate who would do that is Donald Trump.

Someone in Congress is actually trying to fix this.....I'm shocked. Phone numbers and bill to reference listed at the bottom of the page. Call your Representatives!!! NSSF will be getting donations in the future from me.

http://www.nssfblog.com/ddtc-s...w-but-clarification/

Perhaps one of the Democrats intentions is to stop Form ones as well,
by making it unaffordable and heavily punishable by fine/jail under ITAR-


By these rules- anyone that cuts a barrel to make a SBR o r SBS is manufacturing--
(As the Form one plainly states)

Also anyone creating a homebuilt weapon from an 80% receiver is also therefore subject to ITAR

Just got off the phone with the "Response Team" rep. It is all true. Intent to enforce through FBI unless thwarted. They claim all civilian firearm machine work is covered because any firearm could end up exported. Really? Just another back door gun control attempt. Hopefully the NRA legal team can tie this one up.

Good thing I own no guns, don't know anyone that does, and read this forum for intertainment purposes only. For conversation purposes only how does these laws affect parts only manufacturing and modifications?
Don

Yes, this covers machined parts as well. $100K fine and up to twenty years.

To Too Many Tools: I had 07 license and I was contacted by the ATF and an agent came to the shop and told me that the "fee" had been in effect for 3 years. and I could either pay up or surrender my license. I surrendered. At 75 and mostly retired , I was not ready to fight the Federales. I was told by the agent that the $2250 annual fee was discretionary. That means they can pick out anyone they choose to apply the fee to.