The new ITAR regulatory stuff sounds like it could really screw a ton of people...as you already know and there are several topics over in this forum.

If/when will this be enforced? I can't find any further information. I own a fledgling business and am working on a new bullpup chassis (stock), and between a $2250 bill+increased insurance cost due to being considered a manufacturer, it would sink me before I even bring my product to market.

What baffles me is according to what I've read, simply being a stockmaker now makes me a firearms manufacturer?

The issue is do you really want to take the risk to find out whether it will be enforced against YOU and YOUR BUSINESS? You never know with these government bastards ... you could very easily be the one they decide to "make an example of" to scare the schidt out of everyone else in the trade/industry. The potential penalties for non-compliance are staggering. See:


https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/r...ar/ITAR_Part_127.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2778#c

Unless and until either a Court puts a stop to it, or the Democraps in Washington are out of power, this is
what you can expect as our 2nd. Amendment Rights are slowly eroded. Just a small piece of the puzzle in their anti-gun program.

quote:

The issue is do you really want to take the risk to find out whether it will be enforced against YOU and YOUR BUSINESS? You never know with these government bastards ... you could very easily be the one they decide to "make an example of" to scare the schidt out of everyone else in the trade/industry.

I got my class 1 in 1973. NEVER had an issue with renewal or anyone coming to my house. The Clinton decided he wanted to reduce the number of FFL. So I got a call and they showed up at the house. Had to take off work to meet them during the day. Since I was going through a divorce and separated my equipment was at the house. I hadn't done any blueing or stock work for 9 months. Even with all paperwork correct they informed me I no longer needed the license. I could surrender with no negative on my account or was told I could fight and still lose.

Trying to say just because you haven't seen the feds don't mean you wont tomorrow.

I guess i will just have to be a new class of felon.

I for one won't buy one and await the day the state dept shows at my door.

BS is BS no matter who or what does this type of crap.

Contact your Senator or Rep; most of them are against back door taxes and duplication of oversight by Govt agencies. Not all. though. Some will think it is a good thing to regulate those who like guns.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
The battle has been going on since 1968...Like I said before, forget that chassis shit and design sunglasses

Yep. Duane is spot on. Design and manufacturer something other than firearms related. $200 for a pair of Costas and they sell like hot cakes, ya gotta be kidding me!!!

quote:

Originally posted by WoodHunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
The battle has been going on since 1968...Like I said before, forget that chassis shit and design sunglasses

Yep. Duane is spot on. Design and manufacturer something other than firearms related. $200 for a pair of Costas and they sell like hot cakes, ya gotta be kidding me!!!

I loved my Costas and just lost them actually. Damn float trip and too many beers...


What I was curious about, is this executive order effective immediately, if not, when, etc. I don't sell my chassis yet, but planned on releasing them at SHOT in January.

I've been looking into this a lot, obviously... as far as I can determine, this is NOT an "executive order" in the commonly understood sense. Executive orders are published on the White House website, and there us nothing there on this topic. And nothing in the Federal Register either, which is also common practice. Likewise, this is apparently not a regulation "change," which would usually require publication and notice in the Federal Register, along with a 60 day comment period and announcement of an intended effective date. As far,as I can determine, none of these procedures have been followed.

The published document appears to be an "interpretation" of an existing regulation (22 CFR 122.1) regarding the "definition" of an existing term, "manufacturing. " Apparently when presented in this fashion it is treated as a mundane day to day thing which does not trigger any of the above notifications and procedures. Hence the fact that it just magically "appeared" on July 22 with no fanfare at all. It MAY have, and probably did, originate in the Oval Office, but there appears to be no paper trail as such. Thus, I would think it might be more appropriate to refer to it as an "executive suggestion" as opposed to an order.

It is pretty insidious and underhanded to get something done this way for sure, but in a perverse way it is also tactically brilliant. Just slide it in there with no inhibiting procedures and give it the force of law. You might not like them or agree with them, but never let it be said that they are stupid!