Shipping "non-essential" AW parts overseas?

[hoffmang]

I assume you mean "not something to go against". Versus "not something to question". As I do think it needs to be questioned. As far as the question "What does "essential" mean specifically?"

First, it's pretty clear you're unaware of my penchant to screw with the rules. As I said, I and two other people personally changed ITAR.

Second, it's not at all clear that even a fully reinvigorated right to keep and bear arms means you have the right to export them absent a federal license. I seriously doubt any court is going to question the Federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over foreign commerce or international diplomacy. Import is a different matter, but export licensing is a very real restriction that will remain. The US government can decide to stop filibusters and it has a long tradition of doing just that.

I would suggest getting an ATF advisory letter. Either way, the effort involved over exporting this sling swivel to Canada isn't a good use of time.

-Gene

[moab]

First, it's pretty clear you're unaware of my penchant to screw with the rules. As I said, I and two other people personally changed ITAR.

Second, it's not at all clear that even a fully reinvigorated right to keep and bear arms means you have the right to export them absent a federal license. I seriously doubt any court is going to question the Federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over foreign commerce or international diplomacy. Import is a different matter, but export licensing is a very real restriction that will remain. The US government can decide to stop filibusters and it has a long tradition of doing just that.

I would suggest getting an ATF advisory letter. Either way, the effort involved over exporting this sling swivel to Canada isn't a good use of time.

-Gene

I know what your saying, Gene. I wasn't suggesting that any existing laws be flouted. Or that they could even be changed. I certainly dont' have the time or interest in that. My only interest is just what the actual legal definition of what could be exported is. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water. And just not exporting anything because the rules are to hard to figure out. Or get clarification on. My interest is simply "What can we legally do?" "Can someone explain this mess please? So that we don't run afoul of the law?" It just seems to often the various agencies dealing in these matters are purposely vague so as to avoid legal complications later. But this to often leaves us with this feeling that gov is swinging it's stick so wildly. We never know when we might be hit by an errant swing. So we simply cower in the corner - doing nothing.

The quote above your post is interesting. Besides it, doing some reading last night, I've been able to surmise that anything in 1(a) that is worth less than $100 (I assume a part) can be imported without export approval. Which means any non-military, semi auto or bolt action rifle part. Excluding a scope manufactured to military specs. (Whatever that is...)

But then there is the quote above. Which I honestly didn't notice. It does kind of look like you can export:

"...accessories and attachments (e.g., belts, slings, after market rubber grips, cleaning kits) for firearms that do not enhance the usefulness, effectiveness, or capabilities of the firearm, components and parts."

Interesting examples of what might not "enhance the usefulness, effectiveness, or capabilities of the firearm, components and parts" though. I'm trying to think of what parts don't enhance the effectiveness or capabilities of the arm or parts of the arm?

Stocks do. So those are out. Hand guards do. I guess. Sling swivels don't. (LOL!!!!) Buttplate?

But then the poster goes on to say:

"The bold section / exemption does not seem to have any meaning under the current administration."

Are there examples of the current administration not giving permission for these excluded items? (that's to the poster of that last comment)

There is alot to be interpreted here. It's almost like you'd have to have a letter for each specific firearm on a case by case basis. Like for example a K98 Mauser. Falls into catagory 1(a). But does it have "military applications" as described in 1(c). It did 75 years ago. Does it still today?

Gene - are there other forums that would be more applicable to this type of conversation?

Patrick

[HowardW56]

WHO IS GREG?

[wilit]

WHO IS GREG?

+1

LOL Fail. Gene's name is posted there twice. If you can't get that right, how are you going to accurately read export rules and regs.

[HowardW56]

+1

LOL Fail. Gene's name is posted there twice. If you can't get that right, how are you going to accurately read export rules and regs.

[moab]

What are you talking about? I said Gre....I mean Gene.

Our entire family has had the flu all week. My apologies to G E N E. I just spent the last half hour with my son huddle over the commode. And I'm about headed there myself.

I probably am to stupid to understand the export laws. Which is the exact reason why I'm here discussing them.

I really need to print out all the applicable laws to cross reference them. This is something that could really benefit from a flow chart like the CA AW one. It's not easy to follow. Although general areas of things ok to ship have been identified. i.e. - slings, bayonets(?), etc. in the amount of -$100.

[moab]

http://www.progunleaders.org/DDTC/

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC)


Article by Robin Taylor, courtesy of the US Practical Shooting Association. Taken from the May/June 2009 issue of Front Sight Magazine.


Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC)
It's not about Trade, it's about Control

By Robin Taylor, USPSA Staff


If you're lucky, you have never heard of the "International Trade in Arms Regulation" treaty, or ITAR. Administered by the State Department through something called the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), this treaty is supposed to keep track of "defense" exports. Unfortunately, what you don't know is about to hurt you.

Unintended Consequences

DDTC's ITAR process hummed along out of the public view for years, focusing on the major international trade in firearms and military equipment until President Bush II moved to make the directorate 75 percent self-funding. In one fell stroke, he gave the agency the power to set its own budget, and levy its own taxes.

The results have been predictable. New rules published on Sept. 28, 2008 explosively increased fees. Furthermore, DDTC has expanded its tax base to include all "arms" trade in the United States. Civilian firms with no military or export connection whatever are getting ominous letters from their wholesalers (Brownells sent a letter to all its vendors) asking if they are "in compliance" with the mysterious ITAR.

Subsection I(a) of the ITAR includes all firearms, barrels, "military" scopes, and all "components, parts, accessories and attachments" for any listed item. Subsection III includes manufacturers of ammunition, bullets, and technical data for the production of the above. If you cast bullets at home and sell them to your neighbors, you need to file with the DDTC. However, your Dillon press is exempt.

Flipping through the pages of Front Sight, "cartridge cases. . .bullets," "firearms," and "accessories and attachments" to firearms takes in pretty much our entire advertising base. We checked, and the magazine extensions USPSA competitors use have been ruled a "defense article" and all manufacturers of same must register with DDTC. The C-More optical sight? Tubes for a 170mm magazine? Moon clips for a revolver? As best we can tell, every advertiser in this magazine other than Dillon and a few soft goods firms must register and be tracked as a "manufacturer" or "broker of defense articles" under DDTC's purview.

If you don't think that affects your ability to exercise your second amendment rights (albeit indirectly), or to enjoy shooting, take a minute and think about it. ITAR calls for government registration of all arms manufacturing. Not only will the government know exactly who makes how much of what, should the government decide NOT to issue a registration permit to any of those people, they're out of business, immediately.

Basic registration has climbed from a few hundred dollars for a multi-year registration four years ago to $2,250 per year. Fail to pay this, and you risk federal prosecution. Should you actually export, the fees climb dramatically.

"For that money you get absolutely nothing," says Jason Wong of the Firearms Law Group. (Wong advises clients including Sig Sauer, U.S. Ordnance, and Gemtech on compliance with federal firearms laws and export controls, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).) "I don't mind paying my taxes, because that goes to pay for schools and roads and stuff, but this is something else." While we know of a few accessory makers (of grips) that have been given a pass on registration, according to Wong, they're the exception.

"It's not just us," said a representative from an accessory catalog. "I went to a Commerce Department training session and State Department reps came on one day. They said they're targeting every company in every industry, so that they will know everyone involved before it's all over."

Airplane components, computer chips, optics for anything from night vision to missiles, thanks to the "accessories" clause, DDTC's reach is astoundingly broad.

"Every industry group has this same complaint," said our catalog representative. "The only way we can know if something is covered is to get a (State Department) ruling on it."

Until recently, the whole ITAR process operated in a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" manner. If you built non-military parts and didn't export, nobody at "State" really cared. Looking at it from a bureaucratic point of view, registering the little fish cost them time and money, and for what? Now that DDTC relies on registration to fund itself, that situation has changed.

"Now nobody says anything because they're afraid. They know if they stand up, it'll cost them $2,250 a year," said an accessories maker that chose to remain anonymous. Some not-so-friendly competitors notified DDTC that his firm was making parts without a permit, and the hammer fell.

2008's Year-End Surprise

Under its new rules, DDTC collects its registration fees at the end of the year, using a sliding scale depending on how many export licenses you requested. If you didn't get the memo ("it was on the website. . ."), that means you pay for each of last year's licenses when you renew your ITAR registration. Licenses that were almost free now cost $250 each.

I spoke with Dave Skinner at STI about their experience with the DDTC's escalating fees. Almost half their business is with overseas clients.

"In three years (the changes) took us from $750 per year, to $1,750, to $18,500 per year in export costs."

Pauletta Skinner handles most of STI's export operation. She renewed STI's registration early, fearing another doubling in fee prices akin to 2006-2007. Instead, the 2008 fee rose by one thousand percent - 10 times the previous year's fee. "I couldn't believe it," she says. "I called them back because I thought it was a typo."

Apparently DDTC put the change on their website, but didn't notify registrants directly. When the bill came, STI was caught short. With no way to back up and pass the costs on to the customer, STI faced an ugly choice: Write a check for an extra $16,000, or cease operations immediately.

"We're still reeling at the increase in costs," says Dave Skinner.

Now put yourself in the shoes of Brownells, parts resource for gunsmiths worldwide. Brownells has a staff of five to deal with permitting issues for their international shipments. Huge swaths of their 36,000-item catalog are controlled by ITAR.

"We would have been happy with only that kind of a jump," said David Dean when I asked about STI's $16,000 surprise. "We do hundreds and hundreds of licenses, but I can't give any details about the proposed fee since this issue is still being negotiated."

cont. next post...

[moab]

casework@grassley.senate.govwww.uspsa.org or www.frontsightmagazine.org.

[MikeWilliamson]

Another note to keep in mind--a lot of M1 carbines in Germany were modified by removal of front sight wings and inset stock swivels, because those are "military characteristics."

With ITAR and the crap about childrens' toys requiring inspections and licenses for every component, it's almost as if the government is trying to destroy American business.

[mchilti]

[CCWFacts]

I don't think the issue is "AW"-specific. You generally shouldn't ship gun parts overseas without paperwork/approval - including scopes!

Also, are you really sure he's a foreigner, or an agent acting like one?

That's right. There's a thing called ITAR. It is a very complex set of export restrictions, and it covers guns and most gun parts, including scopes, magazines, barrels, etc. You can't export any of these things without doing the full ITAR paperwork. And if you're asking the question on this forum, it means you don't know what ITAR is and you're not a licensed exporter. And that means, DON'T DO IT!

Don't export any firearms parts unless you are highly familiar with ITAR. If you have to ask, it means you don't know, so DON'T DO IT! Don't even think about it! This applies to ALL firearms parts and accessories because many of them are covered by ITAR and you don't want to make a mistake on this! Violating ITAR is a Federal crime and it's taken seriously.