Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama issues a 2A Executive order.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Obama issues a 2A Executive order.

    Please feel free to kill this if its a dupe...



    https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...e-gun-control\
    \
    On Friday, July 22, 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.

    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 theGCA’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.


    What is the new definition of a Business or Manufacturer under the Arms Export Control Act?

    If I mount a Scope am I a Manufacturer/gunsmith under this law? SMH...
    Last edited by Hannco; 07-28-2016, 06:56 PM.
    True freedom and our inherent responsibility:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...18&version=NLT
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...hronicles+7:14

    #2
    I'm just a simpleton not capable of comprehending laws. therefore my failure to comply cannot possibly convey intent to violate the law. I'm confident Comey will agree.

    Comment


      #3

      Those scum know exactly what they are doing, this is like freakin' CARB regulations for guns!
      Can you personally modify your own firearm of does that make you an unlicensed manufacturer?
      Behold the death of the accurizing aftermarket its probably now illegal for them to sell parts to unlicensed manufacturers.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Idiocracy View Post
        I'm just a simpleton not capable of comprehending laws. therefore my failure to comply cannot possibly convey intent to violate the law. I'm confident Comey will agree.
        I've been attending some export compliance training at work. Our compliance officer, and even the narrator in the training videos, say that ITAR regulations are so far-reaching and convoluted, it's almost impossible for anyone to be confident they're in compliance. I may email a technical document to a customer who is in a country with which we have an export license, but if that email passes through servers located in a country that's restricted, and where we have no export license, I could conceivably be subjected to arrest, prosecution, fine and imprisonment.

        This is how the Government creates laws that can be used to prosecute virtually anyone they want. Just look up what they did to Gibson Guitars for importing "restricted wood".


        “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
        .
        Last edited by BLAMMO!!; 07-29-2016, 07:48 AM.
        Give a man fire, and he stays warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he stays warm for the rest of his life.

        Comment


          #5
          My head hurts!
          SHADAP VARMINT!

          Comment


            #6
            Hey Barry, See you at SCOTUS.
            "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction" R.R.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by C6NY View Post
              Hey Barry, See you at SCOTUS.
              Seeing how Justice Roberts has been voting of late, you think that's a wise move anymore?
              I am not armed out of fear of who's in front of me.
              I am armed out of love of those behind me.

              Anyone who says money doesn't matter to them is either a FOOL or a LIAR or BOTH!

              Comment


                #8
                The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

                The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

                An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

                Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

                A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

                An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

                Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

                No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

                — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

                Comment


                  #9
                  Of course he did why not he's doing absolutely nothing these days . Except now he will be back to what he does best campaigning for Hilary in the mean time use executive orders as much as he wants. A few more months bye bye better vote for Trump.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    What the hell are "executive orders"? Preznindent Zero is the chief executive and his job is solely to enforce the law, not make it!
                    This shit needs to be stopped or he'll just write new Ammendments and staple them to the Constitution!
                    SHADAP VARMINT!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I'm expecting an Executive Order stating my job isn't done, I need more time, the Presidency will not transfer until I say so.

                      LOL!
                      True freedom and our inherent responsibility:
                      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...18&version=NLT
                      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...hronicles+7:14

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I wonder if this is a back door way of preventing us from buying parts to assemble firearms for personal use?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X