President Obama Changes Directions Under ITAR

LogicMan

New member
LINK - President Obama has issued a new executive order changing the definition of "manufacturer" under the Arms Export Control Act so they must now register with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. If they perform any small, simple work on a gun, they are considered the same as a larger manufacturer.

So is this as bad as it sounds. Does it mean Joe Bob the local gunsmith now has to register with the government as a gun manufacturer? Does it apply to home gunsmithing? And all over a treaty? Treaties should not have any effect on protected rights.
 
I'm not up on my import/export law; but my understanding is it applies to any commercial gunsmith (as defined under the import/export law - even if not a gunsmith under the definition of the 1968 Gun Control Act).

It also applies even if you never intend to import or export anything, ever.

And of course, the yearly fee is $2,250 currently.

It is a perfect example of using bureaucratic vagueness to kill off small businesses you didn't even want to exist in the first place

The days where we are going to be able to discuss TFL-approved solutions that have a chance of working are getting shorter all the time.
 
LogicMan said:
President Obama has issued a new executive order . . . .
If we're going to discuss this, let's at least get our terms right. An Executive Order is a specific legal action that can be taken by the President. The Executive Orders are published here.

No new EO has been published, as far as I can tell. Accordingly, I'll edit the title to this thread.
 
he has said from the beginning

- if they (obama administration) cant legislate "it" they will regulate "it" -.

"It" is anything they do not like
 
FrankenMauser said:
And the 'change in interpretation' reaches farther than many articles are reporting.
+1; as discussed in the linked thread, IMHO the letter clearly threatens to extend the $2,250/year State Department DDTC registration requirement to businesses that are NOT required to have a FFL under 18 USC § 921(a)(21) and 18 USC § 923.
 
as discussed in the linked thread, IMHO the letter clearly threatens to extend the $2,250/year State Department DDTC registration requirement to businesses that are NOT required to have a FFL under 18 USC § 921(a)(21) and 18 USC § 923.
While the new CCTC interpretation of ITAR does expand its application to what the ATF considers "gunsmithing," rather than "manufacturing," ITAR has long applied to many businesses not required to have an FFL. For example, if you make encryption software or military grade scopes. Likewise, if you make barrels or other firearm parts, even if they do not include receivers or frames.

On the other side of the coin, if you make only O/U sporting shotguns, for example, you need a manufacturing FFL, but don't need to register under ITAR.
 
Armorer-at-Law said:
While the new CCTC interpretation of ITAR does expand its application to what the ATF considers "gunsmithing," rather than "manufacturing," ITAR has long applied to many businesses not required to have an FFL.
Absolutely; pardon my brevity, I was answering in the context of the ongoing discussion in the other thread.

The issue is that some of the examples of "manufacturing" cited in the letter are VERY ambiguous and/or encompass activities that stretch the meaning of the term "manufacturing" to the breaking point, i.e. threading a barrel, making stocks, and "se of any special tooling or equipment upgrading in order to improve the capability of assembled or repaired firearms." The DoS is defining "manufacturing" using VERY broad brush strokes.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but there are also instances where ITAR has been brought to bear on non-commercial individual activities, aren't there? For instance home 3D printing of firearms were restricted in the US using ITAR. Does this mean anyone completing an 80% lower in their garage would now need to meet requirements of ITAR?

ITAR is just hilarious b/c the vast majority of it is widely available outside the US.
 
I'm having a hard time with this discussion. I spent 20+ years exporting listed arms, weapons systems and bleeding edge tech on a large scale. Let's not get wrapped around the axle because of the delusional wishes of a few, and note there are some simple ways to avoid "an export" in total.

While I understand where the current ultra-short-time president and others would like to go, waving a magic wand or wagging an untruthful tongue by-proxy doesn't make it so, much less make it law.

There are very specific definitions of exports, and non-exports. And there are exemptions. If a transaction is totally between US Persons, it is not an export. And the State Dept has published a significant amount of guides and information to that effect.

And the real irony is, it is possible for one US person to lawfully deliver "technical data" to a foreign person (i.e. design plans for a weapons system), which is "an export", and not break the law, yet illegal for another US person to deliver identical "technical data" to a similar foreign person.

The difference is a simple three line claim printed on the bottom of the data.
As noted above capabilities and data is not an exclusive domain of the US.
 
Last edited:
According to the Federal Register, Obama has made 18 Executive orders in 2016. None of the published executive orders have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Can the NRA produce a specific executive order, that we can all read, or is it hyperbole?
 
There's a distinction to be made here between executive orders, which have the force of law and are published in the Federal Register, and presidential memoranda, which are essentially directives from the boss to his subordinates -- in this case, the entire executive branch of the US government. They carry less legal weight, but then again, he's the boss, and it's usually a good idea for subordinates to do what the boss tells them.

During his time in office, President Obama has relied much more heavily on these memoranda than on executive orders to get things done.

Then there's a third category, executive actions. These are pretty much anything a president says he wants; Mr. Obama's post-Sandy Hook 23-item list of gun control measures were all in the category of "executive actions," which made them sound a lot more decisive than they actually were. That list included universal background checks, cracking down on straw purchases, and renewing the AWB, and he hasn't been able to accomplish any of those.

But, 23 measures to stop gun violence! It sure made him sound tough at the time...

It would be way less impressive if they were called "executive wishes."
 
The NSSF has joined the battle. Press release:

NSSF said:
NSSF Statement Regarding DDTC’s Recent Firearms “Guidance” on Registration

On July 22 the U.S. Department of State – Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) issued “guidance” meant to clarify who is required under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to register as a “manufacturer” of “defense articles,” which includes firearms and ammunition products (U.S. Munitions List Categories I – III), and pay an exorbitant annual $2,250 registration fee. Under the law, registration is required even if the manufacturer does not export and even if the manufacturer makes component parts.

DDTC asserts that the guidance merely restates existing DDTC policy and interpretation of the AECA and ITAR manufacturer registration requirement.

Unfortunately, DDTC’s “guidance” has created considerable and understandable confusion and concern among gunsmiths and gun owners. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is reviewing the guidance and will send a letter of protest to DDTC expressing our strong opposition to the new “guidance,” the scope of which clearly exceeds their statutory authority. The term “manufacture” as used in the AECA and ITAR is its ordinary dictionary definition. Clearly, many of the activities DDTC claims require registration constitutes gun smithing and is not manufacturing under any reasonable dictionary definition of the term. DDTC’s position is similar to claiming an auto mechanic who fixes your car is a car manufacturer.

NSSF has been working diligently for many years to eliminate, or at least significantly lower, the excessive and burdensome registration fee especially for non-exporting manufacturers and non-essential component parts manufacturers. Simply put, forcing small manufacturer to pay $2,250 annually to register when they are not utilizing the DDTC export licensing system to export products is an unfair and onerous regulatory burden. This is even more outrageous when one considers that DDTC is sitting on at least $140 million dollars of previously paid registration fees collected over many years from exporters from many industries including ours.

Additionally, we have been working with allies in Congress to pressure the Obama administration to complete the Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative, which would with limited exceptions do away with the AECA and ITAR manufacturer registration requirement and onerous fee for commercial and sporting firearms.

To date, the Obama Administration has refused to publish and implement the regulatory changes necessary to transfer for export licensing of commercial and sporting firearms and ammunition products to the Department of Commerce from the Department of State. Read more on Export Control Reform. Yet, the proposed rules have been drafted and ready for publication since December 2012. Inaction persists despite congressional testimony and letters to members of the U.S. House and the Senate that they would publish the rules.

Why has the Obama administration refused to move ECR forward for our industry? It is really very simple. The Obama Administration is singling out our industry for different treatment under the ECR because of its gun control politics. It is time to force Congress to step in and stop the Obama Administration’s gun control agenda from stopping this needed reform. See the ECR dashboard.

How can members of the firearms industry and gun owners help?

Call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121 and U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 urge him or her to support Rep. Collin Peterson’s (D-Minn.) Resolution, (H. Res. 829) that demands the Obama administration complete the ECR and publish the proposed rules to transfer the licensing of commercial and sporting firearms and ammunition products to the Department of Commerce (which does not require registration or payment of a fee).

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to force DDTC to stop imposing excessive and onerous registration fees on small businesses that do not export products. Tell them to support language in the Fiscal Year 2017 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that will reduce the registration fee to a nominal amount for all non-exporting manufacturers and component part manufacturers.

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators stop the Department of State from exceeding its statutory authority; that mounting new sights to improve accuracy on your hunting rifle doesn’t require you to register with the Department of State and pay a fee of $2,250.
 
During his time in office, President Obama has relied much more heavily on these memoranda than on executive orders to get things done.

It needs to be said that a portion of this is for reasons of insulation from liability. For instance, Jeh Johnson was 'memo'ed' to stop enforcing border control rather than ordered formally, so if any legal blowback came of it, the buck would stop with the director vs. his immediate boss, the president. Plausible deniability, very much like Chicago mobsters ("I'm gonna need you to arrange an 'accident' for that 2nd Amendment, rrrrrub it out, y'see?" <chomps cigar>)

The regulatory change proposed last april did refer to an EO, though not in any direct way (the EO was very vague and fully of cliches loosely pertaining to national security, as does the justification for ITAR and these adopted changes)

Glad to see the big orgs are getting behind the resistance here. The NRA brought it to everyone's attention last year, but because the issue was complicated, and because the impacts would not be felt for over a year, it accumulated little interest and became "just another of those things the NRA cries wold about to raise money." Oops.

TCB
 
And the real irony is, it is possible for one US person to lawfully deliver "technical data" to a foreign person (i.e. design plans for a weapons system), which is "an export", and not break the law, yet illegal for another US person to deliver identical "technical data" to a similar foreign person.
"Exporting" information is where this is going to get very sticky. Theoretically, anytime someone posts something on the internet they're "exporting" it. Section 3 of the memorandum outlines the possibility that helping a foreign person by providing information/assistance could require registration.
 
"just another of those things the NRA cries wold about to raise money."
I've not heard that before. Generally people say the NRA is tip toeing instead of kicking. I say the money doesn't go where many members think it does.
I can't really think of anyone saying the NRA is blowing issues out of proportion.
 
I can't really think of anyone saying the NRA is blowing issues out of proportion.
I think it's mostly folks confusing NAGR mailers :p, or you know, people who have nothing to do with the NRA whatsoever sounding off --the NRA does have a bad habit of proclaiming that anyone but their picks running for election spell certain doom...then subsequently being betrayed by frenemies like Reid or failing to reward tentative pro-gun steps by Democrats on the margins.

"Exporting" information is where this is going to get very sticky. Theoretically, anytime someone posts something on the internet they're "exporting" it. Section 3 of the memorandum outlines the possibility that helping a foreign person by providing information/assistance could require registration.
What's funny about this, is there's nothing sticky about it at all...unless you're the .gov attorney in charge of making sure the statute stands up in court. Sorry, but the feds can't retroactively assert authority over a simple, widely understood, globally-exported-for-decades, mature field of technology simply because they're afraid their own citizen will print or cnc a gun in their garage vs. hopping over to the local pawn broker & filling out a 4473. That's all this is about, by the way, is curtailing domestic activities; if it were about foreign exports, we wouldn't be 'losing' traincars full of M16s in Mexico, or sending AKs & M4s to "rebels" in Syria (along with Stinger missles)

Just like when encryption tech was brought to court, this will fall flat on its face and crumble before anything but a corrupt court, because ITAR's logic is at its core in contradiction with the constitution, but usually manifested in export/import/foreign relations where the executive has near-total free reign over policy. There is no technology in existence that by itself constitutes sufficient existential threat to the nation as to justify prior restraint on freedom of speech or association; not firearms, not nuclear bomb triggers. Export controls on tangible 'stuff' or methods/details regarding classified activities or keeping tech & data Uncle Sam paid for "in the family way" for industrial advantage reasons can all be justified, and are what ITAR was about protecting originally. It should be plain to any judge that ITAR was never about restraining domestic activities, and never about restraining common or simple technologies.

These people are painfully single-minded and transparent when you look at all their actions through the lens of the AR15. None of this was an issue until Cody Wilson started making noises about printable AR lowers & followed up with the "CNC" Ghost Gunner micro "mill" which could produce the same finished lowers for roughly the same amount of money as a manual mill ever could, but was smaller & took up less space & took longer & sounded stupider in operation :p

TCB
 
barnbwt,I appreciate what you have to say.Your train of thought makes sense.
I'm not disagreeing with you.

I have also read the initial memorandum,and the language of the regs.

They do seem to answer a lot of questions in an unfavorable manner.

What I read,(Maybe my comprehension is poor)

If my local gunstore smith threads and chambers a Douglas or Shilen or Lilja barrel for a Mauser or Rem 700,for a local customer who picks up the rifle,

These rules apply,per the rules,the LGS smith is required to register and pay,and he has to worry about his future.

Now,if this smith is 59 years old,has very limited financial resource,has been trying to survive the big box stores and Buds gun shop online,
He just might read this stuff and close the shop rather than pay $2250 a year or have to worry about enforcement.

That stinks.

I'm glad NSSF is fighting it.I hope it works out,but so far,the learned legal Mods have not said "Nothing to it,no problem,relax,they can't do that"
 
Back
Top