Thread muzzle pay ITAR

tobnpr said:
I believe I spoke incorrectly above, when saying that all gunsmiths would now need an 07... What is clear, is that DDTC registration, and ITAR compliance is required for all of us in the business- and I don't see why one couldn't still keep an 01, and register with DDTC as a "manufacturer". IOW, do all gunsmiths now need an 07?
Click to expand...
According to the article, it's actually more complicated and insidious than that. From page 2 of the letter, boldface in original, my emphasis underlined:
ITAR registration is required of persons who engage in the business of manufacturing defense articles. Persons who do not actually manufacture ITAR-controlled firearms (including by engaging in the activities described below, which DDTC has found in specific cases to constitute manufacturing) need not register with DDTC – even if they have an FFL from ATF. As indicated above, the requirements for obtaining FFLs under the GCA are separate and distinct from the requirement under the AECA and ITAR to register with DDTC.
Click to expand...
As I read this, the class of FFL one holds—or whether one has a FFL at all—is irrelevant. The definitions of "manufacturing" under the AECA and the GCA are "separate and distinct".

DDTC registration is required if one engages in "manufacturing" as defined by the Department of State. Period. Even if you're NOT a FFL.

IOW stop thinking about ATF regulations. In fact, try to forget everything you know about them. This is unrelated.
 
carguychris,

Yes, it is insidious, in how they are interpreting the word, manufacture, when they don't even have it defined within the law itself. Thus, they can stretch the word to mean what they want. That is what this administration has had the DDTC look into, to find any loopholes that they can use.

Even worse, is what looks to be their assault on free speech, when one reads the Federal Register, about how they are redefining the wording, especially on what they consider technological data which we write about here. We wont know what that entails until others look at that on here. I was told that it will be several days for that to be investigated for its meaning.
 
guncrank said:
No it does not apply to any personal gunsmithing , only regulated firearms trade
HiBC said:
I appreciate your optimism.
But I'm not sure I can count on it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Guncrank, I think that you need to take a nuanced look at the way the letter is phrased.

The law says this (22 USC § 122.1):
Any person who engages in the United States in the business of manufacturing or exporting or temporarily importing defense articles, or furnishing defense services, is required to register with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls under §122.2.
Click to expand...
The law clearly says that the AECA applies to persons "engage[d]... in the business". However, don't forget this little gimme in the letter...
...the requirements for obtaining FFLs under the GCA are separate and distinct from the requirement under the AECA and ITAR to register with DDTC.
Click to expand...
Clincher #1: the familiar ATF definition of "engaged in the business" per 18 USC § 921(a)(21) is irrelevant here.

Clincher #2: there is NO clear and concise definition of "engaged in the business" in the AECA [22 USC § 120].

The very broad definition of "manufacturing" potentially encompasses businesses that manufacture gun parts but don't necessarily work on entire firearms and hence aren't required to have a FFL, such as a guy who carves grip panels for pistols and sells them on eBay. These folks are NOT engaged in the "regulated firearms trade", but the letter implies that they ARE required to register with the DDTC.

Here's how I would answer the question:
LogicMan said:
So does this apply to doing gunsmithing in one's home?
Click to expand...
If one receives compensation for working on firearm parts and/or advertises one's services in return for compensation, potentially yes. However, if the work is strictly confined to personal firearms and/or free favors for your friends and family, then no.
 
Last edited:
Like I said the ruling from the DDTC does not apply to personal
This current ruling does only apply to regulated firearm industry.
It changes what was gunsmithing to manufacture with "because we said so"

I was not commenting to what other activities it may apply too.
 
Last edited:
My concern is twofold.First,for our culture,and the LGS smith,the cranky old guys who do everything from making BPCR silhouette rifles out of a rolling block to rebarreling a centerfire to putting choke tubes in a shotgun.
And to the younger folks who aspire to be gunsmiths.To Brownell's,Obermeyer,Clymer,and other folks who take good care of us,and their livelihoods.
The extra red tape and $2250 a year will cost us all in resources.

It will be a lot harder and more expensive to,for example,make a 6.5 Grendel on a CZ bolt rifle.People will close shop and we will lose that whole gun crank culture.

Me? From the start,I have enough projects of my own.When people ask if I'm a Gunsmith,I tell them "Hobby Amateur"
When they ask me to do something for them,I say"I do not have an FFL.I do not take on gunwork.I cannot legally accept or keep your firearm overnight.I work on my own stuff"

But 30 years in the machine trades and access to machines....They seem to be outlawing who I am.

This is like the British telling Ghandi he could not make salt.
 
This law is so unenforceable it's not even funny, albeit I do understand wanting to operate within the law I don't see how anyone could ever get caught or prosecuted, but then again common sense has left this government many moons ago!
 
This law is so unenforceable....
Click to expand...
All you need is a few high-visibility/well-publicized prosecutions of
someone financially unable to fight back.... and res ipsa loquitur
(to borrow a phrase).
 
Oh, it will be enforceable under Obama all right. The Dept. of State has access to the registrations at the BATFE. Once they finalize all this, I would not be surprised if they sent out agents of their own, or use the BATFE agents to police the gunsmiths. Most gunsmiths, who do not sell firearms, are not bothered with visits too much now, but those that have a gun store will most definitely be scrutinized, and I imagine the ones that don't, will start getting visits that they have never had before. Obama will demand that, along with his protege, who is running now.

I would not put it past them to look for any machine shop equipment, even a drill press or a simple hand drill.

I'm glad that I retired when I did.
 
2.Registration Required –Manufacturing:
In response to questions from persons engaged in the business of gunsmithing, DDTC has found in specific cases that ITAR registration is required because the following activities meet the ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “manufacturing” and, therefore, constitute “manufacturing” for ITAR purposes:
a)Use of any special tooling or equipment upgrading in order to improve the capability of assembled or repaired firearms;
b)Modifications to a firearm that change round capacity;
c)The production of firearm parts (including, but not limited to, barrels, stocks, cylinders, breech mechanisms, triggers, silencers, or suppressors);
d)The systemized production of ammunition, including the automated loading or reloading of ammunition;
e)The machining or cutting of firearms, e.g., threading of muzzles or muzzle brake installation requiring machining, that results in an enhanced capability;
f)Rechambering firearms through machining, cutting, or drilling;
Click to expand...

These requirements most certainly do NOT meet the "ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of 'manufacturing'”, they meet the definition of machining. Someone who performs machining on an existing firearm is no more a gun manufacturer than the mechanic who turns my brake rotors is an automobile manufacturer.

Moreover, the justification behind ITAR is: "The U.S. Government views the sale, export, and re-transfer of defense articles and defense services as an integral part of safeguarding U.S. national security and furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives." How in the heck does drilling a receiver for a scope base threaten U.S. national security? Is it a secret?

Welcome to common sense gun laws.
 
If I personally thread all my barrels and increase the value of my collection by maybe $1000 dollars or so, is that a profit putting me "in the business," and am I now in violation of ITAR?

In conjunction with the recent MA changes this seems like a full court press to me. The may well be looking at their last desperate minutes for quite some time, so it does make sense on one hand, but this is going to tick off a lot of people by November.
 
It boils down to politicized unelected bureaucrat agencies given the power to write regulation with the force of law,including "fees",prosecution,and other forms of coercion.
Its an end run around the Constitution and the Legislative process,separation of powers,etc.

Another good example is attacking ammunition via the EPA and lead.

Fat chance we will reverse that any time soon.
 
Last edited:
^^
Which is also why this Administration has been fighting- for many years now- to have "gun violence" studied (with a known, end conclusion) and declared a threat to the public health- thereby giving them "grounds" to intervene and ban firearms- the Second Amendment be damned.
 
I know this is old but I’ve got to ask, is this stuff still out there? I can handle the FFL 06 tax but a few grand for export taxes for ammo I won’t be exporting is ridiculous.
 
I just stumbled onto this thread, only because it has been resurrected, but let me tell a story concerning a "compliance check" I received a few years back.

I was building 1911 pistols using Caspian Arms grip frames and slides, so the grip frames, serial numbered, were entered into my bound book. So, the records need to comply with what was actually in my inventory. I was told by the agent doing the compliance check that I was manufacturing and needed to apply for that type license.
The only fly in the soup was that if a customer were to buy a serial numbered grip frame, and THEN, bring me that grip frame, I could then fit and assembly all of the requisite parts involved and that would be OK. Talk about being confused! Now, I'm not sure that this agent had all the information he passed along to me, correct, but I do things much differently these days. I will only do modifications on serial numbered 1911's that come to me as previously manufactured.
I gotta wonder if those who build-up AR's could also get trapped by the lack of more positive descriptions on what constitutes "manufacturing" and what involves replacing worn parts? Maybe we need another "Executive Order"?
 
I too,am interested in the current status of this reg.
As near as I can tell,I may be OK because I am an amateur hobbyist who works on my own guns.I do not have an ffl and I don't take in work.

But what if,for no charge,I cut a sight dovetail for a brother? Its the ambiguity that is unsettling.I choose to be law abiding.I'm not trying to get away with anything.My problem is "law abiding" is a moving target very poorly defined.
It would make as much sense (none!) to include edged weapons.Knives get used for the horrible decapitations.And if you modify or improve an edged weapon by cutting steel (sharpen) a knife,you may be guilty.Ridiculous....but folks have been put in Federal prison for complying with all the laws in Montana and building a duck pond because the feds changed water rules.
If yourseptic system goes bad and your yard gets wet,you now have a federally controlled wetland in your back yard (OK,I'm being snarky,but its not far from true)

I'm not a lawyer,and I certainly don't know the answers.

With all due respect to the gunsmiths who have responded,what we understood to be the Federal Firearms rules a couple of years ago is not the topic.I understand you must know the rules to be in business,but the topic is ridiculous rules that are new.
We all have an interest in what the lawyers and bureaucrats resolve.

My understanding is by the stroke of a pen,not Congress,a different agency has gained power and authority to persecute anyone who does the "smithing" part of gunsmithing by classifying us as part of international arms trade.

I understand Obama is not in the White House anymore,"maybe" we are OK.

But that "maybe" is not something to make business plans on,and I don't need the stress of wondering if I'm in the shadow of potential felony prosecution.

IMO,current status of this topic is important ,for the peace or for the battle to reverse it.
 
Last edited:
I emailed them. A few days later they replied with a message saying they’ll give me an answer later, typically within one business day. It’s been a few weeks now. I hate this whole thing, I have a great business idea but no way I’m paying their fee just because they say so. I’m not going to prison either so I’ll forget that idea. I did find some of their “rules” and it appears, I’m not a lawyer or in an interpreter of a made up law, that a manufacture of ammo that does not use automated equipment does not have to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top