Warning on shipping optics to Canada!!!!!

Only a few scopes used to fall under the ITAR rules.

It sounds like either the scopes have become more 'military suitable' or the interpretation of 'military suitable' has widened out.

It has always been a funny thing, since many non-military scopes have been better (and more expensive) than anything the military actually had for a long time.
 
The big issue are not the ITAR regulations but the vagueness of the rules describing them. We work with carbon fiber composites. Most composites do not contain any of the very few materials (very high temperature resistant resins and the top end fibers) that are restricted, but there's really no way of knowing exactly what's in it. It's all black once you have a part. So every time you ship something out of the country you have to sign your life away by certifying it's not restricted, trusting that your supplier told you what they put in it correctly and completely.
Of course, the vagueness of the rules is to discourage people from seeking loop-holes, like shipping tricon scopes painted pink as non-military ;)
 
The concept of being unable to ship scopes made in China, the Phillipines, Japan and Germany to Canada because they might constitute vital US military technology, is amusing.
 
The concept of being unable to ship scopes made in China, the Phillipines, Japan and Germany to Canada because they might constitute vital US military technology, is amusing
Click to expand...
.

The concept that simple availability could be a weapon, as opposed to exploiting technology might be important is even more amusing.
 
Here's what I find funny. These scopes, by and large, aren't even MADE in the U.S. They're mostly made in Japan or made from Japanese components. They're widely available in consumer markets worldwide. And, yes, they CAN be used for military applications - but so can boots, and socks, and just about any vehicle around, and on and on. There is no particular technology in these scopes which will, if it falls in the hands of our enemies, render a particular advantage we have over them worthless.

The over-application of export controls and restrictions like this is unfortunate and unnecessary. It does nothing but inconvenience law-abiding citizens, line the pockets of import/export firms, and sour the opinion we as citizens have of our government.
 
Here's what I find funny. These scopes, by and large, aren't even MADE in the U.S. They're mostly made in Japan or made from Japanese components. They're widely available in consumer markets worldwide. And, yes, they CAN be used for military applications - but so can boots, and socks, and just about any vehicle around, and on and on.
Click to expand...

Read the ITAR, I have. It specifically addresses scopes made to military standards. When you are talking about something made by Leupold who has a separate military and LEO catalog and makes their scopes in Oregon it is something different than a piece of garbage coming out of China for which such controls do not exist. We are involved in the production of precision Swiss turned parts out of Switzerland. I will not touch a print now for scopes for the likes of Leupold now because of their construction standards making even the print for a simple screw fall under the ITAR restrictions.

Does the OP's situation suck? Yes. Remember though, we are talking about shipping product to ANOTHER COUNTRY. It's not like shipping PA to FL. You want to mess around with shipments to other countries you need to involve yourself with their laws, our laws and every possible restriction which any particular regulatory agency may apply.

As far as the story about the marine who couldn't get the ACOG... You could also have a dishonest serviceman (they do exist) looking to get controlled product sent to him which he could sell at a hefty product. That mil std equipment sent by dad back home is not being tracked by the military and if he sells it off for cash it can be turned right around and used on fellow service men. Certain to happen, no. Possible, and reasonably so, yes.
 
You better read the commerce regs

They say nothing about "military standards".

See: http://www.gpo.gov/bis/ear/ear_data.html

QUOTE:

0A987 Optical sighting devices for firearms
(including shotguns controlled by 0A984); and
parts (See list of items controlled).
License Requirements
Reason for Control: FC, CC, UN
Control(s) Country Chart
FC applies to optical sights FC Column 1
for firearms, including
shotguns described in
ECCN 0A984, and related
parts
CC applies to entire entry CC Column 1

UN applies to entire entry Iraq, North
Kore a , a n d
Rwanda
License Exceptions
LVS: N/A
GBS: N/A
CIV: N/A
List of Items Controlled
Unit: $ value
Related Controls: N/A
Related Definitions: N/A
Items:
a. Telescopic sights.
b. Holographic sights.
c. Reflex or “red dot” sights.
d. Reticle sights.
e. Other sighting devices that contain optical
elements.
f. Laser pointing devices designed for use on
firearms.
g. Lenses, other optical elements and adjustment
mechanisms for articles in paragraphs a, b, c, d or
e.
 
Hate to BURST your bubble but what I cited was the

REGULATIONS quoted by US Customs in their seizure letter. So your interpretation is of no meaning.:D

Do YOU have a copy of the seizure letter? I thought NOT!:(
 
Chill. So customs only smacked you down on ONE regulation with regards to EAR. You could have also been PROSECUTED under ITAR. That is not likely for a casual seller but there is nothing saying they cannot.

You do not get to pick and choose the regulations you must comply with when shipping out of the country. You also can't say one supersedes the other. You need to comply with ALL of them. If 10 say yes and 1 says no the answer is no.
 
"REGULATIONS quoted by US Customs in their seizure letter. So your interpretation is of no meaning."

ITAR has the force of law, and just because they cited one thing in a seizure letter does not make any difference in further legal prosecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top