Another Anti-Small Business Law From The Obama Administration

[metis]

Mazel tov!

Oh, that's hilarious!!!

 

[tytlyf]

Why don't you try reading before questioning? Give you a short example from the link

Why do you think it's anti small business? What problem are they correcting?

 

[esmith]

Mazel tov!

speal check and not playing attention vile get you in trouble

 

[esmith]

Why do you think it's anti small business? What problem are they correcting?

answer to question #1 $2500 a year fee
answer to question #2 you got me on that one....I didn't think there was problem but it appears that foggy bottom thinks there is. Maybe it's because some little power hungry bureaucrats had a hair up their *** that day

 

[Karl R]

But the source is questionable.

That was my first thought. Here's the actual source.

The definition of "manufacturing" is clearly spelled out on page 3.

 

[esmith]

That was my first thought. Here's the actual source.

The definition of "manufacturing" is clearly spelled out on page 3.

So, what is your personal opinion of the State Departments action.
Oh by the way the source I provided says the same thing. The problem with some people on this forum is they will not believe the data if it is not from a source they approve or could bring discredit on their opinionated beliefs.

 

[leibowde84]

Obama had nothing to do with it. OP made it up

I was merely pointing out that the Department of State is directed by the executive branch.

 

[leibowde84]

So, really, it is just a matter of prohibiting gunsmiths from manufacturing guns, and then there would be no issue at all, right? Since you feel that they are mot a manufacturer of guns. On the other hand, aren't all gun manufacturers also gunsmiths?

I think that the redefining of the term manufacturer to include gunsmiths is reasonable. Never said otherwise.

 

[leibowde84]

While we're talking about costs and impacts to small businesses: how does that cost compare to the bulletproof glass shields that I see all over the US to protect the staff of convenience stores?

Fair point. I think the change is reasonable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems that the Obama administration is so anti-firearms that they have enacted another draconian anti-business law(?).
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/08/oba...ail&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-bfae738ddf-21046165

We now see the direction that the Democrats want to take.

Based on your link and the other information I found, here's the impression I get of what's going on here:

- the term "manufacturing" in a piece of legislation affecting gun manufacturers was vague.
- the agency in charge of enforcing this legislation clarified how it interprets the term "manufacturing".
- the interpretation was somewhere around the middle of the road: not ridiculously broad and not ridiculously narrow.
- gun afficionados and affected companies would have preferred something closer to a ridiculously narrow interpretation and are now upset.

Would you say that's a fair summary?

Edit: in the past, you've said that you don't support new gun laws, but you do support enforcing the ones already on the books. When did you change your mind on this point?

 

[esmith]

Based on your link and the other information I found, here's the impression I get of what's going on here:

- the term "manufacturing" in a piece of legislation affecting gun manufacturers was vague.
- the agency in charge of enforcing this legislation clarified how it interprets the term "manufacturing".
- the interpretation was somewhere around the middle of the road: not ridiculously broad and not ridiculously narrow.
- gun afficionados and affected companies would have preferred something closer to a ridiculously narrow interpretation and are now upset.

Would you say that's a fair summary?

Edit: in the past, you've said that you don't support new gun laws, but you do support enforcing the ones already on the books. When did you change your mind on this point?

item 1 agree
item 2 vague clarification
item 3 interpretation was vague. Just in talking to my local gunsmith and he said it is confusing.
item 4 see item 3 above.
I have always said that I support enforcing the existing laws but do not totally agree with all of them

 

[Karl R]

So, what is your personal opinion of the State Departments action.
Oh by the way the source I provided says the same thing.

I found both your statements, and the statements in the source you provided, to be gross mischaracterizations of the actual document.

You claimed that it was a "draconian anti-business law," apparently based on the $2,250 per year fee, when many jurisdictions charge more than that for permits to operate a food truck. (And given that both are dealing with products that can kill / harm people, I feel that's a reasonably fair comparison.)

Your source claimed that "A serious problem for gunsmiths under these guidelines is the practical impossibility of determining what activities are 'manufacturing' and which are not." As I previously pointed out, my source clearly outlines which activities are manufacturing, and which are not.

Explicit examples of mischaracterization:
Your source tried to create confusion by stating, "Nor is there any need to export or even intend to export anything to be subject to the export registration requirements." This is not new. The ITAR regulates anyone who manufactures -or- exports items on the USML. Your source is trying make it sound like this new document extended the requirement to manufacturers who don't export. Manufacturer who don't export were already required to register.

Your source tried to create confusion by mischaracterizing an activity that does not require registration: "Occasional assembly of firearm parts and kits that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining," and then asking, "Will one more hole being drilled this year be more than 'occasional'?" It's quite clear that the first hole drilled causes the assembly to require drilling, and therefore, ITAR registration would be required.

Your source tried to create further confusion with the statement, "Also, manual loading or reloading of ammunition of .50 caliber or smaller is not manufacturing, but the 'systemized production of ammunition, including the automated loading or reloading of ammunition' is manufacturing." To me, it seems fairly obvious that someone hand-loading their brass isn't going to be exporting ammunition ... at least not in any significant quantities ... even if they are technically "manufacturing" ammunition.


If you bother to read the USML, it is quite clear that gunsmiths are (by their nature) working on items falling under the purview of ITAR. Furthermore, every prohibited activity could be used to change an item from one category/subcategory to another (for example, modifying barrel length to change a shotgun to a combat shotgun, or threading a barrel so a weapon which is normally incapable of mounting a standard silencer becomes capable of having one screwed on by an end-user). If a gunsmith is capable of converting a semi-automatic AR-15 into a fully-automatic bullpup assault carbine, the U.S. government might take an interest in whether that customer is subsequently exporting the AR-15 without authorization. (They would probably also be interested in one that had a grenade launcher mount installed under the barrel, but I don't feel like listing out all of the possible modifications that might raise red flags under ITAR.)

Coincidentally, the same modifications could generally alter a firearm (or allow an end-user to easily modify a firearm) to where it would fall under NFA regulation.


It's possible that there should be discounted ITAR registration for gunsmiths, or at least ones who do a lower volume of business, but that's the only valid point that I saw raised here. The rest of it was inflammatory rhetoric and gross mischaracterizations. (Maybe I'm just jaded, but I expect inflammatory rhetoric and mischaracterizations to be more subtle. These just insulted my intelligence.)

 

[columbus]

Reflecting on that strange document the US Constitution, could not the Supreme Court interpret the Second Amendment as merely guaranteeing the continuance of the colonial militias?

If you want to get all old school "what did the Founding Fathers mean?" about it you could argue that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear flintlocks and that's it.
Tom

 

[esmith]

I found both your statements, and the statements in the source you provided, to be gross mischaracterizations of the actual document.

You claimed that it was a "draconian anti-business law," apparently based on the $2,250 per year fee, when many jurisdictions charge more than that for permits to operate a food truck. (And given that both are dealing with products that can kill / harm people, I feel that's a reasonably fair comparison.)

Your source claimed that "A serious problem for gunsmiths under these guidelines is the practical impossibility of determining what activities are 'manufacturing' and which are not." As I previously pointed out, my source clearly outlines which activities are manufacturing, and which are not.

Explicit examples of mischaracterization:
Your source tried to create confusion by stating, "Nor is there any need to export or even intend to export anything to be subject to the export registration requirements." This is not new. The ITAR regulates anyone who manufactures -or- exports items on the USML. Your source is trying make it sound like this new document extended the requirement to manufacturers who don't export. Manufacturer who don't export were already required to register.

Your source tried to create confusion by mischaracterizing an activity that does not require registration: "Occasional assembly of firearm parts and kits that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining," and then asking, "Will one more hole being drilled this year be more than 'occasional'?" It's quite clear that the first hole drilled causes the assembly to require drilling, and therefore, ITAR registration would be required.

Your source tried to create further confusion with the statement, "Also, manual loading or reloading of ammunition of .50 caliber or smaller is not manufacturing, but the 'systemized production of ammunition, including the automated loading or reloading of ammunition' is manufacturing." To me, it seems fairly obvious that someone hand-loading their brass isn't going to be exporting ammunition ... at least not in any significant quantities ... even if they are technically "manufacturing" ammunition.


If you bother to read the USML, it is quite clear that gunsmiths are (by their nature) working on items falling under the purview of ITAR. Furthermore, every prohibited activity could be used to change an item from one category/subcategory to another (for example, modifying barrel length to change a shotgun to a combat shotgun, or threading a barrel so a weapon which is normally incapable of mounting a standard silencer becomes capable of having one screwed on by an end-user). If a gunsmith is capable of converting a semi-automatic AR-15 into a fully-automatic bullpup assault carbine, the U.S. government might take an interest in whether that customer is subsequently exporting the AR-15 without authorization. (They would probably also be interested in one that had a grenade launcher mount installed under the barrel, but I don't feel like listing out all of the possible modifications that might raise red flags under ITAR.)

Coincidentally, the same modifications could generally alter a firearm (or allow an end-user to easily modify a firearm) to where it would fall under NFA regulation.


It's possible that there should be discounted ITAR registration for gunsmiths, or at least ones who do a lower volume of business, but that's the only valid point that I saw raised here. The rest of it was inflammatory rhetoric and gross mischaracterizations. (Maybe I'm just jaded, but I expect inflammatory rhetoric and mischaracterizations to be more subtle. These just insulted my intelligence.)

Maybe that is the way you see it, I don't and neither does the gunsmith that I was just talking with a couple of hours ago. What business does the State Department mandating regulations that are not within the scope of their jurisdictions. Now I could see they have a say IF and only IF the firearm is to be exported. The GCA covers the issue. Why is the State Dept getting involved when they don't need to.

 

[tytlyf]

answer to question #1 $2500 a year fee
answer to question #2 you got me on that one....I didn't think there was problem but it appears that foggy bottom thinks there is. Maybe it's because some little power hungry bureaucrats had a hair up their *** that day

Well, you're telling me you don't know what this fee is about? What problem are they trying to eradicate? Certain manufacturers abusing the system ruining it for everyone else? That's how regulations get put into law.

 

[esmith]

Well, you're telling me you don't know what this fee is about? What problem are they trying to eradicate? Certain manufacturers abusing the system ruining it for everyone else? That's how regulations get put into law.

by any chance did you read the article? maybe if you did you could answer your own questions

 

[metis]

Maybe that is the way you see it, I don't and neither does the gunsmith that I was just talking with a couple of hours ago. What business does the State Department mandating regulations that are not within the scope of their jurisdictions. Now I could see they have a say IF and only IF the firearm is to be exported. The GCA covers the issue. Why is the State Dept getting involved when they don't need to.

Here's the "Supremacy Clause": Article VI Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.".

There's also a listing of several of the SCOTUS decisions with explnations that help to spell out the general paradigm of how it has been applied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

 

[esmith]

Here's the "Supremacy Clause": Article VI Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.".

There's also a listing of several of the SCOTUS decisions with explnations that help to spell out the general paradigm of how it has been applied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

What are you talking about?
Does the State Department trump US Code? The manufacturing of firearms is already covered in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (see post #25)

 

[metis]

What are you talking about?
Does the State Department trump US Code? The manufacturing of firearms is already covered in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (see post #25)

I'm not talking about the "manufacturing of firearms", esmith. My point covers the fact that if federal law conflicts with state law, the federal law dominates, with the exception that any such cases can be taken through the court system for justification.

Again, as I mentioned before, you simply really do not even get close to having a basic understanding of constitutional law, which also explains why you're a Trump supporter, as he doesn't either.

 

[esmith]

I'm not talking about the "manufacturing of firearms", esmith. My point covers the fact that if federal law conflicts with state law, the federal law dominates, with the exception that any such cases can be taken through the court system for justification.

Again, as I mentioned before, you simply really do not even get close to having a basic understanding of constitutional law, which also explains why you're a Trump supporter, as he doesn't either.

Guess you didn't read it did you. As it is plain to see
First you (trying to stay within the guidelines of this forum) are totally mistaken about the issue. This is not about federal law vs state law as you seem to willy-nilly think.
The State Dept is saying that gunsmiths are manufactures of firearms if they alter a firearm beyond just "drop in parts"
The Gun Control Act already states what "manufacturing" is and how it applies to gunsmiths. Just to remind you the GCA is a FEDERAL LAW
Please in your esteemed knowledge please explain why the State Dept has any say over any firearm matter "as long as it does not pertain to export"
From: https://blog.princelaw.com/2016/07/25/ddtc-issues-guidance-on-itar-registration/
On Friday July 22, 2016, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) released a letter issuing guidance on the requirement of firearm manufacturers and gunsmiths to register with DDTC under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”).

So what ***** business does the Dept of State issuing regulations to gunsmiths that DO NOT ENGAGE IN EXPORT.
The ITAR control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML)