Gunsmiths now required to register with I.T.A.R.

[Marcia]

Was that DO Treasury or the DO Defense? May have it wrong in above thread.

 

[AustinN4]

Holy necro-post batman!

 

[Younggun]

Interesting topic though. Curious how it has effected any smiths.

 

[TX OMFS]

 

[Shady]

you KNEW what he meant

Its so simple.

 

[Charlie Primero]

"Of particular interest is the guidance that now offering barrel threading services will result in an FFL being required to register for ITAR.

This will certainly put a financial burden on the smaller gunsmiths who are threading barrels as registration for ITAR is $2,250 a year."

Wow.

 

[BRD@66]

you KNEW what he meant

Its so simple.

Lesson to be learned: Don't make any typografical errors on TGT.

 

[Kar98]

engaging in such a business requires only one occasion of manufacturing or exporting or temporarily importing a defense article or furnishing a defense service.

Whoops.

 

[TheDan]

Yeah, I'm glad this popped up again...

Spoke with a BATFE Industry Operations Inspector today. She was not directly familiar with it but when I read her some of the verbiage in it she stated she felt it was "excessive" and "unnecessary unless you are exporting".
I have already made 3 calls to Senators, one named Steve Daines out of Montana who has familiarity with I.T.A.R. And has addressed them with success in the past. I will be drafting a letter to him and the others (Gardner, Gowdy and Issa).
The NRA and NSSF is also aware of this directive.

It's the only chance we have.

Did you ever get clarification?

 

[DwnRange]

Was that DO’ Treasury or the DO Defense? May have it wrong in above thread.

Actually I believe you are referring to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) as they are the entity from which these arcane regulations emanated.

Curious how it has effected any smiths.

This depends on what sort of gunsmithing one does, as a general rule a “hobbist” gunsmith that works on his own firearms or mounts scopes and does menial work on friend’s firearms (that DO NOT REQUIRE DRILLING or MACHINING) may be exempt from these DDTC rules – provided he does not keep the “friends” firearm “over-night”. As doing so would – under these DDTC rules - require the “hobbyist” to FIRST obtain a standard Type 01 FFL license, placing the to be repaired firearm in his books and then transfer it back, via another 4473 form, to the buddy or friend he mounted the scope for, when he came to pick it up.

Then there are the parts of the “rules” that read:

b) Modifications to a firearm that change round capacity;

(Ya ever change the stock on Remington 700 to say a Magpul Hunter stock that has the capability of increasing the mag capacity from 4 rounds to 10?)

e) The machining or cutting of firearms, eg.., threading of muzzles or muzzle brake installation requiring machining, that results in enhanced capacity;

(Ya ever, thread a barrel to install a muzzle device on one of your own barrels? I have and thankfully it was long before any of these rules came along – but now is that rifle subject to some asinine interpretation of “enhanced capacity” by some yahoo at the BATF and if so how does one defend oneself against prosecution under the DDTC rules…., who knows)

I own a "few" Krieger custom barreled Remington 700s, which were built long before these rules came out - the man, a good friend and long range shooting mentor, that built them has quit altogether because of the current DDTC rules. Do I one day have to look forward to defending myself against some government entity I never even heard of, due to violations of rules regarding those rifles, (note: I am not a RAT so pointing the finger at a mentor ain't happening here, ever) – I know of at least one guy here that owns one of this man’s custom built Rem 700 rifles – is he looking at problems down the road too? These rules seem to intimate that because I don't own a FFL license, I can’t fix a 100+ year old Winchester 22 for a neighbor down the road or repair an older Beretta shot-gun from another neighbor’s son by ordering parts lost in the field from Numrich Gun parts and modifying them with files or dremel tool to fit properly (does that constitute machining?) Or even mount a scope because it would require the use of the drill press in the shed.

All the while telling, me, I now have a 01 FFL to practically even touch a firearm – sorry, but I’m too old and stubborn to put up with these horse-manure rules and I will continue to help those that come to me for repairs.

Just the other day my nephew loaned a rifle to a friend who after 6 beers in the stand, only made 2 steps down the ladder before falling on his 280 pound butt, breaking a really nice Nikko 7000 Golden Eagle 7mm mag stock which happened to be slung over his drunken shoulder at the time. Nobody, person or government entity is going to tell me I can’t repair my nephew's stock (one can only get an 90-96% complete stock for it anyway – as “Golden Eagle” rifles are rare as hen’s teeth).

Why mention this – because under the convoluted BS rules, regs and laws we have out there now – technically I need not only the Type 01 FFL but also a Type 07 FFL because under the DDTC crap reasoning - this firearm is not functional at this point in time and until I perform the repairs and replace the stock - I’m supposedly held to the same standards and requirements as the smith doing metal work – according to interpretation by the “F” troop boys.

One would think folks at gun forum such as this would be aware of these sort of situations and encroachments on our personal freedoms, but then perhaps actually having to read something and protecting rights ain't as important to some as poking fun and padding post counts....

 

[Kar98]

Actually I believe you are referring to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) as they are the entity from which these arcane regulations emanated.

This depends on what sort of gunsmithing one does, as a general rule a “hobbist” gunsmith that works on his own firearms or mounts scopes and does menial work on friend’s firearms (that DO NOT REQUIRE DRILLING or MACHINING) may be exempt from these DDTC rules – provided he does not keep the “friends” firearm “over-night”. As doing so would – under these DDTC rules - require the “hobbyist” to FIRST obtain a standard Type 01 FFL license, placing the to be repaired firearm in his books and then transfer it back, via another 4473 form, to the buddy or friend he mounted the scope for, when he came to pick it up.

So taking a co-worker's pistol home to clean and lube it is a no-no?

Then there are the parts of the “rules” that read:

b) Modifications to a firearm that change round capacity;

Ripping out the capacity limiter to turn a 10 round mag into a 15 round mag is a no-no?

Mailing somebody in Europe a firing pin they can't find over there is apparently also a no-no.

 

[TheDan]

I’m too old and stubborn to put up with these horse-manure rules and I will continue to help those that come to me for repairs.

I think that's most people's view on this as well. It's not really enforceable for the hobbyist gunsmith, but it is another thing they'll jam you up over if you get into other trouble. The people most affected is all the small retail locations that have onsite gunsmithing services.

 

[Charlie Primero]

small retail locations that have onsite gunsmithing services.

In my area three of these small shops have gone out of business in the last two years. One family-run shop had been in business since the 1960's.

I asked why they closed shop. All said: "It just wasn't worth the hassle anymore."

Slow death by a thousand regulatory cuts. This is how They intend to kill private gun ownership over the next 50 years. Your great-great-grandson will consider the idea of owning a firearm as insane as you now consider the idea of Heroin for sale over-the-counter at a pharmacy

My great-great-grandfather could buy Heroin and a needle rig over-the-counter at the pharmacy.

 

[Lunyfringe]

Bert (BPTactical) isn't real active on here... I'm curious if there is any update on this, so I'll ask him on the Colorado forum I know him from originally... he's much more active there.

 

[Lunyfringe]

He already came back with a disappointing answer:

I have not seen/heard any changes to the ITAR "Guidance" as yet.

 

[benenglish]

Some potential good news, though, like with all TGC videos, you have to sit through ads to get to the good stuff. Or you could just jump to ~3 minutes in.

 

[Charlie Primero]

Good video. Thank you Ben.

Imagine how screwed we would be if Hillary had won. <shudder>

 

[Shady]

Don't worry you will see how bad its going to get when Oprah takes 2020

Good video. Thank you Ben.

Imagine how screwed we would be if Hillary had won. <shudder>

 

[TheDan]

Some potential good news, though, like with all TGC videos, you have to sit through ads to get to the good stuff. Or you could just jump to ~3 minutes in.

Bureaucratic roll back... that's amazing! Of course the bad news is that they will be allowed to just change it again in the future.

 

[Younggun]

Don't worry you will see how bad its going to get when Oprah takes 2020

Oprah wouldn't have a chance and the Dems won't even put her in the primaries.