Trump administration eases export rules on firearms.

[boom boom]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...to-sell-overseas/ar-BBThwkW?OCID=ansmsnnews11

https://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/2018/282485.htm

The new rules will move administration of ITAAR regulations from the State Dept. to Commerce and also eliminate the hefty fee charged by the State Dept for export licenses. It appears that the process is to be simplified and less costly for small business compliance and designed to increase exports. Probably now become easier for foreign purchasers of U.S. sporting arms to get parts via exports.

 

[Tommygunn]

ANOTHER TRUMP VICTORY!!!!! Take THAT, Nevertrumpers!

 

[AlexanderA]

Changes in the import rules would be of more interest to rank and file gun owners. Which begs the question, why hasn't the importation of barrels with parts kits, for example, been allowed once again? This would be a simple administrative change.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Changes in the import rules would be of more interest to rank and file gun owners. Which begs the question, why hasn't the importation of barrels with parts kits, for example, been allowed once again? This would be a simple administrative change.

Also, why hasn't Obamas EO against the importation of surplus US military rifles like carbines been rescinded?

I haven't seen Trump do anything for gun owners yet. Most everything I've seen of any importance out of that adm has been negative. I don't expect any changes either.

I don't export any firearms or flame throwers.

 

[Speedo66]

Still waiting for the hearing protection laws to be passed.

 

[481]

I haven't seen Trump do anything for gun owners yet.

For starters, Trump has nominated two justices to the US Supreme Court who will doubtless be more to our benefit than anyone that Clinton (had she won in 2016) would have nominated.

 

[CoalTrain49]

For starters, Trump has nominated two justices to the US Supreme Court who will doubtless be more to our benefit than anyone that Clinton (had she won in 2016) would have nominated.

How do you know that? I haven't seen any decisions coming out of the SC regarding gun control. Have you?

The SC is there to uphold the constitution. They are not there to uphold what you believe to be to the benefit of gun owners. Some very conservative justices have kicked 2A to the curb. Scalia was one of them.

 

[481]

How do you know that? I haven't seen any decisions coming out of the SC regarding gun control. Have you?

The SC is there to uphold the constitution. They are not there to uphold what you believe to be to the benefit of gun owners. Some very conservative justices have kicked 2A to the curb. Scalia was one of them.

So you would prefer that those nominations would have been made by a President Hilary Clinton?

I, along with many others who value the 2A also value the US Constitution; it is part of the US Constitution after all. If ''the US Supreme Court is there to uphold the Constitution'' as you say it is, then they are benefiting gun owners and those that support and value the US Constitution. I'll take Gorsuch and Kavanaugh--and whomever Trump replaces RBG with in the event that she is no longer able to continue---over anyone that Clinton or any other Democratic office holder would nominate.

 

[Telekinesis]

I'm glad to see this finally making it through the process. I especially liked the piece below. This should really help gunsmiths and manufacturers (especially the small ones) - $2400/year in reduced regulatory cost for a license that I bet most of them never use for export.

We anticipate that a number of firearms manufacturers, including many small businesses, that are currently required to register with the Department of State, will be relieved from an annual fee burden under this proposed rule. The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security does not have registration requirements or export licensing fees.

Does anyone have a link to the proposed reclassification? Categories 1, 2, and 3 of the US Munitions List are easy enough to find, but contrary to what NBC believes, I don't think they're moving everything in Category 1-3 over to the Dept. of Commerce (in addition to title 1 weapons, category 1-3 also includes machine guns, suppressors, destructive devices, etc which from what I understand from earlier conversations were going to stay under the State Department/ITAR).

 

[boom boom]

One thing that is important to all firearms owners is a healthy firearms industry and easing their exports helps maintain these companies. The relaxing of standards regarding small business will also be welcome as the State Department's management of ITAR was ridiculous. I've seen a lot of folks lamenting that they could not get parts for U.S. made firearms due to U.S. companies refusing to export them due to ITAR issues.
Specifics are found here

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...es-the-president-determines-no-longer-warrant

Warning, it is pretty opaque and you need access to the original tables for reference.

But here is their summary in plain English,
Definitions:
United States Munitions List (22 CFR part 121) (USML)
Commerce Control List (CCL)

"Such items, along with certain military items that currently are on the CCL, would be identified in specific Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) known as the “600 series” ECCNs. In addition, some items currently on the CCL would move from existing ECCNs to the new “600 series” ECCNs. This proposed rule addresses USML Category I, II and III articles that would be removed from the USML and added to the CCL."

CCL items for export would no longer require ITAR licensing saving quite a bit of money for small exporters and does not have the stringent requirements of contracts, etc. that the USML listed materials do. Would probably also remove danger of general gunsmiths being forced to get ITAR licenses if they stuck to stuff on the CCL lists.

Category I

"However, non-automatic and semi-automatic firearms, their parts and components and the parts and components common to them and to fully automatic firearms would become subject to the EAR. Department of State officials have informed BIS that license applications for such parts and components are a high percentage of the license applications for USML articles reviewed by that department. Such parts and components are more likely to be produced by small businesses than are complete firearms." Thus, most of the AR parts will be moved to the EAR category instead of USML.

Category II Large Guns (howitzers, mortars, etc.)

"Guns and armament manufactured between 1890 and 1919 would be controlled on the CCL. Unless specified elsewhere on the CCL or the USML, “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” “attachments,” production equipment, “software” and “technology” for large guns would be controlled on the CCL."

Category III Ordnance
"Ammunition for firearms that have primarily civilian and sporting application and ammunition that is used in civilian, law enforcement and military small arms would move to the CCL. The proposed rule also applies to “parts,” “components,” production equipment, and “technology” related to that ammunition." instead of the USML

 

[CoalTrain49]

So you would prefer that those nominations would have been made by a President Hilary Clinton?

I, along with many others who value the 2A also value the US Constitution; it is part of the US Constitution after all. If ''the US Supreme Court is there to uphold the Constitution'' as you say it is, then they are benefiting gun owners and those that support and value the US Constitution. I'll take Gorsuch and Kavanaugh--and whomever Trump replaces RBG with in the event that she is no longer able to continue---over anyone that Clinton or any other Democratic office holder would nominate.

Not necessarily.

If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have not made any rulings regarding gun control, and I don't think either have, you're just speculating how they might rule. It's quite possible that either or both would rule that states have the right to regulate firearms just as Scalia did. Notice I didn't say deny a person the right to own a firearm, I said regulate. Personally, I don't think any earth shattering decisions regarding gun control are going to come out of the SC anytime soon that will reverse anything any lower court hasn't already decided.

What you are saying is akin to saying I would rather have Brady than Goff as my QB. Every game is different and you really don't have a clue how either one will throw the ball that day. But somehow you seem to know.

 

[LRDGCO]

Still waiting for the hearing protection laws to be passed.

You realize that has nothing to do with the President, right? And don't hold your breath. The only way HPA gets passed is in a deal where it gets passed in tandem with "Universal Background Checks" and even then, I can't see a majority of House Dems voting to give everyone "silencers"...

 

[tark]

Not necessarily.

If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have not made any rulings regarding gun control, and I don't think either have, you're just speculating how they might rule. It's quite possible that either or both would rule that states have the right to regulate firearms just as Scalia did. Notice I didn't say deny a person the right to own a firearm, I said regulate. Personally, I don't think any earth shattering decisions regarding gun control are going to come out of the SC anytime soon that will reverse anything any lower court hasn't already decided.

What you are saying is akin to saying I would rather have Brady than Goff as my QB. Every game is different and you really don't have a clue how either one will throw the ball that day. But somehow you seem to know.

When SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge on California's CCW ban last year, Thomas wrote a "dissent from the denial of review." Gorsuch joined Thomas. A good sign, at least.

Kavanaugh said during his hearings that he didn't see any difference between a pistol or an "assault rifle" insofar as the second amendment is concerned. Another good sign.

I think both men will rule correctly when the time comes.

 

[SharpDog]

here's a pro-gun link to the article. Sorry, I won't add to MSN click counts:

https://www.gunproplus.com/dc-indus...t-easier-for-u-s-gun-makers-to-sell-overseas/

 

[481]

Not necessarily.

If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have not made any rulings regarding gun control, and I don't think either have, you're just speculating how they might rule. It's quite possible that either or both would rule that states have the right to regulate firearms just as Scalia did. Notice I didn't say deny a person the right to own a firearm, I said regulate. Personally, I don't think any earth shattering decisions regarding gun control are going to come out of the SC anytime soon that will reverse anything any lower court hasn't already decided.

What you are saying is akin to saying I would rather have Brady than Goff as my QB. Every game is different and you really don't have a clue how either one will throw the ball that day. But somehow you seem to know.

Well, I reckon one can go around expecting nothing but the worst, but that isn't a very good way to live life.

Your continued cynicism/pessimism seems to suggest that you believe that we'd better off with Hilary making the nominations/appointments, but I think that her track record regarding the 2A says otherwise.

We are better off with Trump making the appointments/nominations.

 

[GEM]

Want to talk about the ruling and not Hillary vs Donald?
Hint?

 

[CoalTrain49]

Well, I reckon one can go around expecting nothing but the worst, but that isn't a very good way to live life.

Your continued cynicism/pessimism seems to suggest that you believe that we'd better off with Hilary making the nominations/appointments, but I think that her track record regarding the 2A says otherwise.

We are better off with Trump making the appointments/nominations.

Here is a good example of why you should never presume because a justice was appointed by a conservative president that they will necessarily come forth with what you might consider a conservative ruling. The SC just doesn't roll like that.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...he-liberal-justices-in-sessions-v-dimaya.html

 

[stillquietvoice]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't article 6 of the constitution state that any law that minimizes any articles in the bill of rights constitutes an illegal law and Congress has to quickly pass laws to invalidate such laws.

 

[481]

When SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge on California's CCW ban last year, Thomas wrote a "dissent from the denial of review." Gorsuch joined Thomas. A good sign, at least.

Kavanaugh said during his hearings that he didn't see any difference between a pistol or an "assault rifle" insofar as the second amendment is concerned. Another good sign.

I think both men will rule correctly when the time comes.

I do, too. Their prior behavior suggests that they will. Never been one to worry about this sort of stuff especially when the winds are favorable.

As Will Rogers once said, ''Worrying is like paying on a debt that may never come due.''

 

[AlexanderA]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't article 6 of the constitution state that any law that minimizes any articles in the bill of rights constitutes an illegal law and Congress has to quickly pass laws to invalidate such laws.

You are wrong. Article 6 does three things:

1. Validates pre-Constitution U.S. government debts and contracts.
2. Declares that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land, if there is a conflict with state laws.
3. Requires that federal and state officeholders have to swear an oath to support the Constitution.

 

[Kaybee]

Exports fine, guess someone is making more money. Cool. How about some imports?

 

[Tommygunn]

Here is a good example of why you should never presume because a justice was appointed by a conservative president that they will necessarily come forth with what you might consider a conservative ruling. The SC just doesn't roll like that.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...he-liberal-justices-in-sessions-v-dimaya.html

You make a good point; the phenomenon of supposedly "conservative" justices (ie., appointed by Republican presidents) voting with the liberal/Democrat side is old. I was dismayed when Justice Roberts twice sustained Obamacare. I recognized the tendency for supposedly conservative judges to do this thirty....forty years ago.

But it brings up a question. Should conservatives then appoint liberal justices on the basis that it is inevitable that any justice appointed will eventually go over to the "dark side??" Isn't that surrender in the first place? I doubt liberal justices wind up changing their spots and becoming conservative. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has always been quite liberal, IIRC.
Do we go on expecting Republican presidents to appoint conservative judges? What is the solution? Is there a solution? An alternative?

I don't know what else to do.

I can only hope President Trump's appointees stay true.
The only being one can really invest any faith in, really, I guess, is the Almighty.

 

[Zoogster]

Trump is helping American businesses, exports help American companies working in America, imports not so much. While imports may have better results for the average gun owner, and surplus would be nice, it actually runs counter to encouraging purchase of domestic firearms.
So while I would like it, it is obvious to me why this was the action prioritized.

 

[748]

Those MSN useful idiots appear to be exceptionally idiotic and useful.
They keep talking about flame throwers as some kind of controlled high technology.
They are considered air guns and are legal in about 48 states here.

Obama just assumed his state department lock down on arms sales would always be.
All he did was trap guns here and help saturate the market.
One of the reasons he is our best gun and ammo salesman of all time.

 

[jstert]

good news on itar. i would like to see trump pump up the cmp and open military bases and post offices to ccw permit, both only need executive orders.