Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters No more IT&D

What stands out to me in this issue is the DDTC interpretation of "manufacturing" as it applies to gunsmiths, that is inconsistent with decades of alternative interpretation with existing laws. Of course, the DDTC is offering their "opinion" that ultimately may or may not withstand court challenge.

But this is not a prohibition, all this angst is over a 2 grand manufacturing tax here...another damn business expense.

Yeah that's a hefty nut, and yes, it's another governmental agency overreach, (based on what is to my mind a tenuous legal opinion that could be challenged, and should be)... but my GF's annual Starbucks bill is higher than that.

Until then the existing interpretation seems to me to mainly impact occasional FFLs or hobbyists. Any manufacturer or any shop large enough to have prominent visibility in the industry has likely been registered since day one.

For sole proprietors like IT&D it seems to me that this might add $10 to the cost of a typical job...that fee should cover the nut, and it's of lesser impact to the customer than the recent USPS shipping increases.

Loyal customers would likely pay 10x more than that to receive the timely service IT&D offers rather than the 3 year wait and having to play telephone tag with some of the other jokers.

After careful consideration, and with a little creative strategy, I think it's possible for smaller operators to conduct their affairs in a manner that would avoid triggering the registration guidelines as outlined, but if they are not so inclined, just pay the tax and move along and sleep well at night.

All this is easy for me to say, but listen, if this is a real hardship for IT&D, if all the many, many, MANY previous happy customers sent him a 10 spot to keep his services available to the community he'd probably be able to pay the tax for the next decade!

That would be a good use for crowdfunding.

Gunsmith Lives Matter!

Great post there Boog.

Up until this point I could live with your rational. I sincerely doubt that "any shop large enough to have prominent visibility in the industry ha likely been registered since day one." Manufacturer's (i.e Remington, Browning, Smith & Wesson, Springfield, et al) - yes; independents - no.

From DDTC's web site - "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. The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), in accordance with 22 U.S.C. 2778-2780 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR Parts 120-130), is charged with controlling the export and temporary import of defense articles and defense services covered by the United States Munitions List (USML)."

By their own admission they are charged with "controlling the export and temporary import of defense articles and defense services covered by the United States Munitions List (USML)."

If you read the DDTC statement of July 22, 2016, you see a myriad of contradiction. It was written by an idiot. First they state - "DDTC has found that many – but not all - traditional gunsmithing activities do not constitute manufacturing for ITAR purposes and, therefore, do not require registration with DDTC."

Then they go on to define or state processes that are the vary core of many gunsmith's operations, as manufacturing.

DDTC Letter, 22 Jul 2016

Digging a little deeper you'll find find that under the USML (Part 121) that there is NO mention of controlling any act of gunsmithing.

USML Part 121

IMHO, the State Department and DDTC have over-stepped their bounds. The State Dept and DDTC control EXPORTS, NOT the act of gunsmithing. If a firearm has been machined, or otherwise improved by a manufacturer or gunsmith to the point the DDTC believes that it should not be exported, then don't approve the export. Don't step on or crush the livelihood of gunsmiths, or the enjoyment of a hobbyist.

The whole subject of the DDTC's reach and opinion is a ploy by the current administration to assert gun control by another means. Take the time to read the above links. Re-read them. Compare the information contained in each, and think about it. I'm not a lawyer, or a para-legal, and play neither on TV. But there is enough contradictory information in the above links that I could write a Master's Dissertation from it, and good lawyer could make a strong case in a court.

Are you [bleep] serious?

So, your premise is that the occasional FFL or hobbyist can just go on the sly with creative strategy to avoid triggering guidelines? That's Democrat thinking right there.....

The "interpretation" is tantamount to turning a screw, so when asked by someone in the office here to mount a scope and bore sight it as a favor, I'm screwed - whether I accept a beer or not.

Hell, when someone gets a gun bequeathed to them and they ask me to strip it down and clean it for them, its pretty much accurizing it according to the interpretation and subject to the rule

You said it was a hefty nut, and a government overreach but then:

Just pay the tax and sleep well at night.

F.M.R.

That's how you lose it all, chief. Whatever it takes to sleep well at night...

That is not how you "lose it all", that is how you keep your business open when you are taxed without representation. Does it suck? 100% absolutely! Am I gonna pay an extra $10 to have ITD do the work? Yep. It's totally F'd, but I'm gonna pay it if it means Dave does my work. What else am I gonna do? Write my congressman? That'll help.

Maybe Dave doesn't want to headache?

It's more than just tax. It's additional paperwork, redtape, and inspection/intervention that goes along with the tax.

You scoff at "write your congressman" as it won't help.

'Helping' would have been electing a real congressman.

Or, just everyone pay the tax because it will get you what you want for right now..

We really don't know what it is at this point, which is why Dave is shut down and my rifles are headed back untouched by anyone other than UPS.

Real congressman? You're kidding right?

Hig,

Do you have an alternate or are you just going to wait and see how things shake out?




Travis

I want Dave to do the work. Gonna give him a few weeks and see what's up. Might buy a lathe if it don't pan out. I'll need JeffO's number from you though.

He has a website.

rifleandretard.com




Dave

Crap, no wonder. Been using rifleandretardO.com

That explains it.

Taking statements out of context is not an accurate way to represent a position, you have to read and understand the entire premise.

But I'll try to clear up a few points.

I agree with you in that I clearly stated several times that I think the DDTC opinion could be, and should be, challenged legally, and there are several points that I can see where that could be done. That would require the efforts of a firm that had the resources to do that.

Perhaps an entity like the NRA seems a logical choice...but then the NRA might have to consider moving this matter along instead of just using it to solicit donations from their members.

My point is that manufacturers are already in compliance, and I see no legal action was taken by them when the fees were $250...paying the registration fee was a lot cheaper for them than fighting the requirement.

Now they are $2250 and I still see no legal challenge forthcoming...

Next year they could be $22,250...then what...?

Since firearms manufacturers are essentially competitors, I don't see a unified effort forthcoming from their direction.

So while I agree with you about that, No, I am not suggesting that smaller gunsmiths attempt to run their business "on the sly".

My comment was that the DDTC letter represents their interpretation, and my statement is an encouragement for IT&D, and all gunsmiths, to stay in business until this matter can be more clearly defined.

I'm not going to delve into the legal issues any deeper than that right now, as I think they are too specific to discuss on an open forum at this point in time.

But I did suggest two different courses of action that would enable gunsmiths to stay in business. However they choose to do that, yes, they are entitled to sleep well at night if that is important to them.

But finally...



And that would be exactly what I did.

It seems to me that if someone really doesn't want other folks to look at an issue and offer their opinions on the matter they might want to consider not asking for those opinions in the first place.

Just a thought.

Excellent analysis.

I hope we don't see a bunch of gunsmiths giving up their licenses over this. I believe it will be corrected in the bye and bye. It is overreach, it is likely to be successfully challenged. There has supposedly been congressional action directing the president to fix this but he has been dragging his feet. There are a lot of ways around it in the meantime, including open defiance which is apparently the position the industry has been in for several years as this has been simmering along.

Is Dave back in business?

Call him.

Would changing the ffl to a 'manufacturer' license resolve the situation?

Not if the "situation" is he doesn't want to pay the fees.

A reasonable person would conclude that this would only apply to items destined for export and also that the State Department has absolutely no authority on domestic activities whatsoever. But our government ain't being run by reasonable people right now, but rather by hard-core Leftists that are pushing the boundaries on everything; chewing up the Constitution into spitballs and throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks. Our gutless Congress should be all over this stuff, but they'll leave it to the citizenry to fight it through the courts instead.

About three miles fom here, the State Department runs a training facility from which I can hear automatic weapons fire and flashbangs detonating off and on all day. At night, I can see helicopters hovering over the facility. Just who the fugg are they training over there? I thought the Marines handled embassy security.

What training facility is that?





Dave

The sign at the entrance says U.S. Department of State. Lots of black Suburbans coming and going through the little "town" of Summit Point. I ran into one of the employees nearby, a guy who had "the look", if you know what I mean, and he told me that it was run by the State Department, but nothing else. The property was previously a private training facility and sits right next to the Summit Point Raceway, an SCCA and motorcycle track.

Obviously, it's not a secret or it wouldn't be located in a town. I just wonder why they need their own training ground. Homeland Security has a big place in Harpers Ferry, so maybe they share the facility.

If you were being funny, you should have said, "What facility?"

I'm old and slow.