Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire No more gunsmiths?

this bs is all part of the continuing globalization stuff that's been going on nearly forever.

back under the reigh of terror of johnson, there was talk of gun controls. here we are a few decades later, and the noose begins to tighten.

i'm surprised that more folks don't support it, given the growth of the mega-cities that are beginning to rule the world.

why would an urbanite need a gun for heaven's sakes? we country folks use them as a tool. some folks use them as a sporting instrument. but, city folks have the police to protect them all over the world, not just in the usa.

all the monarchs from day one wants the citenzry to be unarmed for a variety of reasons. for one, it's more easy to extract taxes. a second one is that it discourages inconvenient up-risings. most the of world has already succumbed to being slaves of the elitists. we americans appear to be close behind.

i lost my sovereign rights under johnson's reign. most folks applauded. let'em wake up and eat crow. it'll be good protein to strengthen themselves.

As I read it, in "(1)", an item only needs to fit one of those categories. That's why the use the word "or" at the end.

So every "weapon" is by definition a defense article.

let the World Court over in the Hague fight it out. a good opportunity for lawyers who sell their services for a fee.

what does "Sharia" Law say about gun ownership by the private, tax-paying individuals? anyone know for sure?

straight from the UN.

ITAR has legitimate use, and I can see what they're trying to do. This is all about sniper rifles and .50 BMG rifles, and keeping them out of the hands of the undesirables. But the way it's worded it wraps up basically any and all gunsmithing in with it, and they don't seem to care. I wonder if the NRA has any pull on this one, other wise it's another $2,200.00 tax, and a bunch of unnecessary paperwork for nothing. Messed up thing to do.

yeah, a Fusion is occurring. and it's happening at breath taking speed.

the un represents 7 billion people more or less. the us represents 300 million people more or less.

who can see the dilemma that we face? ok, so not everybody is blind.

So every lathe, mill, broach and screwdriver is now a defence article.

I'm a long way from untangling what ITAR really says, but from a quick skim, I gather that ITAR only regulates items in international trade. There is no constitutional right to engage in international trade, so the regulations can be pretty tight.

If that's correct, your local gunsmith does not need to register or pay the fee unless he/she is doing work that will be shipped to another country. So, undoubtedly, the major gun manufacturers will want to register so they can export. But someone threading a barrel for the local trade? I don't think so.

I'll keep researching and post anything useful that I find.

the string is getting threaded through the bag, loosely at first. then it'll begin to tighten at rapid speed, to capture the prey inside the sack.

the world no longer wants the local people to own guns. they don't think the locals are capable of being responsible in the greater world in which they find themselves.

[quote=GunGeek I wonder if the NRA has any pull on this one, other wise it's another $2,200.00 tax, and a bunch of unnecessary paperwork for nothing. Messed up thing to do. [/quote]

If the legislature doesn't vote on a tax can it legally be imposed on the people? Would it not fall into the realm of taxation without representation? Or are we so far down the road that they don't care and will do it anyway? In your face.
I would seem that Congress should be able to contest executive orders that fall outside of law. Anyone?

Just read your thread Denton. I guess we disregard this issue if not doing international business but the tax is still problematic to me without going through congress. I may be wrong headed on this.

It would mean few independent gunsmiths. The regulations would force services to consolidate to handle the increased costs and regulations that "manufacturers" have to abide by.

I would see larger gunsmithing companies opening up where you have to send in your firearm rather than walk it in to the friendly neighborhood gunsmith.

oh, we were represented alright. we elected obama, and he appointed the sec of state. and he agreed to sign on, representing us. can't we see how simple it all is when the loyal opposition wants to do away with private gun ownership. look at england, canada, austrailia, and they're our close kin. and france is distant kin.

as members of the un we abide by their decrees, or we don't?

Guess I'll just have to be the stick that gets poked in the eye of the world view. I don't care what the world thinks about my gun rights.

Exactly.

That's how I read it.



Dave

The gunsmithing community has gone down that road. It applies to ANY firearm that could somehow find it's way outside the US...which means ANY firearm. It's bullsheitt, but that's how it is.

Like the "Fast and Furious" Obama guns. Is this what he is trying to prevent?

I will keep on building my own rifles. puck them

i have thought for some time the local 'smiths have gotten a little pricey for the local commoners. of course, i could be wrong.

i don't want to see more regulation of the industry. it almost always has the effect of increasing consumer pricing.

I don't know too many full time gunsmiths that would be put out of business by a $2,250 fee. That's just a $1/hour increase or so in hourly work, and that's if they are a 1 man shop. You really going to stop using your favorite gunsmith if they tack on a $1 or $1.50 per hour increase?

What this seems to directly attack is non-gunsmiths since it specifically says that even ONE instance puts you in violation of the law. Finish one 80% lower, d&t one receiver, put on a different stock to increase accuracy, heck.. bedding may count since that's intended to increase accuracy.

And whether you export or not doesn't matter according to that article.

Seriously unenforceable... but seriously bad if the points in the article are true.