doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com All Gunsmith's and Members of ACGG are now Felons

We can always count on the transgender coward nca225 to exhibit his/her extremely low intelligence in defense of anti-gun politicians like the Clinton's. Note that he/she compares a relative flattening out of the decline of FFL's after Bush 43 took office to the precipitous drop between 1993 and 2001. nca225 calls that stark difference a continued trend. That's about as honest and intelligent as calling night a continuation of daytime. Let's see... who was President between Jan. 1993 and Jan. 2001? Why, what a shock... it was Liberal Left Democrat anti-gunner Bill Clinton... the type of politician that nca225 supports. Yet, like King Brown, he/she seriously thinks that you can support extreme anti-gunners and still consider yourself pro-gun. This is just more proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

It is no real surprise to see a very slight increase in FFL's after Obama took office since his extreme anti-gun stance led to huge increases in firearms and ammunition sales.

Over 100 million guns have been sold since Obama took office. Firearms production has increased 140%. The number of Concealed Carry Permits has increased by 270% for women and 156% for men since 2007. The reason is not because Barack Obama and Liberal Democrats are supportive of Gun Rights.

Hmm, it seems to bother you that I pointed out, that with respect to the issuance of FFL's, the eight years of Bush 43 look a lot like extreme anti gunner Bill Clinton's last four years. I wonder why Bush 43, a pro gun republican continued the trend under Bill Clinton? It also seems to bother you, that as per your graph, the Obama administration turned that trend around.

Intentionally refusing to acknowledge an obvious truth is an act of dishonesty.

I know these are facts that you do not like and can't refute, so what is there to do in that situation? Oh that's right, personally attack the messenger! A small response from a small minded person.

here is the list,and its pretty wide number that would be qualified-hence the concern what the Executive order to change (its NOT "guidance") on whats constitutes manufacturing under ITAR (if you add a round extension to a 870 for instance);

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=86008bdffd1fb2e79cc5df41a180750a&node=22:1.0.1.13.58&rgn=div5

Category I�Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns

*(a) Nonautomatic and semi-automatic firearms to caliber .50 inclusive (12.7 mm).

*(b) Fully automatic firearms to .50 caliber inclusive (12.7 mm).

*(c) Firearms or other weapons (e.g. insurgency-counterinsurgency, close assault weapons systems) having a special military application regardless of caliber.

*(d) Combat shotguns. This includes any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches.

*(e) Silencers, mufflers, sound and flash suppressors for the articles in (a) through (d) of this category and their specifically designed, modified or adapted components and parts.

(f) Riflescopes manufactured to military specifications (See category XII(c) for controls on night sighting devices.)

*(g) Barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete breech mechanisms for the articles in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this category.

(h) Components, parts, accessories and attachments for the articles in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this category.

(i) Technical data (as defined in �120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (as defined in �120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles described in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this category. Technical data directly related to the manufacture or production of any defense articles described elsewhere in this category that are designated as Significant Military Equipment (SME) shall itself be designated SME.


Here is the NSSF-also aware of the issue:

August 6, 2016 By nssfnews

On July 22 the U.S. Department of State � Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) issued �guidance� meant to clarify who is required under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to register as a �manufacturer� of �defense articles,� which includes firearms and ammunition products (U.S. Munitions List Categories I � III), and pay an exorbitant annual $2,250 registration fee. Under the law, registration is required even if the manufacturer does not export and even if the manufacturer makes component parts.

DDTC asserts that the guidance merely restates existing DDTC policy and interpretation of the AECA and ITAR manufacturer registration requirement.

Unfortunately, DDTC�s �guidance� has created considerable and understandable confusion and concern among gunsmiths and gun owners. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is reviewing the guidance and will send a letter of protest to DDTC expressing our strong opposition to the new �guidance,� the scope of which clearly exceeds their statutory authority. The term �manufacture� as used in the AECA and ITAR is its ordinary dictionary definition. Clearly, many of the activities DDTC claims require registration constitutes gun smithing and is not manufacturing under any reasonable dictionary definition of the term. DDTC�s position is similar to claiming an auto mechanic who fixes your car is a car manufacturer.

NSSF has been working diligently for many years to eliminate, or at least significantly lower, the excessive and burdensome registration fee especially for non-exporting manufacturers and non-essential component parts manufacturers. Simply put, forcing small manufacturer to pay $2,250 annually to register when they are not utilizing the DDTC export licensing system to export products is an unfair and onerous regulatory burden. This is even more outrageous when one considers that DDTC is sitting on at least $140 million dollars of previously paid registration fees collected over many years from exporters from many industries including ours.

Additionally, we have been working with allies in Congress to pressure the Obama administration to complete the Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative, which would with limited exceptions do away with the AECA and ITAR manufacturer registration requirement and onerous fee for commercial and sporting firearms.

To date, the Obama Administration has refused to publish and implement the regulatory changes necessary to transfer for export licensing of commercial and sporting firearms and ammunition products to the Department of Commerce from the Department of State. Read more on Export Control Reform. Yet, the proposed rules have been drafted and ready for publication since December 2012. Inaction persists despite congressional testimony and letters to members of the U.S. House and the Senate that they would publish the rules.

Why has the Obama administration refused to move ECR forward for our industry? It is really very simple. The Obama Administration is singling out our industry for different treatment under the ECR because of its gun control politics. It is time to force Congress to step in and stop the Obama Administration�s gun control agenda from stopping this needed reform. See the ECR dashboard
.

How can members of the firearms industry and gun owners help?

Call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121 and U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 urge him or her to support Rep. Collin Peterson�s (D-Minn.) Resolution, (H. Res. 829)

that demands the Obama administration complete the ECR and publish the proposed rules to transfer the licensing of commercial and sporting firearms and ammunition products to the Department of Commerce (which does not require registration or payment of a fee).

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to force DDTC to stop imposing excessive and onerous registration fees on small businesses that do not export products. Tell them to support language in the Fiscal Year 2017 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that will reduce the registration fee to a nominal amount for all non-exporting manufacturers and component part manufacturers.

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators stop the Department of State from exceeding its statutory authority; that mounting new sights to improve accuracy on your hunting rifle doesn�t require you to register with the Department of State and pay a fee of $2,250.

Sporting shotguns are classified as 1a. These are the kinds of guns we are interested in.
Itar is reference exports

Don't worry

John Boyd

Rifes and handguns have always fell under the Dept of State
Shotguns Dept of Commerce

John Boyd

I am not worried.

I think may of you are worried about nothing

Once again John your wrong about export;

"A manufacturer who does not engage in exporting must nevertheless register."

From the ATF:
The AECA�sstatutory requirement for firearms manufacturers to register with DDTC is implemented in Part 122 of the ITAR:

�122.1
Registration requirements.
Any person who
engages in the United States in the business of manufacturing or exporting or temporarily importing defense articles, or furnishing defense services, is
required to register with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls under �122.2.
For
the purpose of this subchapter, engaging in such a business requires only one occasion of
manufacturing or exporting or temporarily importing a defense article or furnishing a
defense service. A manufacturer who does not engage in exporting must nevertheless
register.

As to "sporting shotguns" only, you may be/or may not as the NSFF,NRA-ILA and others have pointed out out of woods,but not worried about this overreach just because you think "you" are ok and not worried certainly is a selfish way to look at it.

here is another good read from law group that works with ALL the dealers/FFL's-not just the "Fudd" ones

https://blog.princelaw.com/2016/07/25/ddtc-issues-guidance-on-itar-registration/

Thanks for that information Dave K. I wonder if those who think this thread is much ado about nothing can explain why the NSSF is getting involved in this issue. The NRA also shares the same concerns. Those who trust this administration to do right by gun owners and the 2nd Amendment after 7 1/2 years of attacks, lies, and deceit are in need of a reality check:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160727...ive-gun-control


Transgender coward Nancy-boy Chris, aka nca225 still exhibits his/her extremely low intelligence and dishonesty by now comparing the lesser decline of FFL's under Bill Clinton's last four years in office with the flattening out of declining FFL's after Bush 43 took office. Now Nancy-boy wants us to forget about the huge number of FFL's that were forced out of business during Clinton's first term.

I did in fact acknowledge that the number of FFL's increased slightly after Obama took office. The brain dead transgender Obama supporter nca225 intentionally misrepresents that, and also refuses to acknowledge that the slight increase was simply a response to a massive increase in demand for guns and ammunition after the repeated assaults on the 2nd Amendment by Obama and other Liberal Left Democrats.

The only thing the transgender coward nca225 got right is this: "Intentionally refusing to acknowledge an obvious truth is an act of dishonesty." So why can't nca225 simply, for once, be honest about the anti-2nd Amendment activities of the anti-gun Democrats he/she supports?

The problem is that after Bush 43 took office, the number of FFLs declined approx. 17,000 from 2000 through 2008 and the slope of that decline over 8 years matched the last 4 of Clinton's But you misrepresent the obvious decline in FFL's under Bush as flattening out. A demonstrable misrepresentation.

Dave:

I will let you worry for me


John Boyd

The only demonstrable misrepresentation here is the transgender coward nca225 attempting to now tell us that the slope of decline of FFL's under Bush 43 is equal to that of the last four years of Bill Clinton. But maybe he/she is blind, in addition to being stupid and dishonest. And Nancy-boy still wants to slip away from the massive decline of FFL's who were forced out of the business beginning right after Clinton took office. Nancy-boy is worried about a decline of 17,000 under Bush, but totally ignores that over ten times that number of FFL's were forced out of business under Clinton.

I guess that Bush 43 was supposed to go out and recruit new FFL dealers to replace those who were forced out by the ATF under Clinton. Anyone with half a brain and a shred of honesty would acknowledge that Bush was better for gun owners and gun rights than any Liberal Left Democrat President in the last 50 years. We all remember the criticism he got from the Left for allowing the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban to expire. But it has become obvious to all why nca225 and his fellow anti-gun Trolls are here. Geo finally admitted it a few days ago:



I'd ask Geo why he thinks that Trolling anti-gun crap is smart politics, but I don't expect I'd get an answer.