ALERT: Feds Impose ITAR Registration Burdens on Gunsmiths
If you are a gunsmith or work on firearms, you need to read this carefully. The Federal Government, acting through the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), has imposed significant new burdens on gunsmiths by expanding the definition of “manufacturing”. This is a big deal, as the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing rules, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), require firearms “manufacturers” to register with DDTC and to pay a registration fee that (for new applicants) is currently $2,250 per year.
READ DDTC’s ITAR Registration Requirements Concerning Gunsmithing Dated 7/22/2016
Official Title: ITAR Registration Requirements — Consolidated Guidance July 22, 2016 — Firearms Manufacturers and Gunsmiths
Previously, most small gunsmithing operations that did not export firearms were NOT subject to AECA/ITAR registration requirements. Now, by virtue of a DDTC “Guidance” ruling issued 7/22/2016, ordinary gunsmiths might be required to register as a manufacturer simply because they thread a muzzle or cut a chamber.
The NRA-ILA states: “DDTC is labeling commercial gunsmiths as ‘manufacturers’ for performing relatively simple work such as threading a barrel or fabricating a small custom part for an older firearm. Under the AECA, ‘manufacturers’ are required to register with DDTC at significant expense or risk onerous criminal penalties.” Read NRA-ILA Full Report.
Here is the key language in the DDTC’s “ITAR Registration Requirements – Consolidated Guidance” Ruling of 7/22/2016:
2. Registration Required – Manufacturing: In response to questions from persons engaged in the business of gunsmithing, DDTC has found in specific cases that ITAR registration is required because the following activities meet the ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “manufacturing” and, therefore, constitute “manufacturing” for ITAR purposes: a) Use of any special tooling or equipment upgrading in order to improve the capability of assembled or repaired firearms; b) Modifications to a firearm that change round capacity; c) The production of firearm parts (including, but not limited to, barrels, stocks, cylinders, breech mechanisms, triggers, silencers, or suppressors); d) The systemized production of ammunition, including the automated loading or reloading of ammunition; e) The machining or cutting of firearms, e.g., threading of muzzles or muzzle brake installation requiring machining, that results in an enhanced capability; f) Rechambering firearms through machining, cutting, or drilling; g) Chambering, cutting, or threading barrel blanks; and h) Blueprinting firearms by machining the barrel. |
Editor’s Comment: Does this mean that any stock-maker or stock supplier is an ITAR “manufacturer” under part 2(c)? Would installing a scope or accessory rail fall under part 2(a) as “equipment upgrading”? Would fluting a barrel be considered “manufacturing” under part 2(h)?
Impact of New Registration Requirements
As the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) reads this, gunsmithing shops (even one-man operations) will now be subject to ITAR regulation though they export nothing: “These requirements apply, even if the business does not, and does not intend to, export any defense article. Moreover, under ITAR, ‘only one occasion of manufacturing … a defense article’ is necessary for a commercial entity to be considered ‘engaged in the business’ and therefore subject to the regime’s requirements.”
As a consequence, these new regulations may drive smaller gunsmithing services out of business: “DDTC’s move appears aimed at expanding the regulatory sweep of the AECA/ITAR and culling many smaller commercial gunsmithing operations that do not have the means to pay the annual registration fee or the sophistication to negotiate DDTC’s confusing maze of bureaucracy. [This is] likely to have a significant chilling effect on activity that would not even be considered regulated.”
Barrel chambering image from Primal Rights, dealer for Desert Tactical Arms.Statutory Authority for Registration
The AECA’s statutory requirement for firearms manufacturers to register with DDTC is implemented in Part 122 of the ITAR:§122.1 Registration requirements.
(a) 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.
Similar Posts:
- Possible Progress on ITAR Regulation of Gunsmiths
- NSSF Opposes Actions Forcing Gunsmiths to Register under ITAR
- Good News for Gunsmiths — Changes to ITAR Regulations
- Good News for Gunsmiths — Major ITAR Changes Coming
- When Do Gunsmiths Need a Firearms Manufacturing License?
Share the post "ALERT: Feds Impose ITAR Registration Burdens on Gunsmiths"
Tags: AECA, DDTC, Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, Gunsmith, ITAR, NRA-ILA, Registration, Second Amendment
See https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/documents/ITARRegReqFirearmsManufacturers.pdf
Editor’s question re drilling and tapping to mount a scope – under “Registration not required”, “g) Machining new dovetails or drilling and tapping new holes for the installation of sights which do not improve the accuracy or operation of the firearm beyond its original capabilities;…”
Editor: Yes we saw that. However, if the addition of telescopic sights on an iron-sighted rifle could be deemed to “improve the … operation of the rifle beyond its original capabilities” … then this could require ITAR registration it seems. Think about the addition of a rail on a pistol to hold a Red Dot sight. Obviously, there are many gray areas in this DDTC notice.
Editor’s question re “stock-maker” – included, and highlighted, at 2(c)
Editor: Again, yes we noted that, and highlighted this on purpose. Does this mean that any gunsmith who finish-inlets a stock (even one) from a blank must register as a “manufacturer”?
ELR says: Re “barrel fluting” – 2.e “…that results in an enhanced capability…” strongly suggests (IMO) that registration would be required.
The highlighted “A manufacturer who does not engage in exporting must nevertheless register.” has been in the regulation since at least April of this year (2016) as it is in the full published version which comes out each April and it is in the current (i.e., April 2016) publication. See https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html
The actual text aside,
1. Since ITAR stands for INTERNATIONAL Traffic in Arms Regulation, seems incomprehensible that the registration requirement includes, “A manufacturer who does not engage in exporting must nevertheless register.”
2. $2250/yr for coverage of something you do NOT do seems (IMO) illegal.
3. Since the “must nevertheless register” would have been part of a Federal Register “Proposed Rules” publication to the general public, with an associated comment solicitation, hard to understand how this would have slipped under the radar. Those in the know, with facts and dates, please pipe up.
I can tell you that as a “stock maker” I was “invited” to register (under threat of a substantial fine)years ago
I printed off the Department of State white paper and discovered on page 4. that Any person a) Assisting foreign persons in the design, development and repair of firearms may constitute the export of a defense service and require ITAR registration with and authorization from DDTC…… Our foreign friends visiting this site, may land us in hot water if taken to the extreme.
Another example of a “phone and a pen”!
TA
Several years ago, a low volume barrel maker told me he was being pressured to comply with this (or similar) regulation, and we were both bewildered that a manufacturer that didn’t export was even approached about this.
Nothing from DC is an “oversight”, and timing is never accidental, so this is why I’ve supported the NRA even when it was inconvenient, or when I thought they were buttheads.
If this is by “Executive Order”, could the next “Executive” repeal or rescind such order? If so the election of Donald Trump becomes even more important.
Here is an insightful comment by an FFL-holder posting on the Prince Law Legal Blog:
“Determining that threading a barrel is the same as building a TANK for export is just insanity, it’s high time that Congress investigate this power grab, and separate manufacturers who never export a real item of war, from those who do.
This is clearly gun control being enacted against the entire firearms industry, only because the State Department CAN do so, with no legal oversight by Congress.
Further, what about them making actions which were clearly legal before this determination, and now making them illegal with no action by the very bodies who make the laws?
IS this any different than the EPA ordering people to comply with environmental regulations with no due process? Something that they have clearly been forced to stop doing by the courts?”
MORE: https://blog.princelaw.com/2016/07/25/ddtc-issues-guidance-on-itar-registration/
THIS SHOULD NEVER BE…
Another reason to set up manufacturing of firearms outside of the US
can we gaurantee that we can get parts in other countries
Buy Russian or European or ???
Simple enough to deal with:
Just Email your congressman and senators with the reference data.
They can strip them of the ability to apply any of these provisions to American gunsmiths that do not engage in manufacturing as:
a. less than 500 firearms per year.
b. do not manufacture all of the primary parts of a firearm. IE, the action, the barrel, or the stock in quantities of less than 500 of each part per year.
Another oversight by this guidance is how this applies to students working on their certificate and the school house providing the training. Is the school required to register with DDTC? If so, does this registration also cover the students who are essentially machining and smithing a working firearm? Also, the guidance is purposely negligent in defining “firearm” since the DDTC only has jurisdiction over rifles, handguns, shotguns under 18″ barrel length and a small range of optical devices. The Dept of Commerce BIS has jurisdiction of shotguns over 18″, muzzleloaders, airguns, and most optics. Make sure you are aware of the jurisdiction differences and not sucked into registering with the DDTC if you do not fall under their purvue.
Hitler would be proud!
Taxation without representation . So what should a ffl abide by, these jokers or the atf regs.?
This to me is the Obama administration doing a go around to the second amendment, an amendment he has been trying to weaken for as long as he is in the White House.
I don’t build or change any firearms, but electing Donald Trump now becomes elementary, and necessary.
Mr. Obama has for 7 1/2 years spoken about civil rights for Americans, but when it comes to these second amendment rights for all Americans, it seems to me he wants to ignore it, and throw that right, right out the White House window along with every American firearm company doing business in America.
What do they have against American business doing business in America?
Don’t they realize that these firearms will be made elsewhere if they make it more expensive to make them here in this country?
With these new ridiculous rules, which will create excessive costs, they keep throwing road blocks in front of American firearm companies forcing them to change course, and of course that road takes American companies out of America to do business elsewhere.
If American company nit picking continues, made in America will be science fiction, and not a fact.
“. . . or furnishing defense services” might well include anybody who teaches a CCW class as well, as long as ‘”they” are expanding regulatory definitions.
It sounds like the DDTC was made up specifically so that the State Department could backdoor domestic gun control iaw the future provisions of trade agreements like the TPP, whereby corporations (or NGO’s incorporated to acquire “standing”) could sue the government into compliance without having to face sovereignty issues or constitutional impediments.
Rich Kayser, make it even simpler. Anybody who was not listed as a manufacturer before 1968 (the 1968 Gun Control Act), isn’t a manufacturer today.