Advertisements
Home

ATF Changes Rules for Dealers Importing Firearms

4 Comments

This is from AmmoLand.

How long before the ATF makes other rule changes concerning all firearms?

ATF Changes Rules for Dealers Importing Firearms

ATF Changes Rules for Dealers Importing Firearms

Washington, DC -(Ammoland.com)- Officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has advised Reeves & Dola that the agency is now requiring licensed dealers who regularly import firearms on behalf of customers to obtain a Type 08 federal firearms license (FFL) as an importer.

This is a significant change in policy that will require dealers to obtain an importer’s license and to mark the firearms they import with their name, city, and state.

Background – GCA Requirements for Persons Engaged in Business of Importing

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) requires persons “engaged in the business” of importing firearms to obtain a license as an importer. The term “engaged in the business” as applied to importers is defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(E) as follows:

“…as applied to an importer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms imported;…”

Persons engaged in the business of importing firearms must comply with all marking requirements specified in ATF regulations, and also register with ATF for a fee pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act.

Historically, from 1968 until the recent change in policy, licensed dealers who occasionally imported firearms on behalf of a specific customer were able to obtain ATF approval on a Form 6 permanent import permit without also becoming a licensed importer. This policy is set forth in multiple ATF publications: (1) ATF Guidebook – Importation and Verification of Firearms, Ammunition, and Implements of War in the section “Policies and Procedures,” page 3, paragraph 5 (last visited 12-29-15); (2) the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, ATF Pub. 5300.4, Question M1, pg. 208 (last visited 12-29-15); and (3) question and answer posted on ATF’s website (last visited 12-29-15).

In the past, ATF has not defined the term “occasionally” nor has it placed limitations on the quantity of firearms a dealer may import, as long as the dealer imports the firearms on behalf of a particular customer and is not engaged in the business of importing firearms for resale. Consequently, licensed dealers were able to import firearms on behalf of specific customers without obtaining the additional license, registration, and without having to mark such firearms with importer identification.

Recent ATF Guidance

ATF has confirmed that unless a licensed dealer’s importations on behalf of customers are infrequent, the dealer must obtain a Type 08 license as an importer of firearms. ATF views a dealer’s regular importations as fitting within the definition “engaged in the business,” even when importations are undertaken on behalf of specific customers, because the dealer in fact engages in regular import activities through the distribution of firearms to their customers. According to ATF, a sale of the firearms is not required for the importer’s license to be required. ATF also advised that dealers who import must mark the imported firearms in accordance with the law and regulations and must maintain records of importation as specified in the regulations.

The reason for ATF’s change in policy is its concern that significant quantities of firearms have been imported into the United States without importer markings. The lack of such markings makes it difficult or impossible to trace diverted firearms or firearms recovered as crime guns. ATF has informed our office that it will post guidance on this new policy in the near future, although a specific date has not yet been communicated.

ATF officials have advised that the Firearms and Explosives Imports Branch will not deny import applications submitted by licensed dealers when it is clear the importations are on behalf of particular customers. However, the Branch will refer information concerning dealer importations to the appropriate ATF field division. It is important to note that Field Division personnel may then take steps to advise dealers that they must obtain an importer’s license, register as an importer, and mark the firearms they import.

ATF officials also advised the agency will entertain requests for marking variances from importers who are bringing collector type firearms into the U.S. on behalf of a particular customer. ATF recognizes that applying importer markings to such firearms may affect their value and will consider alternatives to the importer markings specified in the regulations.

Marking variance requests must be submitted to the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at fatd@atf.gov.

About Reeves & Dola:

Reeves & Dola is a Washington, DC law firm that specializes in helping clients navigate the highly regulated and complex world of manufacturing, sales and international trade of defense and commercial products. We have a deep understanding of the Federal regulatory process, and use our expertise in working with a variety of Federal agencies to assist our clients with their transactional and regulatory needs.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/12/atf-changes-rules-for-dealers-importing-firearms/#ixzz3vsTkKsVE
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

 

Advertisements

Gun Control Negotiations & the Lack of Compromise Claim

1 Comment

This is from AmmoLand.

In spite of what you have been told compromise is a dirty word.

Let us take a look back through the sands of time at some compromise.

First stop is 1819 andThe Missouri Compromise  the issue of slavery could have been ended then.

The deal was struck and the slavery issue was passed down the road where the issue came to a head in 1861.

Let’s move up to the 1930’s when the world compromised with Hitler that comprise lead to WW II and between 20-25 million people dead.

Let’s look at the compromises of Americas gun owners.

We have The National Firearms Act of 1934 then came The Gun Control Act of 1968.

I could go on but I think I have made my point.

No Damned More Compromise on our Second Amendment Rights! 

2A-No-Compromise

Second Amendment, No Compromise, No Retreat

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Since strict new gun control measures were introduced in the wake of the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, I’ve heard the same line shot over and over again at the gun community:

“You’re unwilling to compromise.”

It can take various forms, but the general message is always the same. Gun owners have drawn a line in the sand, and we are stubbornly not willing to cross it.

There’s two main issues I want to explore here.

First, we have drawn a line in the sand, and for good reason. Since the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934, gun rights have been steadily chipped away with arbitrary and meaningless legislation that has never solved a single “problem” with guns. We have seen over 8 decades of our rights being eroded away, piece by piece, with no appeasement in sight from the left.

We’re constantly promised that this isn’t a “Slippery Slope”, they’re just going to pass this new law, just this one, and that’ll be the end of it, but it never is.

Take for example the statement [at time mark 4:30 in the video above] from a Connecticut law maker, pushing for the registration of so-called “assault rifles” and magazines post Sandy Hook.

“…When they try to pass more gun legislation next year, no guarantees, but I don’t think so because we’ve done something on it. We have. And that happens a lot of the times at the capital, when there’s a controversial issue and you tackle it, it tends to go away. That’s just the way it is.”

Except it doesn’t go away, it hasn’t for over 8 decades. The problem is no piece of gun legislation will ever completely eliminate tragedies carried out with a gun, period. The fact that there will, at some point, be another tragedy carried out with a firearm is indisputable, and when, not if, it occurs, it’ll be followed by more gun control legislation targeting law abiding gun owners.

We’ve seen massive decreases in violent crimes over the past two decades, but that hasn’t appeased gun controllers in the slightest. So we know that no matter how low the crime rates drop, no matter what legislation has already been passed, they will always want to further encroach on our 2nd Amendment rights.

Shells and Sand
We’ve drawn the line in the sand. We wont give up another inch.

This is why we’ve drawn the line in the sand. This is why we don’t want to give up another inch. We know that gun controllers will simply never be satisfied until there are outright bans and confiscations. It will be done piecemeal, using every “mass shooting” as an opportunity, with acknowledgements made the whole way that “this won’t solve the problem, but maybe it will help.” And then, when the problem isn’t completely solved, they will do it again. And again.

And again.

The 2nd issue I want to address is that I never recall gun owners being offered a compromise. You see, in order for a compromise or negotiations to work, something of value has to be offered to both sides. The Left’s idea of a gun control “negotiation” goes something like this:

  • Left: We want a new assault weapons ban.
  • Gun Owners: No.
  • Left: Ok, then we want universal background checks.
  • Gun Owners: No.
  • Left: These guys won’t compromise!

This is akin to someone demanding that you give them your house, and when you deny them, they demand that you give them your car instead. You deny them again, and then they get outraged because you’re “unwilling to compromise.

I can’t speak for all gun owners here, but personally, there are issues on which I’d be willing to compromise. Once again, this means that I would have to be given some type of consideration in the deal. That’s the definition of a negotiation.

Let’s look at the recently announced Handgun License Purchaser’s Act of 2015. This bill aims to establish a Grant program to financially aid local governments in establishing a “Handgun Purchase Permit” system, which is somewhat self-explanatory. This falls under their agenda of universal background checks for all gun sales, as a private sale would require an individual to show their “Permit” to purchase the handgun.

Now I’m not totally against this idea (PLEASE bear with me before you bust out the torches and pitchforks). As a matter of fact, I think it presents an excellent opportunity for us to bring some offers and negotiations to the table.

Here’s what I would propose:

  • Eliminate state and local Firearm Purchasing Permits.
  • Establish a National Firearm Purchasing Permit (I see that torch you’re lighting, just hold on!).
  • Eliminate the NICS program! If we all have a license showing we already went through a background check then the NICS program serves absolutely no purpose. The card can be used to show that you are not a prohibited possessor to both personal sellers and FFL holding dealers.
  • Add an optional “Concealed/Open Carry” certification stamp to the Permit, which will be recognized in all 50 states. Now we don’t have to worry about becoming Felons because that state we don’t live in passed that law we don’t know about, and we had to drive through there to get to our real destination.
  • Eliminate and prohibit gun registries on the national, state and local level. Now, as private sellers, we legally have to see a Purchase Permit before we sell our firearm to someone, so we know they aren’t a prohibited possessor. We also know that law abiding gun owners in fact bend over backwards to obey the law, because if you’re anything like me, losing your gun rights falls into your list of Top 3 Fears (right next to Nancy Pelosi getting superpowers). This means that, for an overwhelming majority of gun transactions (probably in the neighborhood of 99%), guns are either being sold between two law abiding gun owners (or an FFL dealer) or two non-law-abiding criminals, who won’t check for a Purchase Permit, and who would absolutely never register the gun in the first place. We have essentially eliminated the possibility of a law abiding citizen unknowingly selling a gun to a prohibited possessor, which, according to gun grabbers, is the primary reason for a registry. Politicians are now faced with the fact that the ONLY reason for a gun registry is for tracking and confiscating of firearms from law-abiding citizens, and their support of a registry will be akin to committing political Seppuku.
  • Set a reasonable [one time] cost associated with the Permit and the Carry Stamp ($30-$50), with subsequent price increases pegged to the Consumer Price Index. This prevents politicians from utilizing the Permit to inflate the price of the Permit to such a point as to render the 2nd Amendment worthless.
  • Mandate that the Permit will be treated as “Shall Issue” rather than “May Issue.” At no time shall a citizen be asked for “proof of need” to purchase or carry a firearm in order to receive the Permit or Carry Stamp (see Heller v D.C.). If they aren’t a violent felon/prohibited possessor, their application is approved.
  • Establish a reasonable time limit on approvals (e.g. no longer than 4 weeks) [with real enforceable penalties for violations].
  • Cement into the language of the legislation that this permit is for the purchase of a firearm and is not required for the gifting, inheritance or ownership of a firearm.

Now, I feel that this is a pretty fair compromise. The Left accomplishes their (supposed) end goals of purchase permits AND universal background checks. We as gun owners get to eliminate a number of ridiculous state and local gun registries, have a national Concealed Carry license, and eliminate the costly and burdensome NICS program.

I’m sure there are still a number of you that are saying to yourselves “Screw it, let’s burn this traitor at the stake.” That’s fine if you don’t agree with my proposal (please don’t light me on fire though). We all have different priorities when it comes to our gun rights, and if the things I would like to accomplish in my example are of little to no concern for you individually, or you don’t think the trade-offs are worth it, then that’s fine.

Second Amendment Gun Permit
Second Amendment Gun Permit

What I’m trying to establish here isn’t this particular set of legislative goals, I’m using it as an example. What I’m saying is that, if we, as a gun-ownership community, are going to be accused of not compromising, then we need to be offered actual compromises, not strong-armed ultimatums, and in turn we need to offer our own.

While it’s worked decently for us over the last decade, I don’t think our proverbial “line in the sand” will last forever. If, however, we stop simply butting heads over the same issues time and time again, we might be able to come to the negotiating table and work out pieces of legislation that both sides are happy about.

Sincerely,
Andrew Scott
A&A Ammunition, CEO

Andrew Scott is the Founder and CEO of A&A Ammunition, an ammunition manufacturing and sales company located in Tucson, AZ that specializes in reloading high quality training ammo. He is also a Veteran currently serving in the Arizona Air National Guard, and has previously worked in numerous industries ranging from food prep to stock trading.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/06/gun-control-negotiations-the-lack-of-compromise-claim/#ixzz3d5NZMTsF
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Dianne Feinstein pushes for semi-automatic rifle import ban based on 45-year-old law

2 Comments

This is from The Daily Caller.

This evil pile of pig dung keeps trying to disarm law biding gun owners.

Will this pile of pig dung succeeded?

She will if gun owners do not stay vigilant.

 

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is circulating a letter on Capitol Hill calling once again for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and asking for President Barack Obama to keep his State of the Union promise to make 2014 a “year of action.”

Citing the Gun Control Act of 1968, Feinstein states, “In recent years… importers of firearms have taken advantage of ATF’s interpretation of the ‘sporting purposes’ test to evade the import ban.”

The phrase contained in The Gun Control Act of 1968 Feinstein is referencing prohibits the importation of firearms that are not “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”  She claims that in recent years firearms importers have taken advantage of ATF’s interpretation of “sporting purposes” to circumvent the ban.

Although Feinstein recognizes that the firearms are designed for civilian use and never manufactured or used by any standing army, she maintained that “many semiautomatic firearms on the market today do not have a military origin but are modeled closely after military firearms.”

To justify the ban, Feinstein cited a study by The Center for Public Integrity and expressed concern regarding international gun-running.

“700 Romanian AK-47 variant rifles were identified in 134 federal gun trafficking prosecutions involving illegal smuggling from the United States to Mexico and other Latin American countries,” she wrote.

The ban would target attributes like “thumbhole stocks” and “semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds” which would prohibit tube-fed .22 rimfire rifles.

Additionally, rifles and “assault pistols” capable of accommodating detachable magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds would be banned “regardless of the military pedigree of the firearm or the configuration of the firearm’s magazine well.”

Feinstein’s letter does not appear on her Senate.gov page, where constituents can view her other positions.

Read the complete text of the letter, as provided to The Daily Caller:

The President

The White House

Washington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. President:

During your State of the Union address, you stated that you want to make 2014 a “year of action.”  We write to urge you to take immediate action to address the significant number of assault weapons that are being imported into the United States in contravention of federal law.  We respectfully request that you take steps to ensure that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) fully enforces the ban on the importation of these military-style firearms.     

A provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3), prohibits the importation of firearms that are not “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”  In recent years, however, importers of firearms have taken advantage of ATF’s interpretation of the “sporting purposes” test to evade the import ban.  In 1998, the Department of the Treasury — which then housed ATF — issued guidance that interpreted the import ban to prohibit only semiautomatic rifles that use magazines originally designed for a military rifle.  Many semiautomatic firearms on the market today do not have a military origin but are modeled closely after military firearms.  These military-style firearms are not prohibited under the current import ban, even though they are functionally equivalent to prohibited rifles with a military origin.  In addition, the Treasury Department’s 1998 guidance allows foreign-made firearms to be imported into the United States without military features, even though these firearms have the capacity to fire multiple times in quick succession without the need to reload and can easily have military features attached.

As a result of the Treasury Department’s unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the sporting purposes test, imports of military-style weapons have increased dramatically in recent years, helping to fuel deadly gun violence along the Southwest border and in neighboring Mexico.  According to data obtained from the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission and analyzed by The Center for Public Integrity, 2.96 million rifles and handguns were imported into the United States in 2009, more than double the 1.32 million firearms imported in 2005.  In January of this year, Russia’s Kalashnikov gun maker announced that it plans to sell in the United States up to 200,000 rifles and shotguns, many of which are designed after the Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle.  An analysis by the Violence Policy Center found that more than 700 Romanian AK-47 variant rifles were identified in 134 federal gun trafficking prosecutions involving illegal smuggling from the United States to Mexico and other Latin American countries.

For example, one imported Romanian AK firearm, the WASR-10, was carefully designed to exploit the sporting purposes test and has become a favorite of the gun traffickers that profit by arming Mexican drug trafficking organizations.  The importer of the WASR-10, Century International Arms, circumvents the import ban by taking the following steps:  First, the company imports the inexpensive weapon without any military features, to avoid contravening the ban.  Next, the weapon is disassembled, and American-made parts are added, to make the weapon “American-made,” not “foreign-made.”  The magazine well is also modified to accept higher capacity ammunition magazines.  Finally, assault features — which would be illegal if added to a foreign-made weapon — are added to the now-American-made weapon, rendering the weapon an assault rifle for all practical purposes.  The resulting firearm is then sold on the civilian market, either to be used in violent acts here at home or smuggled across the border into Mexico.

WASR-10s have repeatedly been found in the arsenals of top drug kingpins and their associates.  For example, at least one WASR-10 was used in May 2008 to kill eight police officers in Culiacan, Mexico, a city in the northwestern part of the country.  An analysis conducted by The Center for Public Integrity found that, over the last four years, WASR-10 rifles comprised more than 17% of the firearms recovered at Mexican crime scenes and successfully traced back to the United States.  In all, according to a memorandum by the Council on Foreign Relations published in July 2013, over 70% of the 99,000 weapons recovered by Mexican law enforcement since 2007 were traced to U.S. manufacturers and importers.

We urge ATF to close the loopholes that allow the importation of military-style weapons into the United States.  Such an approach should, at a minimum:

  • Prohibit importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept, or be readily converted to accept, a large capacity ammunition magazine of more than 10 rounds, regardless of the military pedigree of the firearm or the configuration of the firearm’s magazine well;
  • Prohibit semiautomatic rifles with fixed magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds;
  • Prohibit the importation of the frame or receiver of any prohibited rifle, regardless of whether it is incorporated into a fully manufactured firearm;
  • Prohibit the practice of importing assault rifles in parts and then constructing the rifles once they are in the United States by adding the requisite number of American-made parts;
  • Prohibit the use of a “thumbhole” stock as a means to avoid classification of a rifle as an assault rifle; and
  • Prohibit the importation of assault pistols, in addition to assault rifles.

 We urge you to review enforcement of the sporting purposes test and take the necessary regulatory steps to stop the importation of all military-style, non-sporting firearms, and the assembly of those firearms from imported parts.  We have endured too many funerals and mourned the loss of too many innocent lives to accept less than full enforcement of the import ban.  Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/20/dianne-feinstein-pushes-for-semi-automatic-rifle-import-ban-based-on-45-year-old-law/#ixzz2wYqFyDBi

%d bloggers like this: