Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Comments Needed on Proposals to Update Export Rules, Ease Burdens on Firearm-Related Businesses

Friday, June 8, 2018

Comments Needed on Proposals to Update Export Rules, Ease Burdens on Firearm-Related Businesses

We recently reported on proposed rules announced by the Trump Administration to update the U.S. export regime for firearms and ammunition and to ease burdens and red tape on domestic firearm-related businesses, especially gunsmiths and manufacturers. Comments on these proposals are still urgently needed to help refine the final rules and ensure the voices of America’s small firearm-related businesses and gun owners are heard.

We have reported for many years on the difficulties that domestic firearm-related businesses and gun owners experience because ordinary guns and ammunition readily available on the open market and owned by many law-abiding people are classified as “defense items” for purposes of federal export laws.

For example, there is the annual registration fee, currently set at $2,250, that “manufacturers” of defense items must pay to the State Department, whether or not they export their products. This requirement falls especially heavily on small, non-exporting businesses, some of whom don’t even make complete firearms but are still required to pay the fee because their wares are considered parts, components, or accessories of regulated guns.

Then there are gunsmiths who merely work on existing firearms but are still considered “manufacturers” under the current export regime because they perform certain machining operations, which could be as simple as threading a muzzle or blueprinting the action of a firearm.

Hunters and competitors traveling overseas with personally-owned firearms have also been caught up in this regime because of Obama-era requirements to register “temporary exports” in an unwieldy government database designed around the needs of exporting businesses, not private travelers.

Bloggers, firearm writers, and handloaders posting online guides or tutorials have had their own worries about whether their activities constitute the “export” or unauthorized release of “technical data” on defense items, subjecting them to prison time and steep fines. 

Even firearm instructors teaching classes solely within the U.S. could be providing unauthorized “defense services” if their curriculums strayed into broadly-defined categories of “training” in the “use of defense articles” and their students happened to include individuals not considered “U.S. persons.”

Then, of course, there are the firearm and ammunition manufacturers who would like to compete for contracts to provide their goods or services to foreign militaries or law enforcement agencies but are stymied from competitive bids because of the considerable red tape imposed by the current rules.

In short, if your business or activities have been adversely affected by regulation of readily-available firearms and ammunition, or their components or accessories, under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR), the government needs to hear from you.

Under the Trump proposals, most non-automatic firearms of .50 caliber or less, as well as their parts, components, accessories, and magazines of up to 50 rounds capacity, would be moved from the jurisdiction of the State Department under ITAR to the more business-friendly Commerce Department. Actual export of the items would remain closely controlled and still subject to licensing in most cases, but under more flexible rules consistent with their status as “dual-use” items that have well-established and lawful uses in non-military markets.

The easiest way to file comments is through the U.S. government’s online regulatory portal, Regulations.gov. The State Department’s proposed rule and comment form are available at this link. Use this link for the Commerce Department’s proposal. 

The most effective comments will clearly, succinctly, and respectfully relay real-world experiences with the current regime and the problems it presents. They will also address specifics of the current proposals, such as the omission of sound suppressors from the planned moves and the retention of complicated “temporary export” rules for private persons traveling abroad with personally-owned firearms. Form letters copied and pasted from the Internet are usually the least helpful type of comments, because they are not responsive to the specifics of the proposals or their real-world effects on stakeholders.

While it is fine to express general support for the proposals, the comment period is not a public referendum on whether or not they should be enacted but a chance to improve them by bringing up problems, ambiguities, or inconsistencies in the proposals themselves. In some cases, professional groups may want to pool their resources and hire outside experts to ensure their viewpoints and interests are clearly presented to the agencies. But less formal comments from individual stakeholders can also be very helpful. The Regulations.gov online portals make submitting comments as easy as sending an email.

The NRA itself has received many articulate, well-written letters and emails over the years from hunters, gunsmiths, firearm instructors, small businesses and other professionals negatively impacted by ITAR. These rulemakings are an ideal opportunity to present those same concerns and perspectives to the very officials who will be rewriting the rules to ensure they provide adequate protection to national and international security, without unduly burdening law-abiding American individuals and businesses.

Comments are due by Monday, July 9. These updates to America’s export control regime are among the most important pro-gun initiatives by the Trump administration to date. We urge you to ensure the best possible outcome with your own input.

TRENDING NOW
“Fact Checker:” Joe Biden’s “Gun Ban” Not a Gun Ban Because Some Guns Wouldn’t Be Banned

News  

Monday, July 15, 2019

“Fact Checker:” Joe Biden’s “Gun Ban” Not a Gun Ban Because Some Guns Wouldn’t Be Banned

Facebook has teamed up with what it calls “third-party fact-checkers” to punish users of its platform that post information embarrassing or inconvenient to the political outlook of its principals. Yet like most sources of what ...

Oregon: Initiative Filed to Restrict Self-Defense

Friday, July 19, 2019

Oregon: Initiative Filed to Restrict Self-Defense

On July 18th, Initiative Petition 40​ was filed in Oregon to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding adults by imposing a broad, one-size-fits-all method of storing firearms.  This egregious attack on our freedoms uses virtually ...

Hollywood Fantasy v. Reality on Firearm Suppressors

News  

Monday, July 15, 2019

Hollywood Fantasy v. Reality on Firearm Suppressors

It’s no secret that Hollywood has a very loose relationship with reality.  The movie industry, after all, is based on fantasy and escapism, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.  If someone wants to forget ...

Presidential Pretender Who Campaigned on Gun Control First to Call It Quits

News  

Monday, July 15, 2019

Presidential Pretender Who Campaigned on Gun Control First to Call It Quits

On Monday, Eric Swalwell became the first of the many pretenders for the Democrat presidential nomination to bow (or perhaps slink) out of the race. The U.S. Congressman from California’s 15th District had tried to distinguish himself from ...

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

NRA Statement On Virginia Special Session

News  

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

NRA Statement On Virginia Special Session

FAIRFAX, Va.–   The interim executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Jason Ouimet, released the following statement today regarding the special session in Virginia:  "The National Rifle Association has a long ...

California: City of San Diego Considers Gun Control Ordinance

Friday, July 12, 2019

California: City of San Diego Considers Gun Control Ordinance

San Diego City Attorney, Mara Elliott has asked the City Council to consider a draft ordinance that would require mandatory locked storage of firearms in the home and would propose a conflicting law regarding the reporting of ...

California: Injunction Request to be Filed in Lawsuit Challenging California Ammo Law

Wednesday, July 3, 2019

California: Injunction Request to be Filed in Lawsuit Challenging California Ammo Law

CRPA, with the support of NRA, challenged the ammunition background check law in court months ago with the filing of the Rhode v. Becerra case. The lead plaintiff in the case is Olympic gold medalist shooter ...

Hawaii: Governor Ige Signs Anti-Gun Legislation

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Hawaii: Governor Ige Signs Anti-Gun Legislation

On July 9th, Governor David Ige signed the final remaining anti-gun bill awaiting his consideration, Senate Bill 600. This comes on the heels of him signing Senate Bill 1466 on June 27th. 

Recent Poll Shows Gun Control Not as Popular as Some Would Like to Believe

News  

Monday, July 8, 2019

Recent Poll Shows Gun Control Not as Popular as Some Would Like to Believe

A recent Morning Consult/POLITICO poll, conducted immediately prior to the recent  Democratic debates and gathering responses from 1,991 registered voters, asked about views toward the candidates, issues of potential importance in the election, voting intention, and ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.