OT. More foolishness from DC

WHHJR · Jul 29, 2016

Any comments on 'bummers latest foolishness?
BREAKING: Obama Issues Executive Order That May Drive Gunsmiths Out of Business - The Truth About Guns

fish123 · Jul 29, 2016

Expect ammunition taxes to soon match the tax percentages used on alcohol and cigarettes.

GGaskill · Jul 30, 2016

Don't think the Obamination can impose taxes by decree.

moonlight machine · Jul 30, 2016

GGaskill said:
Don't think the Obamination can impose taxes by decree.

Laws don't prevent obumer from doing whatever his handlers want. hildabeast seems to be able to do whatever she wants as well.

Monarchist · Jul 30, 2016

GGaskill said:
Don't think the Obamination can impose taxes by decree.

Technically, not. Decide whom they cover? Perhaps.

That said, he is SO out of touch with reality he's probably not even been 'advised' of the obvious unintended consequences involved.

If it looks as if it even "might" get more difficult to find capable gunsmithing support?

Well.... for some years already I have been stocking new spare parts for a mere 11 year-old motorcar I'm rather fond of. They will become scarcer in future than they are now.

Under a potential future scarcity of nearby gunsmiths?

In a like manner, one might find it prudent to put aside entire firearms. As 'spares'. No repairs needed. Just swap.

Watch - gun sales will be UP - just as they have spiked every prior time some fool displayed the depths of his foolishness.

Folks out in radioland are not ALWAYS as dumb as Politicians think they are.

WHHJR · Jul 30, 2016

"...Folks out in radioland are not ALWAYS as dumb as Politicians think they are..."

At least the group that will Vote Against the Dems.....

sealark37 · Jul 30, 2016

It is said, by those more expert than I, "Politicians prefer unarmed peasants". Regards, Clark

I_AM_MACHINE · Jul 30, 2016

moonlight machine said:
Laws don't prevent obumer from doing whatever his handlers want. hildabeast seems to be able to do whatever she wants as well.

Amen. It's good to be the king. Unless, as Marie Antoinette & King Louis XVI found out the hard way, the peasants finally decide enough is enough. Anyone else at that stage yet?

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir, but from the article referenced above:

"The administration’s latest move serves as a timely reminder of how the politicized and arrogant abuse of executive power can be used to suppress Second Amendment rights and curtail lawful firearm-related commerce. That lesson should not be forgotten when voters go to the polls this November."

Get out and vote folks.

Kevin

9100 · Jul 30, 2016

About 1952 we had a similar case in the radio world. Missouri state was threatening to require licenses for anyone who worked on radios with an annual fee of $500. Remember that was 1952 money when $1.50/hour was a fair wage. Like this proposal, an amateur working at home on his own radio would have to get a license. After digging into it, it turned out that it was mainly sponsored by the large TV repair companies. The tube type TVs of the era needed periodic service, mostly replacing tubes that had a short working life. The purpose was to drive the part time TV repairmen out of business. The guy fixing an occasional TV in his basement couldn't afford a license while the increased profits for the full time repairmen would easily cover the fee.

After a firestorm of protest, the state legislature let it drop.

Am I advocating a firestorm of protest here? Draw your own conclusions.

Bill

kensmachine · Jul 30, 2016

I am sure its is only the tip of the iceberg the Dick Head has had a league of layers on this and other things. Break it down to a lot of small things that don't look like much but add up to one big thing

Scottl · Jul 30, 2016

I read through part of the referenced ITAR document and although in several sections it references "Significant Military Equipment", the section on page 473 listing exclusions only lists "any non-combat shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer, BB, pellet, and muzzle loading (black powder) firearms" as well as "riflescopes and sighting devices that are not manufactured to military specifications" and "accessories and attachments (e.g., belts, slings, after market rubber grips, cleaning kits) for firearms that do not enhance the usefulness, effectiveness, or capabilities of the firearm,".

So yes, it does seem to class any civilian firearm not listed in the exclusions as military equipment. Even worse, as I read it any machine shop or other business that even once makes any component of any defense equipment covered on the list must register. That would include even the tiniest springs, seals, etc. as well as any tooling used by a defense manufacturer. This appears to be as much of a strike against small shops who might compete with the big boys as it is a blow to the civilian firearms industry. If people think defense items are expensive now, imagine after this was implemented.

Newman109 · Jul 30, 2016

It's not only the feds. Massachusetts is working on banning AR-15's and similar weapons, while California has just enacted AB 857 which will require anyone building a weapon, even in 3-D, to apply for a serial number and to register the weapon. Complete registration of guns is the first step in complete confiscation. It happened in Australia, UK and in other countries to a greater or lesser extent.

There will be no need to amend the Second Amendment in another few years. It will simply become irrelevant once all of the state and federal restrictions on firearms and ammunition are put in place.

No liberal ever saw a gun law that he or she didn't like. They instinctively consider that gun laws will enable greater government control and that is their goal, more control of the people.

ernieflash · Jul 30, 2016

another Law that only effects law abiding citizens. 2250 dollar fee that will only be paid by legal gunsmiths and manufactures.
and the illegal hacks will keep on hacking with their dremel tool total investment.

Scottl · Jul 30, 2016

Newman109 said:
It's not only the feds. Massachusetts is working on banning AR-15's and similar weapons, while California has just enacted AB 857 which will require anyone building a weapon, even in 3-D, to apply for a serial number and to register the weapon. Complete registration of guns is the first step in complete confiscation. It happened in Australia, UK and in other countries to a greater or lesser extent.

There will be no need to amend the Second Amendment in another few years. It will simply become irrelevant once all of the state and federal restrictions on firearms and ammunition are put in place.

No liberal ever saw a gun law that he or she didn't like. They instinctively consider that gun laws will enable greater government control and that is their goal, more control of the people.

It isn't exactly Massachusetts that is trying to ban the type of semi-autos known as Modern Sporting Rifles but rather an Attorney General trying to reinterpret the intent of legislators who very clearly described in written laws exactly what features were to be prohibited. Rifles that fell short of the prohibited features continued to be sold as Massachusetts Compliant firearms for decades and pre-ban ones already owned could be kept, used and re-sold to suitably licensed individuals.

Recently the Governor sent her a letter by hand delivery which enclosed one from the Secretary of Public Safety asking for clarification of her "Enforcement Notice" (quotes in original) and detailing multiple issues with her interpretation and its effect on the public.

Several legislators also sent a letter pointing out that there had been several revisions to the law, most recently in 2014, and that any review of the law "should be accompanied by a rigorous debate of the Legislature, with full public input, before any changes are made to ensure that lawful gun owners have a clear understanding of the law and how it will be enforced".

In short, the adults are aware of the naughtiness and will probably hold hearings on the subject when the Legislature is back in session. She chose to do this while they were on a recess.

Monarchist · Jul 30, 2016

9100 said:
About 1952 we had a similar case in the radio world. Missouri state was threatening to require licenses for anyone who worked on radios with an annual fee of $500. Remember that was 1952 money when $1.50/hour was a fair wage. Like this proposal, an amateur working at home on his own radio would have to get a license. After digging into it, it turned out that it was mainly sponsored by the large TV repair companies. The tube type TVs of the era needed periodic service, mostly replacing tubes that had a short working life. The purpose was to drive the part time TV repairmen out of business. The guy fixing an occasional TV in his basement couldn't afford a license while the increased profits for the full time repairmen would easily cover the fee.

After a firestorm of protest, the state legislature let it drop.

Am I advocating a firestorm of protest here? Draw your own conclusions.

Bill

Virginia once tried to enforce its own pilots' licenses. In one publicized 'test' case, they tried to stop a seasoned pilot - commercial & 'heavy ATP' rated, IIRC.

He just grinned, told them he didn't NEED a flying license to taxi.. and that the instant the wheels left the tarmac he was in FEDERAL airspace.. for which he, of course, produced a valid license.

Bottom line? The need to remain "ever vigilant" as to protecting against damned fools - firearms to flying to house paint to foodstuffs and basic trash disposal - will NEVER go away.

Human nature for certain mind-sets to grant themselves the 'right' or even 'sacred duty' to screw things up for other humans. Just because they believe they can do.

Not so much left-wing-nut or right-wing-nut as meddling-SOB parasite-wing-nut.

We spend a lot of money de-worming dogs, cats, horses, cattle. Even tropical fish.

Are we overlooking a greater need?

Bill

Scottl · Jul 30, 2016

Here is the official word from the State Department on who must register and who must not. Under this interpretation all machining that improves accuracy or function requires registration as detailed on page three.

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/documents/ITARRegReqFirearmsManufacturers.pdf

This is outrageous and yet another example of how dangerous these treaties and the eagerness of those in government to implement them are to America's future as a Constitutional Republic.

Mark Rand · Jul 30, 2016

Quote from guns.com:-

guns.com said:
The proposed rule change would revise the definition within the context of ITAR of several keywords including public domain, technical data, defense article, defense services, export, and reexport or retransfer. The goal is to limit or prevent the flow of unclassified defense-related information from traveling electronically overseas.
The State Department cites five Acts and six Executive Orders supporting the proposal. However, only one of the Executive Orders was issued by Obama. He signed the order “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” in 2011. It mandates that any agency proposing a rule change must submit the change for public review for discussion and approval.

John Kerry may be involved on account of being Secretary of State and therefore in charge the State Department. But he probably didn't do much of the paperwork on this clarification of regulations. President Obama certainly didn't issue an executive order causing this.

Please check the story before letting your political prejudices destroy your ability to think.

9100 · Jul 30, 2016

Scottl said:
Here is the official word from the State Department on who must register and who must not. Under this interpretation all machining that improves accuracy or function requires registration as detailed on page three.

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/documents/ITARRegReqFirearmsManufacturers.pdf

This is outrageous and yet another example of how dangerous these treaties and the eagerness of those in government to implement them are to America's future as a Constitutional Republic.

I read this as an illustration of the difficulty of writing legislation. The authors may have felt that they were trying to be reasonable but they are dealing with a nebulous quantity. It is probably not possible to define "manufacturing" perfectly, so all we can do is argue and try to come to a reasonable compromise.

One time the council of a local township tried to pass a dogcatcher ordinance. The proposed law said that a dogcatcher could pick up any dog "at large", that being defined as more than 50 feet from a responsible person. Another provision was that an injured dog would be euthanized immediately. My lot was 150' X 250', so my dog could easily be more than 50' from me and still be well within my property. By the letter of the law, the dogcatcher could come on my property in such a case, find a small cut on the dog, and kill it on the spot. When I brought that possibility up, the answer was "We would never do that." Then why did they write a law allowing it? Of course, the intent was to allow the dogcatcher to quickly dispatch a severely injured dog that was in pain but that is not how the law came out.

My personal experience with the ATF has been that they were reasonable people dealing with a complex and very emotional situation. That may not be other's experience, but on several occasions I have called them for clarification of the rules and received rational answers.

Bill

akajun · Aug 1, 2016

In my dealings with the atf enforcement agents and even the examiners is such as well. However the good ones will tell you that while they may use discretion that some agents, and bosses will not and will interpret a bad law to the extreme left and cause all kinds of trouble .

9100 said:
I read this as an illustration of the difficulty of writing legislation. The authors may have felt that they were trying to be reasonable but they are dealing with a nebulous quantity. It is probably not possible to define "manufacturing" perfectly, so all we can do is argue and try to come to a reasonable compromise.

One time the council of a local township tried to pass a dogcatcher ordinance. The proposed law said that a dogcatcher could pick up any dog "at large", that being defined as more than 50 feet from a responsible person. Another provision was that an injured dog would be euthanized immediately. My lot was 150' X 250', so my dog could easily be more than 50' from me and still be well within my property. By the letter of the law, the dogcatcher could come on my property in such a case, find a small cut on the dog, and kill it on the spot. When I brought that possibility up, the answer was "We would never do that." Then why did they write a law allowing it? Of course, the intent was to allow the dogcatcher to quickly dispatch a severely injured dog that was in pain but that is not how the law came out.

My personal experience with the ATF has been that they were reasonable people dealing with a complex and very emotional situation. That may not be other's experience, but on several occasions I have called them for clarification of the rules and received rational answers.

Bill

Scottl · Aug 1, 2016

9100 said:
My personal experience with the ATF has been that they were reasonable people dealing with a complex and very emotional situation. That may not be other's experience, but on several occasions I have called them for clarification of the rules and received rational answers.

Bill

I don't doubt that as there are many government employees who are reasonable, decent, and professional in their conduct. The problem is that they only have so much latitude in enforcing laws and if they are told that a guy reworking an old firearm for a hunter or target shooter is "manufacturing" they must treat him as one. One issue I predict is that if rehabbing a gun owned by a customer is treated as manufacture, there will eventually be requirements to report make, model, serial number, caliber, and "manufacturing" performed, along with the name and address of the "buyer". This is de facto registration, especially in cases where the gun may be a family heirloom purchased in the days when buying a long gun was a much simpler transaction than today.

This piece from NRA-ILA points out some issues with lack of clarity in the AECA/ITAR and provisions that may conflict with the GCA. I live in a state with many badly written gun laws that often conflict with each other and cause much confusion and uncertainty for gun owners, police, and even courts. Adding such confusion and uncertainty at the Federal level is very much NOT a good idea.

NRA-ILA | Just in Time for His Party’s Convention, Obama Administration Releases Latest Executive Gun Control

OT. More foolishness from DC

Stainless

Cast Iron

Titanium

Diamond

Diamond

Stainless

Stainless

Aluminum

Diamond

Cast Iron

Diamond

Diamond

Cast Iron

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Stainless

Diamond

Similar threads