You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
November 19, 2017, 08:06:05 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 23380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Oniya

This would be the thing.  (Home page)

http://pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/Applicability%20of%20the%20ITAR%20Registration%20Requirement%20to%20Firearms%20Manufacturers%20(Publish).pdf

There is a section in there that talks about what does and does not constitute 'manufacturing'.

Quote
Policy Guidance:
The guidance below is limited to domestic (U.S.) activities involving firearms (as defined in Category I(j)(1) of the United States Munitions List (USML)
(22 CFR § 121.1)) and related ammunition that  are  .50  caliber  (12.7  mm)  or smaller - i.e., firearms in Category I, paragraphs (a)  and  (b), related  items  in paragraphs (e)-(h),and ammunition  in  Category III(a)for  those  firearms.  Activities  involving items elsewhere  on  the USML,  including Category I, paragraphs (c) and (d), are not included in the scope of this guidance. 

1. Registration not Required –Not Manufacturing: 

In response to questions from persons engaged  in  the  business  of  gunsmithing,  DDTC  has  found  in  specific  cases  that ITAR registration  is not  required because  the  following  activities  do  not  meet  the  ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “manufacturing” that DDTC employs in implementing the ITAR and, therefore, do not constitute “manufacturing” for ITAR purposes: 

a)Occasional assembly of firearm parts and kits that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining;
b)Firearm  repairs  involving  one-for-one  drop-in  replacement  parts  that  do  not  require any cutting, drilling, or machining for installation;
c)Repairs  involving  replacement  parts  that  do  not  improve  the  accuracy,  caliber,  or other aspects of firearm operation;
d) Hydrographic paint or Cerakote application or bluing treatments for a firearm;
e) Attachment  of accessories  to  a  completed  firearm  without  drilling,  cutting,  or machining — such as attaching a scope, sling, or light to existing mounts or hooks, or attaching a flash suppressor, sound suppressor, muzzle brake, or similar item to a pre-threaded muzzle;
f) Cosmetic  additions and  alterations  (including  engraving) that  do  not improve  the accuracy,   caliber,   or   other   aspects   of firearm operation beyond   its   original capabilities;
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; and
h) Manual loading or reloading of ammunition of .50 caliber or smaller. 

Activities  limited  to  the  domestic  sale  or  resale  of  firearms,  the  occasional  assembly  of firearms  without  drilling,  cutting,  or  machining,  and/or  specific  gunsmithing activities that do not improve the accuracy, caliber, or operations of the firearm beyond its original capabilities (as  described  above)  are  not  manufacturing  within  the  context  of  the  ITAR.  If  you  are  not  manufacturing, exporting,  temporarily  importing or  brokering defense articles or services, you are not required to register with DDTC.

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.

3.Registration Required – Other than Manufacturing:
a) Assisting  foreign  persons  in  the  design,  development,  and  repair  of  firearms  may
constitute the  export  of a  defense  service  (see 22  CFR  §  120.9)  and  require ITAR registration with and authorization from DDTC; and
b) Exporting a firearm or any other item on the USML requires ITAR registration with and authorization from DDTC.

Nothing is said about what registration fees might be.  If I'm reading this right, you can still attach a noise/flash suppressor to your .50 cal and paint it camouflage, engrave 'Fuck the Government' on it and make as much ammo as you want without being dinged as 'manufacturing.'
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 11:07:38 PM by Oniya »

Offline TheGlyphstone

So what we're learning is that right-wingers don't understand what an executive order is? Cause that doesn't seems to have any connection or overlap with the EO.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
OKay most of this goes beyond my head. (Thank God I never decided to be a lawyer)

But I don't think this is that bad. I think this is a knee jerk (turned up to 11) and people are freaking out over something minor.

Quote
So what we're learning is that right-wingers don't understand what an executive order is? Cause that doesn't seems to have any connection or overlap with the EO.

Now now be nice, we both know the left is just as insane as the right, just painted blue instead of red.

I think its more the news groups getting people riled up and using high quality click bait.

EDIT: Though I will admit I have a bad habit of making myself look like a dumbass because I never do further research beyond checking a second website.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 11:24:44 PM by Lustful Bride »

Online Oniya

The one thing that might impact 'small manufacturers' is that cutting threads into a barrel is now considered 'manufacturing'.  If you have a pre-threaded barrel, you're set to screw on that silencer and have at.  If you don't have a pre-threaded barrel, you have to get one, which would probably mean going through a registered manufacturer.  It doesn't look like swapping out a pre-threaded barrel for a non-threaded barrel (as a 'replacement part') would require one to register, so the little guy could just lay in a supply of barrels and avoid the fee.

Offline TheGlyphstone

The extreme far left may be just as insane, but they're a lot more harmless overall - cuddled up in their hippy communes singing Kumbaya and insisting everyone can just get along and share everything equally in true unified socialist harmony, you can pretty much just ignore them. Whereas their equivalents on the extreme far right are the incite-armed-rebellion survivalist militia nuts like those jokers who took over a building in...Oregon, was it? Crazies be crazy, but I do think the right-fringe is more of a genuine danger to the safety of everyone left-and-center of them than the other way round.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
The extreme far left may be just as insane, but they're a lot more harmless overall - cuddled up in their hippy communes singing Kumbaya and insisting everyone can just get along and share everything equally in true unified socialist harmony, you can pretty much just ignore them. Whereas their equivalents on the extreme far right are the incite-armed-rebellion survivalist militia nuts like those jokers who took over a building in...Oregon, was it? Crazies be crazy, but I do think the right-fringe is more of a genuine danger to the safety of everyone left-and-center of them than the other way round.

No the far left crazies are the ones that point a finger scream at you and shame you for hours on end and call you a racist, bigot, gun nut, religious fanatic etc etc etc for hours on end while preaching they are all about acceptance and love and tolerance.

As is said, both sides are pieces of shit and I only value them by how little of a pain in my life they are :P
I hate everyone equally. Though I will admit I hate everyone on E so much less its like I love all of you. E is the only place I don't instantly leave after five seconds. Its like a tiny bit of actual intelligence on the internet.

Also to hell with those Oregon nuts. Even other far right nuts were calling them out on their BS and I hope they never see the light of day again because its pieces of donkey dung like them that ruin everything for the rest of us and are why we are pretty much a joke now and why most people are gung ho on outright bans.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 11:42:13 PM by Lustful Bride »

Online Oniya

OKay most of this goes beyond my head. (Thank God I never decided to be a lawyer)

But I don't think this is that bad. I think this is a knee jerk (turned up to 11) and people are freaking out over something minor.

Now now be nice, we both know the left is just as insane as the right, just painted blue instead of red.

I think its more the news groups getting people riled up and using high quality click bait.

EDIT: Though I will admit I have a bad habit of making myself look like a dumbass because I never do further research beyond checking a second website.

High quality click-bait indeed.  And what we're seeing is that a) a sizeable portion of the country doesn't know the difference between an Executive Order and a statement from any other branch of government, and b) an intersecting portion of the country wants to blame Obama about anything that impacts their ability to get more/more powerful guns than they need.

Because this doesn't affect anyone's ability to get - hell, a 45 Magnum.  It does not affect anyone's ability to get a hunting rifle.  It doesn't even really affect anyone's ability to take over some National Park gift shop or shoot up some building in the neighborhood, when you get right down to it.  They'll just have to carry more clips, since you need a license to increase the round capacity of the weapon.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
High quality click-bait indeed.  And what we're seeing is that a) a sizeable portion of the country doesn't know the difference between an Executive Order and a statement from any other branch of government, and b) an intersecting portion of the country wants to blame Obama about anything that impacts their ability to get more/more powerful guns than they need.

Because this doesn't affect anyone's ability to get - hell, a 45 Magnum.  It does not affect anyone's ability to get a hunting rifle.  It doesn't even really affect anyone's ability to take over some National Park gift shop or shoot up some building in the neighborhood, when you get right down to it.  They'll just have to carry more clips, since you need a license to increase the round capacity of the weapon.

To be fair though, most people don't pay attention until they feel it bothers them. I am fairly sure no one even watches C Span unless they are trying to get their grandparents to stop talking to them.

Offline TheGlyphstone

I think it's what feels like (but statistically probably isn't, intellectually) an increasingly frequent string of unstable psychos slaughtering civilians that is making people gung ho towards gun bans, rather than clowns like the Oregon bunch (whose grand casualty total was one of their own who refused to be arrested alive).

My feelings have, and continue to be, that the right needs to be the ones to propose gun legislation. Something moderate to mild along the lines of bills that have been previously proposed and shot down, like the one cited in that CNN article above that put gun shows under the same background-check requirements as gun stores (which is just common sense, the gun show loophole is amazingly stupid) and prohibiting the mentally ill or people with connections to terrorism from buying guns (which is also a good-sounding idea, though admittedly harder to police and more open to potential abuse). This would give the GOP's moderate wing a massive amount of good-faith credit (we're compromising, look!) and give them a bedrock of principle to stand against anything more extreme (we'll go this far but no further on principle).

 But right now the NRA has its hands around the throat of Congress and its head up the asses of the gun manufacturers, stifling any attempts at legislation. Meanwhile, every so often a deranged lunatic will shoot up a school or club or office building or something, and public outrage will continue to fester and grow at Congress's inability to 'do something', giving the far-left endless ammunition, pun intended and apologized for, to push their own harsher restrictions.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 11:59:32 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Online Oniya

I think I've found where 'Executive Order' kinda, sorta, tangentially comes into this. '22 U.S.C. 2778 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) provides the authority to control the export of defense articles and services, and charges the President to exercise this authority. Executive Order 11958, as amended, delegated this statutory authority to the Secretary of State. (The ITAR, elsewhere on this web site, implements this authority.) '

Offline TheGlyphstone

But...11958 was issued by Gerald Ford. The last time it was amended or altered was 12660, under Ronald Reagan.

Now I'm even more confused. How does Obama's order affect them, AECA, or ITAR?

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
I think it's what feels like (but statistically probably isn't, intellectually) an increasingly frequent string of unstable psychos slaughtering civilians that is making people gung ho towards gun bans, rather than clowns like the Oregon bunch (whose grand casualty total was one of their own who refused to be arrested alive).

My feelings have, and continue to be, that the right needs to be the ones to propose gun legislation. Something moderate to mild along the lines of bills that have been previously proposed and shot down, like the one cited in that CNN article above that put gun shows under the same background-check requirements as gun stores (which is just common sense, the gun show loophole is amazingly stupid) and prohibiting the mentally ill or people with connections to terrorism from buying guns (which is also a good-sounding idea, though admittedly harder to police and more open to potential abuse). This would give the GOP's moderate wing a massive amount of good-faith credit (we're compromising, look!) and give them a bedrock of principle to stand against anything more extreme (we'll go this far but no further on principle).

 But right now the NRA has its hands around the throat of Congress and its head up the asses of the gun manufacturers, stifling any attempts at legislation. Meanwhile, every so often a deranged lunatic will shoot up a school or club or office building or something, and public outrage will continue to fester and grow at Congress's inability to 'do something', giving the far-left endless ammunition, pun intended and apologized for, to push their own harsher restrictions.

NRA does not give a shit about the rights of the people.(at least not anymore) Only how much money they can squeeze out of people. Even though they helped create a ban that kept mafia members from buying guns legally, not that it stopped them.

The right should not be the only one to make the laws because they will be too soft. And the left has no idea how guns work and is too harsh.

We need something in the middle but both sides are so corrupt and like spoiled children that it wouldnt work either and they would just throw tantrums like children for not getting their way 100%

(Oh god its so depressing in my world, someone save me! >_>)

Yeah the mental illness sort is... that's tricky, what criteria do we impose. And it feels wrong to deny them a right just because of something they didn't choose to have... but at the same time they are more likely to go on such sprees. *feels unclean singling people out like that*

« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 12:18:08 AM by Lustful Bride »

Offline TheGlyphstone

It's not easy, that's for sure. Plus, there's the complication of right-to-privacy for your medical issues being breached - you might be getting treated for schizophrenia, and your medication is working, but being on some sort of registry means anyone who has access to that registry knows you're schizophrenic when legally only you and your doctor should be aware of it.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
It's not easy, that's for sure. Plus, there's the complication of right-to-privacy for your medical issues being breached - you might be getting treated for schizophrenia, and your medication is working, but being on some sort of registry means anyone who has access to that registry knows you're schizophrenic when legally only you and your doctor should be aware of it.

And then it sets a nasty precedent. What else do we start denying people rights based on?

Offline TheGlyphstone

 Not to mention the issue of what counts as 'ill' to begin with; I've been treated on and off for depression, which could be categorized as a mental illness even though I've never even remotely considered self-harm or harming others as a solution. A sufficiently broad interpretation of such a law could deny me my rights as a result.

I'd worry about it from the other way, since I'm naturally suspicious of slippery-slope arguments. What other rights could people deemed mentally ill be denied based on their medical records, and how would their confidentiality be protected? That's generally a stronger legal precedent, since it has a root cause rather than a root effect.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 12:25:17 AM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Not to mention the issue of what counts as 'ill' to begin with; I've been treated on and off for depression, which could be categorized as a mental illness even though I've never even remotely considered self-harm or harming others as a solution. A sufficiently broad interpretation of such a law could deny me my rights as a result.

I'd worry about it from the other way, since I'm naturally suspicious of slippery-slope arguments. What other rights could people deemed mentally ill be denied based on their medical records, and how would their confidentiality be protected? That's generally a stronger legal precedent, since it has a root cause rather than a root effect.

Possibly voting since it could be deemed they aren't mentally competent for such a responsibility.

(Though id argue 70% of all human beings aren't either but whatev :P)
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 12:39:33 AM by Lustful Bride »

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Not to mention the issue of what counts as 'ill' to begin with; I've been treated on and off for depression, which could be categorized as a mental illness even though I've never even remotely considered self-harm or harming others as a solution. A sufficiently broad interpretation of such a law could deny me my rights as a result.

I'd worry about it from the other way, since I'm naturally suspicious of slippery-slope arguments. What other rights could people deemed mentally ill be denied based on their medical records, and how would their confidentiality be protected? That's generally a stronger legal precedent, since it has a root cause rather than a root effect.
Under the Brady law you will only land in the FBI background check database if you have been found by a court to be unfit to stand trial for mental health reasons, found a danger to self or others by a court, or have been involutarily committed.

Looks like the rules have been widened a bit recently, but - as far as I understand these matters - the basic reporting requirement is still a court order dealing with the mental health of a person. My understanding of the current rules is that the changes recently made essentially make some changes to the privacy rules governing certain health care providers, but do not create an actual reporting requirement. It's still on a "may report" basis, not a "must report" regulation in the recent rules.