No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money <http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/> ------------------------------
- NSSF On DDTC "Guidance" On ITAR <#m_-4401785934355959146_m_6746656107046509974_m_-4545578907897494492_1> - Craig DeLuz Of FPC Speaks To The Publius Lawsuit <#m_-4401785934355959146_m_6746656107046509974_m_-4545578907897494492_2> - Firearms Policy Coalition Sues California on First Amendment Grounds - Again <#m_-4401785934355959146_m_6746656107046509974_m_-4545578907897494492_3> NSSF On DDTC "Guidance" On ITAR <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NoLawyers-OnlyGunsAndMoney/~3/zHPZTPFYMto/nssf-on-ddtc-guidance-on-itar.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email> Posted: 08 Aug 2016 05:05 AM PDT The US State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls recently issued so-called guidance <http://pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/Applicability%20of%20the%20ITAR%20Registration%20Requirement%20to%20Firearms%20Manufacturers%20(Publish).pdf>on what activities would come under the umbrella of the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR). We just interviewed gunsmith Joseph LaJoy of LaJoy Precision <http://www.lajoyprecision.com/> on Friday night for the Polite Society Podcast <http://politicsandguns.com/> on this very issue. Activities listed as manufacturing and thus subject to ITAR include traditional gunsmithing activities such as threading a barrel or reaming a new chamber. Gunsmiths will now have to pay an annual fee of $2,250 if they do something as simple as that or face massive fines and/or imprisonment. We concluded the rationale behind this "guidance" was to attack the gun culture and to drive gunsmiths out of business. Joseph LaJoy said in the interview that he wished groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation would get involved in the issue. From Joseph's mouth to the NSSF's ear, the release below was sent out on Saturday. *NSSF Statement Regarding DDTC’s Recent Firearms “Guidance” on Registration* On July 22 the U.S. Department of State – Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) issued “*guidance <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001PMZmo3ldbPO1sMiSup_LngEjAgLpRKCkWfth-jI1F4ncqumi_FjHqDPbOpDkEoMkBJiR_NIdiA1hIU7Ltgx77gUY-e-ewhF292TG_wHnvTAY70EODTtEuefG6O3df9W16aJYkqY3-mWCvqx79XTqQ0UAKDFNZxh7Xgt9j_HswzHf7q4ZJQaz-oBJGJisgX_SuvC_Wn2b69haabI7McETfw==&c=bcrG-8Q9q5gujVSsQswoOK7I0ufxon_M4Ymfih2IFo6TmJgFoBB4WQ==&ch=6niBR6-cosUpgOHkjCQ35gZv800b-8cctjJscntJm8Vbq0W8HIu_LQ==>*” meant to clarify who is required under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to register as a “manufacturer” of “defense articles,” which includes firearms and ammunition products (U.S. Munitions List Categories I – III), and pay an exorbitant annual $2,250 registration fee. Under the law, registration is required even if the manufacturer does not export and even if the manufacturer makes component parts. DDTC asserts that the guidance merely restates existing DDTC policy and interpretation of the AECA and ITAR manufacturer registration requirement. Unfortunately, DDTC’s “guidance” has created considerable and understandable confusion and concern among gunsmiths and gun owners. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is reviewing the guidance and will send a letter of protest to DDTC expressing our strong opposition to the new “guidance,” the scope of which clearly exceeds their statutory authority. The term “manufacture” as used in the AECA and ITAR is its ordinary dictionary definition. Clearly, many of the activities DDTC claims require registration constitutes gun smithing and is not manufacturing under any reasonable dictionary definition of the term. DDTC’s position is similar to claiming an auto mechanic who fixes your car is a car manufacturer. NSSF has been working diligently for many years to eliminate, or at least significantly lower, the excessive and burdensome registration fee especially for non-exporting manufacturers and non-essential component parts manufacturers. Simply put, forcing small manufacturer to pay $2,250 annually to register when they are not utilizing the DDTC export licensing system to export products is an unfair and onerous regulatory burden. This is even more outrageous when one considers that DDTC is sitting on at least $140 million dollars of previously paid registration fees collected over many years from exporters from many industries including ours. Additionally, we have been working with allies in Congress to pressure the Obama administration to complete the Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative, which would with limited exceptions do away with the AECA and ITAR manufacturer registration requirement and onerous fee for commercial and sporting firearms. To date, the Obama Administration has refused to publish and implement the regulatory changes necessary to transfer for export licensing of commercial and sporting firearms and ammunition products to the Department of Commerce from the Department of State. *Read more <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001PMZmo3ldbPO1sMiSup_LngEjAgLpRKCkWfth-jI1F4ncqumi_FjHqEUQjI6oYywrou48b2DJ48YwRAITQM4tcoNJm5D91r8zKE27nDJedB5VymZEg-3_kPIyV1E3ZqqvePqCK5AF6qDtUBaoDCY7KUkdRUKwg98GVoh3ttAFAZlRoL0gEPAI75uZjrXOx1OD96LMBq8bdNU=&c=bcrG-8Q9q5gujVSsQswoOK7I0ufxon_M4Ymfih2IFo6TmJgFoBB4WQ==&ch=6niBR6-cosUpgOHkjCQ35gZv800b-8cctjJscntJm8Vbq0W8HIu_LQ==>* on Export Control Reform. Yet, the proposed rules have been drafted and ready for publication since December 2012. Inaction persists despite congressional testimony and letters to members of the U.S. House and the Senate that they would publish the rules. Why has the Obama administration refused to move ECR forward for our industry? It is really very simple. The Obama Administration is singling out our industry for different treatment under the ECR because of its gun control politics. It is time to force Congress to step in and stop the Obama Administration’s gun control agenda from stopping this needed reform. See the *ECR dashboard <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001PMZmo3ldbPO1sMiSup_LngEjAgLpRKCkWfth-jI1F4ncqumi_FjHqDPbOpDkEoMkqUkT7yeEdKaZ6D7L1IIt900mZkecM7EaTIskD4zzabEvGGRrhM-5favZIAWH2OAt_pLX3-uZ10npZPfhucgueQy8ZatVUi2ltgSsw1nXtD3yzKJmfJqRBHdqut_LP3Mf8jCdAcwIO3h25ObyvignQsYjS1uCPnnJCnhy6poX1t4=&c=bcrG-8Q9q5gujVSsQswoOK7I0ufxon_M4Ymfih2IFo6TmJgFoBB4WQ==&ch=6niBR6-cosUpgOHkjCQ35gZv800b-8cctjJscntJm8Vbq0W8HIu_LQ==>.* How can members of the firearms industry and gun owners help? 1. *Call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121* and *U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121* urge him or her to support Rep. Collin Peterson’s (D-Minn.) Resolution, *(H. Res. 829) <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001PMZmo3ldbPO1sMiSup_LngEjAgLpRKCkWfth-jI1F4ncqumi_FjHqDPbOpDkEoMkKgPbInQgVAFlcCh1UxPx00VW6YNV_os3NnFKEk376KSoBcXWH_ARgcinDIRy0brLcqy9boDvyG_WcB5ZqYGz1CZCKETBu5t9xf9Wl2HXkv_OOp5WjxuQPStNPHlBufagfAXxbCAv_p9zO5_g_GHpHQ==&c=bcrG-8Q9q5gujVSsQswoOK7I0ufxon_M4Ymfih2IFo6TmJgFoBB4WQ==&ch=6niBR6-cosUpgOHkjCQ35gZv800b-8cctjJscntJm8Vbq0W8HIu_LQ==> *that demands the Obama administration complete the ECR and publish the proposed rules to transfer the licensing of commercial and sporting firearms and ammunition products to the Department of Commerce (which does not require registration or payment of a fee). 2. Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to force DDTC to stop imposing excessive and onerous registration fees on small businesses that do not export products. Tell them to support language in the Fiscal Year 2017 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that will reduce the registration fee to a nominal amount for all non-exporting manufacturers and component part manufacturers. 3. Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators stop the Department of State from exceeding its statutory authority; that mounting new sights to improve accuracy on your hunting rifle doesn’t require you to register with the Department of State and pay a fee of $2,250. <http://feeds.feedburner.com/NoLawyers-OnlyGunsAndMoney> Subscribe in a reader <http://feeds.feedburner.com/NoLawyers-OnlyGunsAndMoney> Craig DeLuz Of FPC Speaks To The Publius Lawsuit <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NoLawyers-OnlyGunsAndMoney/~3/6-JvMClEQfs/craig-deluz-of-fpc-speaks-to-publius.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email> Posted: 08 Aug 2016 04:48 AM PDT In this video, Craig DeLuz of the Firearms Policy Coalition speaks to the lawsuit just filed Friday against the Legislative Counsel of California on First Amendment grounds. This lawsuit is nicknamed the "Tyrant Registry Lawsuit" in honor of the blog post that is at the heart of it. <http://feeds.feedburner.com/NoLawyers-OnlyGunsAndMoney> Subscribe in a reader <http://feeds.feedburner.com/NoLawyers-OnlyGunsAndMoney> Firearms Policy Coalition Sues California on First Amendment Grounds - Again <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NoLawyers-OnlyGunsAndMoney/~3/U9DXzoqdxuY/firearms-policy-coalition-sues.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email> Posted: 08 Aug 2016 04:45 AM PDT The Firearms Policy Coalition has sued the Legislative Counsel of California, Diane Boyer-Vine, for her attempts to suppress free speech. The suit centers around a blog post that posted publicly available addresses and phone numbers of Assembly members who voted for gun control. The post by FPC member "Publius" on his or her blog, The Real Write Winger, was removed by WordPress.com after the Legislative Counsel said it violated California law. The suit, as described in the press release below, seeks to have California Government Code section 6254.21(c) declared unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement. This is the second lawsuit this year that the Firearms Policy Coalition has brought this year on First Amendment grounds. In the first lawsuit <http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2016/05/first-amendment-lawsuit-with-second.html> which they won <http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2016/06/now-for-some-good-news-out-of-california.html>, they challenged the California Legislature's ban on the use of video footage from floor debates in political ads. This is an interesting tactic as it forces judges to apply, in most cases, strict scrutiny. More on the lawsuit and the whole back story is below: *SACRAMENTO (August 5, 2016) A just-filed First Amendment lawsuit challenges the State of California's attempt to censor a political blog using an unusual and unconstitutional “takedown” process authorized by a state statute. The lawsuit is funded by the Firearms Policy Coalition, and filed on behalf of one of the Coalition’s members.* *“Publius” (a pseudonym, since the challenged law carries a criminal penalty) runs a political blog under the alias “The Real Write Wringer” and writes extensively about California politics, civil liberties, and the Second Amendment.* *The case, Doe Publius v. Diane Boyer-Vine, Legislative Counsel of California, seeks a restraining order against and challenges California Government Code section 6254.21(c), which broadly restricts the publication of the home address or telephone number of any “elected or appointed official” on the Internet.* *Following California Governor Jerry Brown’s July 1 signing of six new gun control laws, the FPC member (pseudonymized as “Publius” in the lawsuit due to potential criminal liability) published a post on July 5 saying, in part, “... below is the names, home addresses, and home phone numbers of all the legislators who decided to make you a criminal if you don’t abide by their dictates. So below is the current tyrant registry. These are the people who voted to send you to prison if you exercise your rights and liberties. This will be a constantly updated list depending on future votes ....”* *Soon after, the political blog’s hosting site, WordPress.com, received a censorious takedown letter from the California Legislative Counsel threatening litigation if the “tyrant registry” wasn’t removed due to the “grave risk” that it supposedly posed to the safety of elected officials.* *In her letter, Deputy Legislative Counsel Kathryn Londenberg told WordPress.com that “My office represents the California State Legislature” and that it had “come to [their] attention that the home addresses of 14 Senators and 26 Assembly Members have been publically [sic] posted on an Internet Web site hosted by you without the permission of these elected officials.” She went on to say that if the content was not taken down within 48 hours, “we reserve the right to file an action seeking injunctive relief, as well as associated court costs and attorney’s fees.”* *WordPress.com, which sees about 83 million unique monthly visits, and Automattic capitulated immediately, removing Publius’ “tyrant registry” content and subsequently barring them from publishing any similar content.* *"Our Publius lawsuit argues that a State of California statute and the Legislative Counsel's demand letter threatening legal action and penalties unconstitutionally forced WordPress into taking down the material,” explained Brandon Combs, president of Firearms Policy Coalition.* *“Our member’s truthful, non-threatening speech was attacked mere days after the elected subjects of their speech carpet-bombed the Bill of Rights in the largest legislative attack on Second Amendment rights in decades.”* *“FPC will not tolerate it or its members voices being censored by any government.”* *"The First Amendment protects the publication of facts about government officials, especially facts drawn from the public record,” explained Eugene Volokh, an attorney and UCLA law professor working on the Publius case.* *“Of course, the First Amendment doesn't protect true threats of violence, but the statute and the California government's demand letter forbid all publication of these facts, whether or not accompanied by threats.”* *The publication of legislators’ addresses and phone numbers can serve a variety of lawful purposes. For example, residential picketing is allowed in many places, and concerned citizens can hardly engage in such picketing to demand action from their legislators without knowing where they live.* *And even where a local government has a valid content-neutral restriction on residential picketing, marching through residential neighborhoods, or even walking a route in front of an entire block of houses, is likely constitutionally protected conduct.* *In Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (N.D. Fla. 2010), the ACLU of Florida challenged a similar statute and got it struck down in an order by United States District Court Judge Richard Smoak, who held that the Florida law was facially “invalid as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”* *Following the victory, Randall Marshall, ACLU of Florida Legal Director, said that it “cannot be a crime to publish truthful information. With very rare exceptions, courts protect the publication of truthful information that is already available to the public.”* *Publius is represented by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group as well as Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments.* *Before joining the UCLA faculty 20 years ago, Volokh clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also operates the popular legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy,” now hosted at the Washington Post.* *A copy of the complaint, which includes exhibits containing the censored content, can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016-08-05-Complaint-with-Exhibits-filed.pdf <https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016-08-05-Complaint-with-Exhibits-filed.pdf>.* <http://feeds.feedburner.com/NoLawyers-OnlyGunsAndMoney> Subscribe in a reader <http://feeds.feedburner.com/NoLawyers-OnlyGunsAndMoney> Email delivery powered by Google ------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> __._,_.___ ------------------------------ Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> ------------------------------ Visit Your Group <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmM2plM2QxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NzA3NjE1MjE-> [image: Yahoo! Groups] <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJla2locm0wBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ3MDc2MTUyMQ--> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> __,_._,___ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
