November 1, 2005, 10:08 AM
I have recently heard of this "barrel and reciecer ban." What is it? When does it go into effect? What will the effect be on domestic made rifles? Basicly how are the Michael Moores and Rosie O Donnels gonna screw me this time?:cuss: :banghead: :barf: :( :confused:
November 1, 2005, 10:51 AM
Care to provide us with a little more info? Where did you hear of it? Links to storys, etc..?
November 1, 2005, 10:57 AM
He/She's probably talking about the recent BATFE decision to ban the importation of barrels as part of "parts kits."
November 1, 2005, 11:13 AM
Nothing "new" about this. the barrel ban comes from Bush Sr's 1989 import ban, re "Sporting Purpose", by executive order. This triggered the development and manufacturing of receivers for FALs, HKs, and AKs. Barrels were always included in the import ban along with receivers and frames. Odd that the Clinton administration ATF didn't enforce the barrel part of the ban and the Bush II administraion ATF decides to.
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
August 12, 2005
REVISED OPEN LETTER TO FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS IMPORTERS
AND REGISTERED IMPORTERS OF U.S. MUNITIONS IMPORT LIST ARTICLES
The purpose of this open letter is to provide important updated information to importers concerning the lawful importation of certain frames, receivers and barrels.
Extension of Time to Effect Importation of Approved Permits for Frames, Receivers or Barrels of Firearms Under Title 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3)
As noted in our prior Open Letter dated July 13, 2005, section 925(d) provides “in any case where the Attorney General has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which
would be prohibited if assembled.” ATF concluded that this language permits no exceptions that would allow frames, receivers or barrels for otherwise nonimportable firearms to be imported into the United States. Accordingly, ATF announced that it would no longer approve ATF Form
6 applications for importation of any frames, receivers, or barrels for firearms that would be prohibited from importation if assembled. No exceptions to the statutory language, for example for “repair or replacement” of existing firearms, will be allowed.
In the July 13, 2005, Open Letter, ATF recognized that importers relying upon ATF’s prior policy may suffer economic harm, particularly those who hold approved permits. To mitigate the impact of the new policy, ATF provided that it would forego enforcement of section
925(d)(3) for 60 calendar days from the date of the Open Letter for those importers who had obtained import permits for barrels and receivers for nonimportable firearms for "repair or replacement."
Following consultations with the industry and further examination of the number and types of barrels and receivers authorized for importation on approved permits, ATF has decided to extend the period of time for importers to act upon previously approved import permits. ATF believes
this extended period affords ample time for importers who have entered into binding contracts in reliance upon approved permits to bring their shipments into the United States for entry into commerce. Importers holding ATF approved permits to import frames, receivers, or barrels for otherwise nonimportable firearms for repair or replacement may continue to use such permits through December 31, 2005. Effective January 1, 2006, these permits will be suspended.
Importers holding unexpired approved permits will be receiving a letter notifying them that their permits will be suspended effective January 1, 2006. ATF will advise Customs and Border Protection that in no event should these permits be accepted to release these items for entry into
the United States on or after January 1, 2006.
Importers are reminded that no new permits for these items will be issued, including the issuance of permits that would be necessary to remove frames, receivers or barrels that are currently held
or may be placed in a Customs Bonded Warehouse or Foreign Trade Zone. Importers are also advised that ATF previously approved permits for nonimportable barrels and receivers are for repair or replacement only, and this restriction was stamped on the face of the permit. Importers who import such components for any purpose other than repair or replacement of existing firearms, e.g., for assembly into new firearms, will be exceeding the scope of the import authorization in violation of law. If ATF determines, through inspection or otherwise, that an importer willfully violates the import provisions of the GCA, the importer's license is subject to revocation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923(e).
Maintaining open lines of communication is vital to the successful future of ATF’s partnership with the import community. The Firearms and Explosives Imports Branch staff is available to answer your questions about the issues addressed in this letter. You may reach us by phone at
(202) 927-8320 or by fax at (202) 927-2697. Additional information regarding this issue will be
provided on our Website at www.atf.gov.
Lewis P. Raden
Enforcement Programs and Services
If you're actually upset enough to do something in response to this here's a great letter to send to the DOJ and your congresscritters.
Dear Mr. Attorney General
Prior to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives becoming another one of your many responsibilities, there have been numerous instances of legal and administrative irregularities within that organization. I am writing this in order for you to investigate and correct these inequities as they directly affect and contravene the constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens.
As you are aware, various federal statutes and policies insure that administrative agencies such as the Department of Justice and its associated components solicit and consider public comment when developing policy, engaging in rulemaking, or undertaking other activities having general prospective effect. I am concerned that prior to its transfer from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department, whether through inadvertence or design, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) has failed to adhere to the public participation requirements in exercising its authority under 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3).
18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3) provides:
The Secretary shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition . . . is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes . . .
Congress and the Courts have recognized that this section creates a non-discretionary duty on the part of the Secretary to authorize importation of any firearm, not otherwise prohibited, of a type particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.
As you are aware the Administrative Procedure Act defines the term “rule” broadly to include:
[T]he whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.
5 U.S.C. 551(4).
Yet, despite this broad definition, when implementing the “sporting purposes” clause of 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3), BATFE has never treated its determination of whether a particular firearm is importable as a rulemaking action warranting APA notice and comment requirements. This is of particular concern in light of the supplemental rulemaking instruction in 18 U.S.C. 926 which may be read as a requirement that the Secretary utilize notice and comment rulemaking for all such rules necessary for carrying out the provisions of 925(d)(3). Instead, the BATFE has relied on handpicked, ‘agency outcome preferred’ sources of information and comment to assess whether particular firearms meet the “sporting purposes” tests. For example, in 1968 the agency selected a hand picked “Firearms Evaluation Panel” to consider whether various firearms met the tests. However, following the passage of the Federal Advisory Committee Act in 1972, which might have required that the Firearms Evaluation Panel be balanced and open in a manner not previously required, BATFE abandoned the panel in favor of a “working group” that continued to solicit information from narrow, handpicked individuals and constituencies. See, e.g. Report and Recommendation of the ATF Working Group on the Importability of Certain Semi-Automatic Rifles (July 6, 1989); Department of the Treasury Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles (April 1998).
Requests for clarification:
1) Please explain why the BATFE has historically declined to utilize notice and comment rulemaking for making determinations as to whether particular firearms are “not suitable for” or “not readily adaptable to” sporting purposes.
2) Please explain BATFE’s interpretation of its notice and comment rulemaking obligations under 18 U.S.C. 926. In particular, please explain why BATFE has not viewed the section as a requirement to utilize notice and comment rulemaking when making “sporting purpose” determinations under 925(d)(3).
3) Please explain BATFE’s basis for abandoning “panels” in favor of “working groups” to assess the importability of various firearms. Please explain how FACA’s requirement of balanced points of view is being met under the working group concept.
4) In the event that BATFE views “sporting purposes” determinations as “interpretive rules” or “general statements of policy,” please defend the Bureau’s decision to decline to utilize notice and comment rulemaking contrary to Recommendation 76-5 of the Administrative Conference of the United States, which provides in pertinent part, “Before an agency issues, amends, or repeals an interpretive rule of general applicability or a statement of general policy which is likely to have a substantial impact on the public, the agency should utilize the procedures set forth in Administrative Procedure Act subsections 553(b) and (c)…” 41 Fed. Reg. 591-596. I would suggest that since over 80% of the firearms in public hands in the US are of military origin or design, how could that above action possibly be defensible?
5) The Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business, 5 U.S.C 601 et seq., is triggered by agency rulemaking activity. In declining to initiate rulemaking proceedings when making “sporting purposes” determinations, what consideration has the agency given to the impact of such determinations on small entities as defined at 5 U.S.C. 601?
6) The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has indicated that:
The term "generally recognized" in section 925(d)(3) suggests a community standard which may change over time even though the firearm remains the same. Thus, a changing pattern of use may significantly affect whether a firearm is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to a sporting purpose.
Gun South, Inc. v. Brady, 877 F.2d 858, 866 (11th Cir.1989)
Please explain precisely how the BATFE assess this community standard and analyzes such changing patterns of firearms use in the absence of notice and comment rulemaking.
7) In 1998 the BATFE restricted the importation of a number of rifle types on the basis of such rifles’ ability to accept a “large capacity military magazine.” To a large extent BATFE determined that such a feature rendered such rifles not particularly suitable to sporting purposes on the basis of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Specifically BATFE found, “by passing the 1994 law, Congress signaled that firearms with the ability to accept large capacity magazines are not particularly suitable for sporting purposes.” Given that the 1994 Act has lapsed and can no longer be said to signal congressional opinion, how has BATFE reassessed the importability of these rifles and what is the current basis for restricting their importation?
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I think it is clear from the foregoing that the Bureau has not sought public input to the maximum extent of its authority. Accordingly, in order to reassure all interested parties of the transparency and responsiveness of government agencies, I would urge your department to direct the Bureau to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to reconsider, at a minimum, the 1998 restrictions which appear to rely to a large extent on the lapsed 1994 Act. Continued reliance by the Bureau on lapsed statutory authority to support regulatory policy is simply put, an abrogation of my rights and that of over 80 million firearms owners that vote.
November 1, 2005, 11:44 AM
thank you for the info based on this information i do not see this as a threat in itself to our rights but...if we allow this to happen without kicking and screaming those who oppose us will think of what they can do next. Give em an inch... at 100 yards
November 1, 2005, 12:50 PM
not a threat to our rights???
If the means to defend yourself are removed what is the right worth?
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.