Trump administration eases export rules on firearms.

[stillquietvoice]

You are wrong. Article 6 does three things:

thank you for clearing that up.

 

[boom boom]

good news on itar. i would like to see trump pump up the cmp and open military bases and post offices to ccw permit, both only need executive orders.

Rulemaking at the Post Office is a bit different than other departments due to having an independent government corporation status. A number of normal guidance laws that apply to other agencies do not apply to the post office for probably political reasons. The 39 CFR 232.1 regulation that deals with firearms at post offices might not be at risk to a presidential executive order ordering a change due to the USPS independent status.

Regarding military bases, the 2015 NDAA Act more or less mandated that the DOD change its total ban policy and it did so in Nov. 2016. The law grants the Secretary and undersecretary the power to regulate and thus a presidential action would have to work around that statutory provision--e.g. an order to the Sec. of Defense which might or might not be followed.

https://freebeacon.com/national-sec...procedure-military-personnel-carry-guns-base/

Here is the long form (about 26 pages)
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d5210_56.pdf

Here is the relevant law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2672

Executive orders are inferior to laws passed by Congress and constitutional provisions and are not "laws" in the normal sense of the word--merely a way to implement pre-existing presidential powers granted either by statute or constitution.

 

[AlexanderA]

Executive orders are inferior to laws passed by Congress and constitutional provisions and are not "laws" in the normal sense of the word--merely a way to implement pre-existing presidential powers granted either by statute or constitution.

Executive Orders should also not be confused with Regulations changes, such as the bump stock ban. Trump's signature appears nowhere on the bump stock ban. He just ordered the ATF (apparently by Twitter) to reverse its previous policy.

 

[boom boom]

Executive Orders should also not be confused with Regulations changes, such as the bump stock ban. Trump's signature appears nowhere on the bump stock ban. He just ordered the ATF (apparently by Twitter) to reverse its previous policy.

You are right. However, sometimes the executive order is the regulatory change which depends on congressional delegation or constitutional delegation of power in the authorizing statute/constitutional provision--tariff levels for example of a statutory delegation and recognizing a country's government and its officers as the legitimate representative of that country's people (Venezuela for example) as an inherent constitutional power of the presidency. For example, I would imagine that constitutionally a commander in chief could issue orders directly to military officers regarding carry of firearms due to constitutional powers of the executive as commander in chief but not necessarily DOD civilians if a congressional statute prohibited it.

The whole delegation doctrine which is laid out in J.W. Hampton and Panama Refining cases is pretty moribund at the federal level like a lot of constitutional provisions that limit governmental action such as the contracts clause and the privileges and immunities clause.

 

[ponchh]

How do you know that? I haven't seen any decisions coming out of the SC regarding gun control. Have you?

The SC is there to uphold the constitution. They are not there to uphold what you believe to be to the benefit of gun owners. Some very conservative justices have kicked 2A to the curb. Scalia was one of them.

If they uphold the constitution as written, instead of trying to rewrite it for the warm fuzzy feel good agenda, it will most definitely benefit gun ownership

 

[Gridley]

Trump is helping American businesses, exports help American companies working in America, imports not so much. While imports may have better results for the average gun owner, and surplus would be nice, it actually runs counter to encouraging purchase of domestic firearms.
So while I would like it, it is obvious to me why this was the action prioritized.

Anyone have any feel for what the global demand is like? Would easing export restrictions result in a lot of exports, which in turn would drive up firearm prices in the US civilian market? Or would it just be a bit of extra revenue for manufacturers?

 

[Telekinesis]

Anyone have any feel for what the global demand is like? Would easing export restrictions result in a lot of exports, which in turn would drive up firearm prices in the US civilian market? Or would it just be a bit of extra revenue for manufacturers?

I think this has more to do with lowering the regulatory burden on small companies rather than actually trying to encourage exports. Right now all 07 manufacturerig FFLs (or at least every one I have talked to) have to register with the state department and pay the $2400/year fee regardless of whether they actually intend to export anything.

It's not a big deal for large companies, but it is a massive fee for small companies - especially guys who operate as a side job and not their full time job. ITAR is the sole reason that I didn't start a small manufacturing business a few years ago. The numbers just didn't work with having to pay that fee. Now that it is going away, I expect that more small 07 FFLs like gunsmiths and boutique ammo manufacturers will pop up.

I'm sure there is going to be some more exportation going on, but I think this regulatory change is going to mean more for the small FFL than it is for the exporter.

 

[209jones]

It should help us here in Canada, a bit, not a lot. We may possibly have access to bullets and brass again, but, if I read it right, only up to 100.00 retail per shipment, that doesn't go very far. Still can't bring it back with us. Don't cheer too loud for Trump on this, as much as I hate the thought, Bummer initiated it. But, with a lot of parts and regular everyday items coming off the ITAR list, and going to Commerce, we still have to wait and see what rules Commerce decides to impose on their own..

 

[silvermane_1]

When SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge on California's CCW ban last year, Thomas wrote a "dissent from the denial of review." Gorsuch joined Thomas. A good sign, at least.

Kavanaugh said during his hearings that he didn't see any difference between a pistol or an "assault rifle" insofar as the second amendment is concerned. Another good sign.

I think both men will rule correctly when the time comes.

I know that Kavanaugh stated that the Patriot Act was basically "constitutional" in a drafted statement during the GWB administration, that is very concerning to me and should be to any freedom loving individual.

 

[Mk VII]

ITAR is being a pain to those of us who have US-made firearms and wish to go on using them and repairing them.

 

[CoalTrain49]

If they uphold the constitution as written, instead of trying to rewrite it for the warm fuzzy feel good agenda, it will most definitely benefit gun ownership

I don't think you understand the concept of the SC. Not everyone interprets the constitution the same way. If they did there would be no reason to even have a SC. The founding fathers knew they wouldn't and provided for a court to settle the disagreements. Even the judges on the SC can't agree on what the constitution means most of the time.

It may be crystal clear to you but unfortunately not everyone sees it the same way. It's a pretty old document written in a time that was much different. The SC is there to help us deal with the complexities of applying the constitution to a changing time, like it or not.

 

[jmorris]

Sweet, I wonder if we can export bump stocks. Oops, I meant machineguns.....