OPEN LETTER TO FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS IMPORTERS (ATF Screws Us Again)

BATFE ^ | July 13, 2005 | Lewis P Raden - Asst. Director ATF

[El Laton Caliente]

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Assistant Director

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, DC 20226

www.atf.gov

July 13, 2005

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 information to importers concerning the lawful importation of certain frames, receivers and barrels.

Importation of Frames, Receivers or Barrels of Firearms Under Title 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3)

Section 925(d) provides standards for the importation of firearms and ammunition into the United States. In particular, section 925(d)(3) provides that the Attorney General shall authorize a firearm to be imported if it meets several conditions: (1) it is not defined as a firearm under the National Firearms Act (NFA); (2) it is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes; and (3) it is not a surplus military firearm. However, the subsection further provides that “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.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has determined that the language of 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3) permits no exceptions that would allow frames, receivers or barrels for otherwise non-importable firearms to be imported into the United States. Accordingly, ATF will 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.

ATF recognizes that importers have, in the past, obtained import permits authorizing the importation of barrels and receivers for non-importable firearms for "repair or replacement" and may have entered into contracts in reliance upon such authorizations. In order to mitigate the impact of ATF’s change in import policy and to allow importers a reasonable period to come into compliance, ATF will forgo enforcement of this import restriction for 60 calendar days and allow importers holding existing permits to continue to import barrels and receivers for a period of 60 calendar days. ATF believes this time period is adequate for importers who have entered into binding contracts for the sale and shipment of such barrels and receivers to complete the process of importing the items into the United States. 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 after September 10, 2005.

Importers are reminded that ATF previously approved permits for non-importable barrels and receivers 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).

Importers holding approved import permits for non-importable barrels and receivers will receive a letter prior to September 10, 2005, advising them that their permit has been suspended. This determination affects importers as follows:

IF YOU SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION TO IMPORT FRAMES, RECEIVERS AND BARRELS ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF THIS LETTER, AND THE PERMIT IS FOR NONSPORTING FIREARMS, SURPLUS MILITARY FIREARMS, OR NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT FIREARMS, ATF WILL DENY YOUR APPLICATION.

IF YOU HAVE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO IMPORT FRAMES, RECEIVERS AND BARRELS THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN DENIED OR APPROVED BY ATF AND THE PERMIT IS FOR NONSPORTING FIREARMS, SURPLUS MILITARY FIREARMS OR NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT FIREARMS, ATF WILL DENY YOUR APPLICATION.

IF YOU ALREADY HOLD AN APPROVED PERMIT TO IMPORT FRAMES, RECEIVERS AND BARRELS “FOR REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT,” ATF WILL BE SENDING YOU A LETTER EXPLAINING THAT YOUR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED AFTER SEPTEMBER 10, 2005, AND PROVIDING YOU WITH INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHT TO SUBMIT ARGUMENTS WHY YOUR PERMIT SHOULD NOT BE REVOKED. 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.

Sincerely yours,

Lewis P Raden Assistant Director (Enforcement Programs and Services)

[blackie]

Roger that ~ the Second Amendment, Private Property Rights and Protecting Our Borders and Coastlines From All Foreign Invaders ~ are of the highest priority!

Molon Labe!

[lepton]

Anyone with that much trouble seeing a statue with naked boobies doesn't seem wound all that tight to me.

Ummm. you just read the spin...not what actually happened, right?

The press corps was having fun putting the "boobies" in frame when they took pictures of him (and other Republicans), going so far as to lay (or dive en masse) on the floor so as to get the breast in the shot.

They bought the drapes for what it cost to rent them four times.

[lepton]

I specifically remember my Con Law prof telling us that every right mentioned in the Bill of Rights was an individual right, which is what makes us different from the rest of the world.

Which Justice Thomas makes note of in his dissents to many misapplications of the 14th Amendment.

[spunkets]

Ashcroft did't change the sport def. Gonzales took what was left. It appears to me there's a curious timing here that may be a political move.

"Don’t expect to hear much from Bush on Rove, or the Courts after he makes his selections. Republicans in Congress will also be silent (except Specter and Hagel) and will not risk their own re-elections and legacies to side with Democrats this time round.

SCOTUS and Rove

[mylife]

Would they still be legal, even with this horse$#!+ ruling, as a "curio and relic"?"

Im not sure how to interpret all this legal mumbo jumbo other than "they are taking more of our rights".

My local dealer says that century arms told him all foriegn battle rifles including bolt actions would fall under this new interpretation.

I guess we have till 9/10 to seek clarification.... Wow 9/10 vice 9/11 ...both are rubbing me the wrong way..Grrrr

[FreedomPoster]

>>Im not sure how to interpret all this legal mumbo jumbo other than "they are taking more of our rights"

Yeah, I'd second that.

The big gun show is the weekend. Time to continue to BLOAT.

[mylife]

The Bloat! L0L

Yup Im asking for a FAL and a Druganov tomorrow L0L

[supercat]

How are parts which can be used on either 'sporting' or 'non-sporting' rifles handled?

[mylife]

Contacting Officials

Sometimes I think that many of us are afraid to be on record as to Firearm matters, but we have to make our voices heard! They work for us!

[GailA]

btt

[Dead Corpse]

If Ashcroft wasn't such a dogwhistle, it wouldn't have been an issue.

[B4Ranch]

"Only because we're guilty of refusing to look at what Republicans do."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435224/posts?page=199#199

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435224/posts?page=203#203

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441665/posts?page=39#39

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440610/posts?page=20#20

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1443174/posts?page=23#23

[El Gato]

By law the Attorney General is the one responsible for making the determination. (Of course the law itself is abhorrent to the Second Amendment to the Constitution). So, even if AG Gonzales didn't specifically authorize this change of policy, he's still the one where the buck stops.

[El Gato]

Bolt actions aren't effected, just semis and kits from fulls that you could build a semi from.

That's not what the letter says:

IF YOU SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION TO IMPORT FRAMES, RECEIVERS AND BARRELS ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF THIS LETTER, AND THE PERMIT IS FOR NONSPORTING FIREARMS, SURPLUS MILITARY FIREARMS, OR NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT FIREARMS, ATF WILL DENY YOUR APPLICATION

A Mosin Nagant is a Surplus Military Firearm, so is a Mause, SMLE, etc. (There might be a curio and relic exception however)

[El Gato]

well, we don't see that a short barrel shotgun has any military use. so we don't see GCA 1934 as unconstitutional" yet later ammendments and further bans SPECIFICALLY refer to millitary weapons (from other countries) as banned, not to mention US millitary weapons. we don't need sporting, we need someone to get scotus to re-open us v miller 1939, so they can declare GCA 1934 and all of its ammendments unconstitutional

They didn't even rule that all of the GCA was constitutional, they addressed the short barreled shotgun portion. Even then they really just sent the issue back to the lower court, which took no evidence or testimony on the issue, bur just threw out the case as violative of the second amendment, which the law clearly is. One principal, (not Miller) had plea bargained to a lessor charge, and the other (Miller) was dead. Thus there were no "further proceedings" which the Supreme Court had ordered on the issue and the case. If there had been, the defense could have called an Army ordnance type to testify that short barreled, and short overall, shotguns have a long military and militia history. Shotguns, although not short barreled ones, are current military issue and are in use in Iraq and Afghanistan

[El Gato]

How are parts which can be used on either 'sporting' or 'non-sporting' rifles handled?

They are "non-sporting" by definition.

[supercat]

How are parts which can be used on either 'sporting' or 'non-sporting' rifles handled?

They are "non-sporting" by definition.

That wouldn't really make sense, then, since nearly any "sporting" rifle has parts which could be used on non-sporting rifles (indeed, almost all the parts of a sporting rifle could be used on a non-sporting rifle). So unless one forbids importation of all rifles, or unless one allows importation of "sporting rifles" but not parts therefor, it would seem that importation of just about anything would be prohibited.

The only interpretation I can figure that would make logical sense would be to provide that parts imported after the cutoff date may only be used on sporting rifles, much the way that rifles imported after 1989 may only be outfitted in "sporting configurations". From a practical and enforcement standpoint, however, this would be ridiculous. There are many imported firearm components in this country for which no paperwork exists regarding their provenance, and there is no regulatory provision indicating that components imported after the new cutoff must be conspicuously marked to indicate such.

People may have squawked a lot about Clinton's "Assault Weapons Ban", but at least he had the constitutional decency to have Congress pass it. George Bush the Elder's 1989 restrictions were simply imposed by fiat, and now it looks as though the same will be true of George Bush the Younger.

[Drammach]

BTTT !!!

We cannot just let this go..
Gotta be someone out there willing to make this a "talking point"..

Gonna ask my congress critter about it..

[looscnnn]

"recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms,"

So I guess that means that we can't claim that the parts are needed for maintaining competition firearms such as used in the Heavy Metal class at the 3 gun matches?