Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OPEN LETTER TO FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS IMPORTERS (ATF Screws Us Again)
BATFE ^ | July 13, 2005 | Lewis P Raden - Asst. Director ATF

Posted on 07/13/2005 2:57:51 PM PDT by 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)


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: atf; banglist; batfe; firearms; scumbags
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-119 next last
To: JMack
Naked statues. USA Patriot Act.

No. Ashcroft is not someone we want on the bench. Period.

41 posted on 07/14/2005 6:46:22 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Actually, the AG may not make the determination of what sporting purposes is. It could very well be some ATF flunkie.

Here is 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3):

(3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, except 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

Basically, under the code it looks like the AG can ban certain firearm, but not parts for firearms. Either way, I'm still not a Gonzales fan knowing what his stand is on the 2nd Amendment.


42 posted on 07/14/2005 6:47:14 AM PDT by kildak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: datura

Each Person should if they want it!


43 posted on 07/14/2005 6:48:14 AM PDT by songbird51 (Second Amendment Sisters ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
After reading the code in question, it may not be the AG who make the determination. Just the same, I'm with you. How have our lawmakers gotten away with saddling us with all these obviously unconstitutional gun control laws. Seems like incrementalism is the name of the game.
44 posted on 07/14/2005 6:52:49 AM PDT by kildak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: kildak

Death from a thousand paper cuts. My anger at this administration keeps increasing although I still believe Bush is better than Kerry.


45 posted on 07/14/2005 6:56:20 AM PDT by stevio (Red-Blooded American Male (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kildak
except in any case where the Attorney General has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph

Actually, it DOES make it sound like it is his decision.

46 posted on 07/14/2005 7:21:16 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder

Don't know if you saw this, thought you'd be interested.


47 posted on 07/14/2005 7:22:04 AM PDT by eyespysomething ("Old Hippies" re-living their activist youth - the first time nostalgia had a body count attached.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevio

I'm no Kerry fan, but maybe the Republican controlled congress would have grow a pair if Kerry were in office.


48 posted on 07/14/2005 7:27:15 AM PDT by kildak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mylife

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


49 posted on 07/14/2005 7:40:47 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (This space intentionally blank) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kildak
Maybe they would have tried to sound like it anyway. I remember back when Trent Lott was the minority leader in the Senate, clinton was prez and we had Congress. I caught Trent on one of the Sunday shows and he was going off about something. I was like, alright! Go get 'em! Then we got the Senate and Trent was back to some mealy mouth response to some home run issue. I was like, WTF? When Lott was removed from leadership due to the bogus Strom Thurman issue, I wasn't very disappointed. Same thing today more or less. The Republicans either don't know how to lead or don't want to. The whole thing is extremely frustrating.
50 posted on 07/14/2005 7:41:51 AM PDT by stevio (Red-Blooded American Male (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: El Laton Caliente

If there is any justice in this world, these ATF goons will suffer the same fate as the Waco children. Then I will go and piss on their corpses. A curse on all of them.


51 posted on 07/14/2005 7:42:19 AM PDT by Sir Gawain (When in doubt, cite the Commerce Clause)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevio

You have just discovered the Party of Government.

All the rest of it is BS.


52 posted on 07/14/2005 7:56:08 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: stevio

Spineless gasbags, every last one of them!


53 posted on 07/14/2005 7:56:18 AM PDT by kildak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: El Laton Caliente
Dateline 2008

The ATF under the direction of George Bush and AG Alberto Gonzales having banned the importation and domestic manufacture of all powder operated firearms except for police use is now banning the importation and assembly using domestic components of the following non-sporting weapons.

IN a related story Sara Brady, Charles Schemer, and Hitlary Clinton decried the Republican move as "not going far enough," stating that 400 children a day were killed by these dangerous devices, and that there were still weapons in the hands of individuals who had hidden them from the police in the 2007 Executive Order for the general confiscation of all weapons that were capable of injuring police.

54 posted on 07/14/2005 7:59:23 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
We didn't do anything over Emminent Domain. We won't do anything about this either.

That's right. We also didn't do anything about campaign finance reform. Neither did we do anything about Gonzales v. Raich and the expansion of interstate commerce. But there's a lot of things, going back 70 years or so, that we didn't do anything about.

It's creeping communism and a steady repeal of the Constitution and Bill o' Rights. They're too frightened to try to ban the guns in one massive strike, so they get the guns piece by piece - remember, Bush said he would sign a renewal of the AWB. Soon we'll be reduced to the level the Brits are at.

Sometimes I wish they'd just come and take my house, take my guns, take my money and dole it back out to me as they see fit. Just get it over with ... they're going to do it anyway and they've made it clear we can't stop them.

55 posted on 07/14/2005 8:03:34 AM PDT by SittinYonder (America is the Last Beach)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
I don't WANT to live in a "safe" world. I don't WANT to be coddled and protected. I want that "animating contest of freedom" that was promised us and that so many have fought and died to protect.

Next person who wants to protect me from some ephemeral danger had best have their Kevlar unddies on.

56 posted on 07/14/2005 8:03:56 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I don't WANT to live in a "safe" world.

Don't worry. Firearms restrictions will make you a lot less safe. Ask any middle class Cambodian - Oops, my bad, there aren't any middle class Cambodians let to ask :-(

57 posted on 07/14/2005 8:11:29 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: stevio
The Republicans either don't know how to lead or don't want to.

Maybe the problem is that the Republicans don't want to lead us to the place we want to go. If we'd just get in line and follow like good boys and girls, they'd lead just fine. Right?

58 posted on 07/14/2005 8:11:46 AM PDT by SittinYonder (America is the Last Beach)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: JMack
I'm concerned about Ashcroft.

While he is pro R2KBA, I understand that he supports current gun regulations as well as increased gun regulations.

59 posted on 07/14/2005 8:12:55 AM PDT by Bear_Slayer (DOC - 81mm Mortars, Wpns Co. 2/3 KMCAS 86-89)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

Why does Ashcroft even matter anymore?


60 posted on 07/14/2005 8:13:42 AM PDT by SittinYonder (America is the Last Beach)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-119 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson