Jump to content


- - - - -

It's Been Fun, But........


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_hardrede_*

Guest_hardrede_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2004 - 10:56 PM

SMD

Edited by hardrede, 21 September 2005 - 08:41 PM.

  • 0

#2 Merry Ploughboy

Merry Ploughboy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 888 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2004 - 10:47 AM

Hardrede,

Damn shame!

MP
  • 0

#3 normandy123

normandy123

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 41 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2004 - 06:41 PM

Is this the cost for an importers permit?
So those that belly up with the funds can have a monopoly on kits and set their own prices...it is bad enough already...
So rather than ban the entire thing the 'one piece of the pie at a time' chipping away at our 2nd Amendment rights continues....
Who's to blame for this outrageous increase?
The Whitehouse or some 2-bit government beauracrat?

  • 0

#4 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 12 December 2004 - 02:09 AM

Ok, call me ignorant huh.gif ; but what does DDTC stand for and what is this new fee going to effect?

If this fee is $1750 now, what was it before? dry.gif

Inquiring minds want to know! wink.gif
  • 0

#5 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 12 December 2004 - 02:24 PM

That is disgusting! ohmy.gif I hate the incrementalism of these career bureaucrats!! mad.gif So, effectively, your per year fees just rose to $2,300, to remain a working Class II. Thanks for the correction AZ Doug! Now, that's a nice tidy sum for the Commies to work with, and they get the increased benefit of doubling the paperwork load from once every four years, to once every two years. Got to love that government efficiency!!! blink.gif cool.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#6 AZDoug

AZDoug

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 200 posts

Posted 12 December 2004 - 04:34 PM

No, per year ITAR fees are going from $600 to $1750. So, lesse: $50/yr for FFL, $500 SOT, $1750 for ITAR, that adds up to $2300 in fees/year for a class 2.

That is on top of the $500 yearly SOT fee.

You can comment here

http://www.regulatio...cs/04-26954.htm

until Jan 7.

Also, This is worth a letter AND phone call to your Congress critter and both Senators.

Doug
  • 0

#7 1921A

1921A

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 531 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2004 - 05:10 PM

DDTC Issue?

I'm curious. I read your attachment. At the risk of sounding ignorant, what does this have to do with the average 07 FFL or Class 2? If I remember correctly, this has been a hotly contested issue in the past.

All of the language in the attachment seems to deal with the production of military/defense armament and the exportation of same. During my last ATF inspection, I asked the inspector about this issue and she had no knowledge of it involving anyone who was not actively involved in defense contracts and/or the importation/exportation of current military type weapons and explosives. Neither did the NFA division. She said she knew of no requirement for an 07 FFL or a class 2 to register with State Department unless they were engaged in that activity. I've been an 01 FFL and class 3 for a lot of years and am considering changing to a reduced rate manufacturing license in order to produce custom bolt action varmint/target rifles.

Over the years I've worked with and known several class 2 manufacturers and none of them have the slightest idea what this is all about. But then none of them were importing military arms or producing current military equipment for export. Maybe that's why.

I noticed there is a name and phone number in the publication to contact for questions and information. I think I'll try calling this week.

Greg Fox

  • 0

#8 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 12 December 2004 - 05:35 PM

AZ Doug, thanks for the correction. cool.gif I guess I did not read the whole statement, and was confused by the bureau-speak, where they were talking about changing the paperwork for registration fees from every four years, to every two years. blink.gif Still, it is worse than I thought! In order to remain a working Class II, you need to fork over $2,300!! I'm pissed, and I'm not even a Class II!!! ohmy.gif mad.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#9 21 smoker

21 smoker

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1333 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West coast ,FL
  • Interests:collecting nfa, old cars, huntin` n fishin`, reloading ammo

    NRA CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR
    MVPA RESTORATION MEMBER
    MARINE CORP LEAGUE PISTOL TEAM MEMBER

Posted 12 December 2004 - 06:25 PM

Ask Bob Landies and get one opinion.....ask Dan Shea and get an entirely different one!... wink.gif
  • 0

#10 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 2785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.

Posted 12 December 2004 - 09:35 PM

The way I read it, those who are required to pay these increased fees are those who have Defense contracts, and not in the Civilian Sector of business.

QUOTE
The business of
either manufacturing or exporting defense articles


Wouldn't this imply to those only in the business of Supplying their wares to the Military?

I am, by no means, an expert in such matters, but this is the way in which I understand it.
  • 0

#11 AZDoug

AZDoug

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 200 posts

Posted 12 December 2004 - 10:23 PM

On top of havibng to pay this extortion, which is mandatory, Dept of State, is now starting to work with ATF to find out who has registered with DDTC to collect their tribute.

They can go back and assess unpaid DDTC fees for any number of years, so all those C2's that have been flying under the radar may get a nasty surprise. Simply giving up the SOT, will not erase the amount due.

Call your Congressmen and Senators.

Doug
  • 0

#12 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2882 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2004 - 11:00 PM

I will be the first to admit I know nothing about this subject, but like Devlin, I can read. Randall, this is a partial quote from your post:

(a) Any person who engages in the United States in the business of either manufacturing or exporting defense articles....

The key words in this language are "defense articles." I don't think any reasonable definition of defense articles would include all firearms. Single barrel shotguns, single shot .22 caliber youth rifles and Post Sample Thompson’s may be firearms, but I believe anyone would be hard pressed to show (or establish) these items are a defense article to the US Government.

As I said, I know nothing about this subject. However, before I wrote a check for this fee, I would want to see a definition of "defense articles" directly related to this cited statute or regulation. Just my 2 cents worth on this ...

  • 0

#13 AZDoug

AZDoug

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 200 posts

Posted 13 December 2004 - 12:21 AM

Argue all you want. Defense articles is any firearm or firearm related part that can be exported, whether you export or not.

Sorry, whether you sell to the US military or not, is irrelevent., you gotta pay, and you will get your letter demanding the fees.

call your congressman and complain, don't argue here saying you are exempt because of (whatever reason).

Doug
  • 0

#14 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2882 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 December 2004 - 07:23 AM

If the definition of defense article is any firearm or firearm related part that can be exported, then this regulation will ultimately fail as being overly broad and vague. By this definition, a manufacturer that only makes adjustable combs for competition shotguns would fall under this regulation. The strict interpretation of a regulation like this will never withstand judicial scrutiny. However, I do not want to start an argument over something like this. If what is written in this post is true, you will soon see the uproar written about in gun magazines that don't regularly cater to Class Three or military products.
  • 0

#15 PATHFINDER

PATHFINDER

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Automation Alley, Michigan

Posted 13 December 2004 - 08:32 AM

QUOTE (hardrede @ Dec 12 2004, 07:24 PM)
or furnishing defense services

I think that this is the important phrase.

Private contractors like Blackwater Security make huge coin by sending former SF & SO operators into hot spots like Iraq to provide security for defense contractors. Think how much the Gov will make if each of these INDIVIDUALS must pay this fee.Some of these guys are earning a much as a 100 G a year to provide basic security. And there ar probably a lot more of them than SOT and exporters. Since these guys earn this pay outside the US they pay NO income taxes on it. If the Gov can not stop this they at least want a cut.

The other problem is they wear all US gear and look like US soldiers but have no qualms about firing first as they are not restricted by the rules of war. This is making our troops look bad to the locals and sets them up for retaliation when they were not the ones commiting the offending act.

Some of them are also up on charges for violating the UN ban on mercenaries.
  • 0

#16 RichUrich

RichUrich

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 67 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville ARKANSAS
  • Interests:1. Collecting German WWII weapons<br><br>2. I hold a degree in Psychology<br><br>3. I am the VP Operations for a major contractor of night vision devices www.auroratactical.com

Posted 13 December 2004 - 08:33 AM

"Defense Articles" means ANYTHING the prosecuting US Attorney wants it to be!
We manufacture night vision devices...the neck cord on the night vision goggles is a black boot lace! Guess what...if someone wants them for a night vision device they automatically become a restricted item.

DO NOT think because a Federal regulation is vague that will be any protection from prosecution! We have had lots of experience with vague and even conflicting regulations... the bottom line is TOUGH! You want to play in the big leagues then you pay the price. And for ANY firearms or defense related manufacturers you are now playing in the big leagues!

There ain't no arguing with a govt audit it is just a question for your lawyers as to how much you are going to pay! Divorce is cheaper and less painful.

Been there, done that. I know where of I speak.
I could tell you many horror stories of BIG corporations that have gotten hammered on pitiful compliance technicalities for millions of dollars of fines!!

Rich Urich
Director of Operations
NVEC, Inc.
  • 0

#17 RichUrich

RichUrich

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 67 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville ARKANSAS
  • Interests:1. Collecting German WWII weapons<br><br>2. I hold a degree in Psychology<br><br>3. I am the VP Operations for a major contractor of night vision devices www.auroratactical.com

Posted 13 December 2004 - 08:36 AM

Part II
And if by some miracle you think you "beat" them on a technicality...hahahahahaha
Boy are you in for a surprise! You will have wished you payed the fine in full and would gladly pay it if given a second chance. The govt buracracies can be very very vengeful by auditing you to death.
I have heard too many cases of this happening too!
  • 0

#18 Kevin

Kevin

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:western, TN
  • Interests:Airplanes
    Guns
    Hot Rods

Posted 13 December 2004 - 09:10 PM

Just like the FAA (Friends Against Aviation). Don't have a clue how to fly but will hammer you for not dotting your T's or crossing your I's.
Kevin
  • 0

#19 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 14 December 2004 - 12:58 AM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Dec 13 2004, 11:40 AM)


Reading what Pathfinder and Rich Urich wrote, it reminds me that those great folks who identify themselves as "your government" routinely hammer relatively innocent folks for millions of dollars in penalties for these concocted technical "violations".  I had the same experiences with OSHA, in corporate life.  It's just a game of gotcha, played by people who could really care less.  They are just fund raisers for a rotten structure.  And in the end, it is always the consumer or the taxpayer who is actually indirectly ripped off; the costs are passed along to him.  It is clearly an elaborate form of hidden taxation.


Phil, I couldn't agree more. We all pay in the end! blink.gif It is very much like the auto insurance rip-off game; we good drivers end up paying higher rates than we should, especially in a hell-hole like New Yorkistan. The sales tax rate in Erie County, N.Y. (home of the Buffalo Bills) just went up to 9.25%!!! ohmy.gif Next year the property taxes will probably increase, and the politicians, who supposedly represent all of their constituents, will likely say, "at least we didn't increase the State or sales tax again this year." mad.gif It is becoming more and more intolerable to continue living under socialism! ph34r.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#20 Kevin

Kevin

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:western, TN
  • Interests:Airplanes
    Guns
    Hot Rods

Posted 15 December 2004 - 10:25 AM

Phil, sorry to hear that but I understand. It's my career so I'll have to put up with them for awhile longer. dry.gif
Kevin
  • 0