Export news from the USA

[Brian Dick]

I've been informed by the Department of Defense Trade Control, U.S. Department of State, who handle all rifle export licensing here in the USA that rifles in caliber 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO and .50 BMG will no longer be approved for export unless specifically going to police or military end-users. This effectively ends the ability to export L39A1, L42A1 and other No.4, caliber 7.62 NATO target rifles like DCRA , Fultons and others outside of the borders of the USA. For those who seem to think that UN restrictions aren't slowly being implemented here without Congressional approval, think again. This especially bothers me because some of my best clients are located in the UK, Canada and elsewhere outside of the USA. If things don't change here after the midterm elections, I fear these will be the least of our worries for the next two years and beyond. Brian

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Beerhunter]

Honestly these people (The UN and the Governments that implement their nonsense.) must live on some other planet.

The preferred calibre of most bad guys is 7.62X39 Russian. Why? Because there are about 20 million Kalashnikovs out there at an under-the-counter at a going rate of between twenty five and fifty dollars each.

That being the case what terrorist/freedom fighter will want an SLR, M14, M16 let alone a bolt action rifle.

[Claven2]

Right, so no more Winchester Model 70's or Remington CDL's if they are in .308 then? Or are they going by .308 not being the same thing as 7.62?

What about, for example, export of M1A's?

Or AR15 rifles for that matter? Will they be allowed if the lowers are marked .22LR or .223 or whatever?

Seems like a dumb law. I can export a 12.5mm PTRS but not a .50 cal single-shot.

[spinecracker]

Is the UK also implementing these lunatic UN restrictions? If so, then the movement of L42A1s, L39A1s, Enforcers, etc, from the UK to the US will also end. I knew this change was coming, but I didn't know it would be this soon.

[bearhunter]

The UN, is nothing more than a gang of international criminals. They have somehow legitimised themselves over the years but have also been letting down their guard lately. I do notice, that the US government, isn't controlling the sale or import of said firearms and ammunition. does this mean that the UN, can't influence US internal law directly, but has to go through the House?
When it comes to Canada, the only reason, we're not on their approved list, is because the federal gov't of Canada, has requested that we not be made exempt. Is the same true of other countries that are trading partners with the US?

We have a huge battle going on in Canada, that we may or may not win. It's razor thin right now. Your turn in the US, is coming. Canada has been used for years as a test bed for social engineering by western powers, much like the former Yugoslavia was used by the UN.

[Alan de Enfield]

I picked up on this last December when I posted the information - at the time it was Poo-Pood by all the Americans on the site as being "impossible - it cannot happen here" - unfortunately, as we all know, the worldwide anti-gun lobby has teeth and the legislation creeps in by the back door.

I post below the information again :

(Read the last paragraph slowly, read it again slowly - thats the next stage of the legislation - you'll need a licence to rebarrel your Enfield or to reload your 303 ammunition !!!!)

Target Shooter Magazine – December 2009

Target Shooter December

5.56 and 7.62mm ‘Outlawed’
A perennial question is about the difference if any between 7.62X51mm and .308 Winchester (or 5.45X45mm and .223 Remington). And while there are small differences primarily in the chamber and barrel throat forms, they are so nearly indistinguishable that the UK national police firearms licensing computer uses both terminologies together either side of an oblique to avoid problems if an FAC variation is for one, but the firearm is marked and proof-tested for the other. This applies particularly to British and Commonwealth TR (‘Target Rifle’) rifles that were classed as 7.62mm until recently, although current builds or recently rebarrelled examples now bear the .308 Winchester descriptions.

None of this would be of any great import if it weren’t for the United Nations having started a crusade against international movements of military small arms and ammunition except on a government-to-government basis. The problem is that 5.56 and 7.62mm are classified as ‘military’ period, no matter that it’s a single-shot target rifle and your pride and joy. This is a particular problem for anybody traveling across international boundaries as an early result has been airlines, through their international regulator IATA, accepting these rules and refusing to carry anything so marked or documented, even if on a dual basis as in ‘7.62mm / .308 Winchester’. The next worry is that as countries sign up to the various UN accords on this issue, we’ll suddenly discover that somebody has done this for the UK and unwittingly made ownership of every .308 Win rifle in the country illegal as our FACs invariable use the dual title in listing the weapons held. In any event ICFRA, the international target shooting body which regulates full bore rifle including our ‘Target Rifle’ and F-Class, has deleted all reference to the metric versions of the two cartridges in its rules and documentation, and I imagine that applies to our NRA too.

Firearms law researcher and writer Colin Greenwood has been investigating this UN process and his findings must be deeply unsettling for all sporting and recreational firearms users. The sub-committees tasked with producing reports and recommendations that are often accepted by the UN with little or no debate are secretive, refusing to disclose their membership or the remits they are working to. They will not divulge the basis of ‘facts’ contained in their reports, how research was carried out and where, who
was interviewed and so on. One fact that is clear are that they will NOT make any distinction between civilian sporting arms, (even shotguns), and military weapons, and that they believe that arms ownership is a bad thing per se. Greenwood is convinced that this is a movement towards international civilian arms control via the back door under the cloak of keeping AKs and RPGs out of the hands of African child soldiers or guerrillas.

Things may get ‘worse’ too in that the proposed conventions seek to ban the manufacture of arms and ammunition of ANY type and ANY calibre, except by government licensed concerns which must be closely regulated. Quite right too you might think, but remember that your gunsmith is an ‘arms constructor’, and you are an ‘ammunition' manufacturer’ if you hand load. Until now, the US government has been a bastion against this sort of undemocratic backdoor control by routinely telling the UN to naff off! Not so now under Barak Obama, the State Department allegedly signaling a change of policy here, its first move being to announce that export licenses will not be issued for any barrel chambered for 5.56 or 7.62 NATO destined for a commercial end-user.

[Surpmil]

I picked up on this last December when I posted the information - at the time it was Poo-Pood by all the Americans on the site as being "impossible - it cannot happen here" - unfortunately, as we all know, the worldwide anti-gun lobby has teeth and the legislation creeps in by the back door....

IMO, it is more the UK (& Canadian) residents who tend to pooh-pooh the impact and significance of this incrementalism. The American people strike me as armed to the teeth and proportionally, remarkably well informed about what is going on and why.

And as for implementing UN regulations as law without the approval of Parliament, the UK government tried last fall and was shot down by the new "Supreme" (no longer merely "High") Court. I forget the specific issue, but someone will remember no doubt.

They'll be back!

[Beerhunter]

the new "Supreme" (no longer merely "High") Court.

They are different bodies. The Supreme Court has replaced the Law Lords sitting in the House of Lords as the "highest court in the land". The High Court (High Court of Justice) is below it in England and Wales.

[Peter Laidler]

Who ever voted for anything or anyone in the UN. I remember Bosnia and used to sit and ponder the issues there. One day I stood up and asked just who was running the xxxxxxg show. Was it the usual military order of battle / chain of command, NATO, the UN or the xxxxxxg EU?

A Lt. Colonel just said that it wasn't a point to be discussed there but if I'd like to see him afterwards................. That's an ominous sign when you're a Captain and he's a whole lot higher - and writes your report!

[newcastle]

Ridiculous and yet so predictable. The unelected people at the UN have nothing to fear from anyone when they just make their own rules up as they go. However I can guarantee that other US administrations would have told them to shive it. No doubt that the idiots who blame the USA for the carnage in mexico have alot to do with this also.