Sen. Cruz Joins Bicameral Letter to Defend Second Amendment and Small Businesses

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), along with 23 other senators and 117 representatives, on Monday wrote Secretary of State John Kerry, admonishing the State Department for expanding the category of gun businesses that must register under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The department defined the term “manufacturer” more broadly to include gunsmiths. Because of this regulatory expansion, gunsmiths, many of whom are small business owners, will now be required to pay an annual $2,250 fee for simply threading a gun barrel or making other minor alterations to a firearm. This requirement applies even if the gunsmith does not export any firearm.

“For nearly eight years, the Obama administration has worked relentlessly to undermine the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and to punish lawful small businesses that employ so many hardworking Americans because they don’t align with the president’s political leanings,” Sen. Cruz said. “This guidance against gunsmiths is yet another unfair and unnecessary burden on gun owners and the small businesses that service them. I’m proud to work with my colleagues in the Senate to rein in the federal government’s abusive overreach and will continue to do everything in my power to protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.” 

In the letter, the members call for clarity and demand that the administration finish its seven-year “Export Control Reform” initiative, which establishes “the common sense notion that products essential to our national security, such as those intended only for military use, should be subject to the highest standards of security and oversight, while regulation of products with general commercial applications, such as common firearms, should not unnecessarily hinder American business and innovation.”

The Senate version of the letter was signed by U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and David Vitter (R-La.).

The Senate letter can be read in its entirety here and below:

August 29, 2016

The Honorable John F. Kerry
 Secretary of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C.  20520

Dear Mr. Secretary,

We believe the July 22 “guidance” regarding which manufacturers and gunsmiths must register as exporters under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and pay a $2,250 annual fee is unnecessary and will have serious and negative consequences on the hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized gunsmiths who operate in our states. 

The vast majority of our constituents engaged in gunsmithing make little to no income from their activities and often do it as a hobby or side business.  They most certainly do not export firearms.  They also do not manufacture firearms in any widely understood sense of the term.  Therefore, it makes no sense for them to be required to pay $2,250 and register under AECA and ITAR.  For those who do this work on the side - perhaps developing a small cottage business to supplement their income - the last thing they need is an edict from the federal government imposing crippling fees and requirements which are wholly unnecessary and nonsensical.  

We believe the guidance effectively expands ITAR registration requirements and should be rescinded immediately.

Expands ITAR Registrant Requirements

We understand that the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) intended the 7-22-2016 guidance to simply clarify existing policy.  In fact, in the opening of the guidance you state, “traditional gunsmithing activities do not constitute manufacturing for ITAR purposes, and therefore, do not require registration.”

Unfortunately, the four pages which follow that introductory sentence run completely counter to your stated intent.  As conveyed by the guidance from the DDTC, virtually any activity that involves modifications to an existing firearm to improve its accuracy or operation, or to change its caliber or round capacity would be treated by DDTC as controlled “manufacturing” of the firearm.  While DDTC insists this is merely the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of ‘manufacturing,’” it is anything but.  Rather, DDTC’s position is similar to claiming an auto mechanic who fixes or performs custom work on cars is a car manufacturer.

Specifically, as outlined, the activity threshold that necessitates a type 07 FFL (Federal Firearms License-manufacturing) does not match up with the activities listed on page three of the guidance.  That means that firearms dealers who engage in limited gunsmithing - activities that do not require a type 07 FFL - would still need to register with DDTC as manufacturers of a defense article listed on the United States Munitions List (USML).

Gunsmiths Are Not Exporting Arms

Not only does the guidance expand registration to gunsmiths who do not "manufacture" firearms, it also runs counter to the intent of AECA and ITAR, which are meant to control the production and exportation of military material, not the domestic repair or maintenance of a legal, common, and Constitutionally-protected product.

The Big Picture & Best Solution: Move USML Items to Department of Commerce

Finally, this would not be an issue if the Obama Administration finished its seven-year “Export Control Reform” initiative, which has bipartisan support in Congress.  The very basis of that effort is the common sense notion that products essential to our national security, such as those intended only for military use, should be subject to the highest standards of security and oversight, while regulation of products with general commercial applications, such as common firearms, should not unnecessarily hinder American business and innovation.

As part of the initiative, the Administration has been transferring regulatory responsibility for the USML from the State Department to the Commerce Department. So far, eighteen categories have been transferred; only three remain.  We understand that draft regulations exist to finish the job in this export reform initiative. 

We urge you to publish the proposed rules to move the remaining three categories of USML to Commerce, which would make the problems raised in the 7-22-2016 guidance null and void.  On what date will the Administration finish the job and publish proposed rules in the Federal Register?

Our constituents need clarity and this guidance does not accomplish that end.  The situation must be rectified and we ask for your immediate attention.

Sincerely,

Steve Daines
United States Senator

Tom Cotton
United States Senator

Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator

James M. Inhofe
United States Senator

Dean Heller
United States Senator

Jerry Moran
United States Senator

John Barrasso
United States Senator

Lisa Murkowski
United States Senator

Ted Cruz
United States Senator

John Boozman
United States Senator

Thom Tillis
United States Senator

Lamar Alexander
United States Senator

Pat Roberts
United States Senator

Bill Cassidy, M.D.
United States Senator

Jeff Sessions
United States Senator

Kelly A. Ayotte
United States Senator

Mike Enzi
United States Senator

John Cornyn
United States Senator

David Vitter
United States Senator

James Lankford
United States Senator

Richard Shelby
United States Senator

M. Michael Rounds
United States Senator

Ben Sasse
United States Senator

John McCain
United States Senator

###