More ammo import scuttlebut ...

[R.Z.]

Lotsa talk about this stuff lately ... I don't think this one's a repost:

http://virginiashootingsportsassociation.blogspot.com/2009/02/state-department-floating-ammo-import.html

Friday, February 13, 2009

State Department Floating Ammo Import Ban?

It looks like those who said the Obama Administration would strike while the iron is hot may have been correct, and the Administration may be doing it in a way that does not require them to even get a vote in Congress. In this morning's edition of the Shooting Wire, Jim Shepherd writes that Canadian officials have it on "good authority" our State Department may be on the verge of cutting off all imports of certain calibers of ammunition.

Ammos listed for this rumored ban include the .50BMG, 7.62x39mm Soviet, 7.62x51mm NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Additionally, we're hearing that an expansion of this proposed ban might be broadened to include the 6.8mm SPC, 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP- among others.

In other words, State Department officials may be floating a trial balloon to see if there are howls of protest, or whimpers of compliance. Canadian elected officials who have directed this information to me say the move seems to be motivated by "emboldened" anti-gun officials who think they have a kindred spirit in President Obama.

Shepherd continues that there may also be a plan to ban exports on certain firearms to Canada from the US, resulting in the State Department hammering gun manufacturers, distributors and exporters in the United States while simultaneously making firearms -and ammunition - ownership and acquisition more difficult for Canadians.

Many in the pro-rights community have said since the election that Obama could circumvent Congress by using regulations in his various cabinet departments to attack gun owners. It appears that it may have already begun.

Posted by VSSA President at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://virginiashootingsportsassociation.blogspot.com/2009/02/state-department-floating-ammo-import.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" title="2009-02-13T08:01:00-05:00">8:01 AM</abbr>

[Almond27]

I call BS just seems like some phony write up I think it would be all over the news.

[Guest gunslinger707]

I call BS just seems like some phony write up I think it would be all over the news.

Politics and Pistols

Last week, we reported that Canadian authorities had sent word of a United States State Department proposal that would ban several ammo calibers sale by United States companies to Canada. It's safe to say that the story kicked off quite a storm on both sides of the border.

In Canada, calls to their Parliament protested the idea that whole classes of ammo could, effectively, be stopped at the border with little, if any, recourse. Here in the US, it taught me to be a good bit more exact with the terms "import" and "export" most especially when I was writing about both parties in the transaction. The intent of the story was simple - to let our readers know the United States Department of State was considering a ban on the export of US ammo in several calibers to Canada.

Although the .50 BMG, 7.62 x39mm Soviet, 7.61 x51 NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington are considered by some to be purely military rounds, they are, in fact, very effective for hunting anything from varmints to polar bears. The US State Department, however, seemed to be trying to use the military application of those rounds and classify them as for military sales only. Technically, it's not a "gun ban" or even an "ammo ban" but a "reclassification" - but the effect would be the same. Those calibers of ammo would be restricted export items for American companies.

Another reported action in the works was the requirement that all firearms require DSP-83 End Use Certificates (and the $250 export fee per firearm) was also apparently couched as a simple process reclassification. Again, not a ban, but a pretty effective "non-ban" on gun sales. People aren't too-apt to pay an additional $250 for a product that hasn't significantly changed in any way (other than cost).

Fortunately, we're starting to hear some response to those trial balloons - from both sides of the border. The denials are coming from some normally anti-gun politicians in Canada. Our sources in the Canadian Parliament suspect the protests from Canadian gun owners had an impact. As expected, our officials "can't comment on something that's only been proposed" but it seems the idea may be losing steam. And it should.

Another story from Washington is also getting its share of attention. President Obama's administration is defending - at least for now - the rule enacted by President Bush in his final days in office allowing concealed carry in national parks. The current administration's support is not unconditional, but it's jaw-dropping for many of us who have a hard time seeing the current administration supporting anything remotely supporting firearms or the rights of gun owners.

The qualification on the support is based on the fact the administration is also looking to determine whether the Bush measure follows environmental filing procedures. That might seem absurd, but it's the one point Brady Campaign, the National Parks Conservation Association and the National Coalition of National Park Service Retirees used as a basis for a lawsuit seeking to overturn the rule. They argue the regulation was enacted without the requisite environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. They also proffered the position that the concealed carry rule might prevent some visitors and school groups from going to the national parks. Seems like shallow logic, but laws have been overturned on equally diminutive arguments.

The Justice Department has filed a response that says the new rule "does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety."

Despite that response, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for an internal assessment of whether the measure might, in fact, have any environmental impacts that need be taken into account.

We'll keep you posted.

- Jim Shepherd

BS seem's to be the case here as far as U S Import's are concerned .