Obama's new ITAR directive going after gunsmiths?

[RevDisk]

It's very much hearsay(IE I heard the story from my dad, as told by the gunsmith), but he got a letter, supposedly from homeland security.

Should I tell dad to warn the guy that it might be a scam?

DDTC is State. Not Homeland Security. Scam, made up, whatever.

[RoadKingLarry]

“only one occasion of manufacturing … a defense article” is necessary for a commercial entity to be considered “engaged in the business”

 "A commercial entity"- any commercial entity?  or a firearms manufacturing commercial entity? 
 forgive my cynicism, but laws tend to be stretched as far as they can be.

Always, always, always look at a law with the worst possible interpretation and implementation by the worst possible operators with the worst possible intentions.
 

[T.O.M.]

DDTC is State. Not Homeland Security. Scam, made up, whatever.

Agreed.  Back when I did my internship with DOJ, it was clear that on enforcement issues, the fed agencies do not try to stretch their jurisdiction unless there's money to be made.  Homeland Security would not be able to make money off of license fees, so I seriously doubt that they are going out of their way to enforce it.

[tokugawa]

Agreed.  Back when I did my internship with DOJ, it was clear that on enforcement issues, the fed agencies do not try to stretch their jurisdiction unless there's money to be made.  Homeland Security would not be able to make money off of license fees, so I seriously doubt that they are going out of their way to enforce it.

 Was "back when", before we had things like the IRS going after people on political affiliation"?
 Seems pretty clear now the feds are politicized and being used as a tool to hammer the opposition. I don't think the money has anything to do with it, except incidentally. (you know, like ATF "always think forfeiture"), little stuff like that.

[Angel Eyes]

Was "back when", before we had things like the IRS going after people on political affiliation"?

Speaking of which (topic drift), a bit of good news on that front: 
http://aclj.org/free-speech/aclj-wins-significant-victory-against-the-obama-administrations-irs-targeting

Text of the ruling is a link in the ACLJ article.  An excerpt:

Here, voluntary cessation has never occurred. The IRS
has admitted to the Inspector General, to the district court, and
to us that applications for exemption by some of appellantplaintiffs
have never to this day been processed. The IRS
proudly boasts that “no more than ‘two’ applications for
exemption remain pending with the IRS.” Appellee United
States Br. in Linchpins of Liberty, at 14. Further, they claim,
“the vast majority of the plaintiffs lack a personal stake in the
outcome of the lawsuit . . . .” Id. We would advise the IRS that
a heavy burden of establishing mootness is not carried by
proving that the case is nearly moot, or is moot as to a “vast
majority” of the parties. Their heavy burden requires that they
establish cessation, not near cessation.

...

Parallel to Joseph Heller’s catch, the IRS is telling the
applicants in these cases that “we have been violating your
rights and not properly processing your applications. You are
entitled to have your applications processed. But if you ask for
that processing by way of a lawsuit, then you can’t have it.” We
would advise the IRS: if you haven’t ceased to violate the rights
of the taxpayers, then there is no cessation. You have not
carried your burden, be it heavy or light.

The IRS’s only further attempt to justify the lack of
cessation as to some of the applicants is to refer to its Catch-22
litigation rule as a “longstanding policy.” To this we would
advise the IRS: if you haven’t ceased discriminatory conduct,
the fact that you have been failing to cease it for a long time
does not create cessation. You still have not carried your
burden.

[RoadKingLarry]

we would advise the IRS: if you haven’t ceased discriminatory conduct,
the fact that you have been failing to cease it for a long time
does not create cessation. You still have not carried your
burden.

The really cool thing about that from the viewpoint of the IRS is that they don't give a rats ass because they know nothing will ever come of it.

[T.O.M.]

The really cool thing about that from the viewpoint of the IRS is that they don't give a rats ass because they know nothing will ever come of it.

I'm sure that something will happen. They'll sacrifice a few people that they'll blame for the "improper" conduct, issue a strongly worded statement, and go back to business as usual, but being more careful about hiding their motives.

[Angel Eyes]

I'm sure that something will happen. They'll sacrifice a few people that they'll blame for the "improper" conduct, issue a strongly worded statement, and go back to business as usual, but being more careful about hiding their motives.

Just like "Fast and Furious"?

[T.O.M.]

Just like "Fast and Furious"?

Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't pull that in "Fast and Furious."  Blame some mid-level guy for the whole thing, throw him under the bus, and carry on.