President Donald Trump. (Photo: NRA-ILA)
The Trump Administration has officially published a new proposal that would allow American firearms companies to export their products more easily.
The rule would transfer oversight of consumer gun exports from the State Department to the Commerce Department, saving gun companies the time and costs associated with acquiring a State Department license. Products that are “widely available in retail outlets” would move to the jurisdiction of Commerce, while products that are “inherently for military end use” would remain under State.
Lawrence Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation called the proposal “a significant positive development for the industry that will allow members to reduce costs and compete in the global marketplace more effectively, all while not in any way hindering national security.”
Right now, Ruger and Smith & Wesson generate less than five percent of their revenue via sales outside the U.S., according to the New York Times. But Keane believes that once the new regs are in place, exports for these companies could jump as much as 20 percent.
Whether Ruger and Smith can sell these exports in foreign markets is a different question. Restrictive gun ownership laws in other countries also restrict gun sales, and it isn’t clear American companies have a competitive advantage over industry giants like Glock, Heckler & Koch, and Beretta.
Jurgen Brauer, the chief economist of the Small Arms Analytics research group, told the Times that he doesn’t predict the new regs increasing the sales of American manufacturers.
“I don’t see a competitive advantage for U.S. manufactured arms abroad,” he said. “Looking purely at quality, reliability, reputation and price point, what is it that these manufacturers see to make them believe a U.S. weapon would stand out in the foreign market?”
SEE ALSO: New Trump Regs Would Alleviate Registration Costs for Gunsmiths, FFLs
Still, American companies have successfully competed with foreign manufacturers for years, and some offer products that aren’t available anywhere else.
The proposed rule was first considered under the Obama Administration in 2012, but was quickly scrapped in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. Kevin Wolf, an assistant secretary of Commerce who led the development of the new export rules, told the Times they abandoned the measure because it wasn’t “optically the right time to start discussing guns.”
Despite the rule’s origins, the anti-gun lobby has come out in opposition. Most cite concerns about weapons traffickers more easily acquiring firearms under the new rule, but Connecticut Representative Elizabeth Esty revealed the lobby’s true motivation when she said on Wednesday, “This is a national security and diplomacy question, but moving it to Commerce makes it an economic promotion of an industry.”
Even though the rule wouldn’t change domestic firearms policy, it represents a step backward in the anti-gun campaign to marginalize American gun owners and manufacturers. No promotion, economic or otherwise, is acceptable to such interests.
Individuals and organizations have 45 days from the rule’s publication to submit a formal comment.
What about ITAR and the small gunsmith?
How about streamlining the IMPORT laws for semi-auto rifles from Europe, Russia and China?
When this hits, where will computer programs for 3D Printable guns and parts fall. The State Dept said that technology is restricted and directed the originators to remove the data from their Web site. The cat was out of the bag by that time with copies floating throughout the various Webs. If we recall, the State Dept decision could be applied to just about any media format (books, magazines, vids Blogs and more) that contain firearms work instructions from how to mount a scope, reload ammo or build a AR. Its not that the State Dept just blocks “export” as anything printed could be sent anywhere in the World, if on the Net: its already avaiable to the World.
It was Obama’s state dept. that went bananas over the “printed gun”…a weird bulky single-shot contraption that its own designer was brave enough to fire once just to prove it could be done. Few criminals are going to invest $1000’s in a 3-D printer to make one of those silly things when they can easily get a gun of proven design made out of real steel just by doing what criminals do.
If I recall I don’t think the designer of that “printed gun” was ever brought up on charges. Might be kind of hard to make a case in court that single-shot pistols are a secret military technology which must be restricted.