.

changed the definition of a “manufacturer” under the ITAR treaty regulations, a change which now means anyone who so much as threads a barrel on a firearm needs to pay thousands more dollars in fees and is subject to further registration.

Well, there goes the idea of building an AR....................

changed the definition of a “manufacturer” under the ITAR treaty regulations, a change which now means anyone who so much as threads a barrel on a firearm needs to pay thousands more dollars in fees and is subject to further registration.

Well, there goes the idea of building an AR....................

"Threading" is the machining or manufacturing process that produces the threads for a part.  Assembling threaded parts is not "threading".

Does this adversely affect people wanting the enjoyment of building their own AR from an 80% lower?  Since there's technically 'machining' involved.

I'd assume it means those who work on firearms professionally as a business.  Producing for oneself is not a 'manufacturer'.

Either way it is a bullshit order and only hurts small gunsmith business.  This guy cannot get gone quick enough, and the next person in position NEEDS to be a pro 2A/pro constitution person if we wish to continue to enjoy our freedoms.

Considering where this EO came from, I have a feeling the INTENT is directed at the 80% receiver.  However, there's specific wording:

"For the purpose of this subchapter, engaging in such a business requires only one occasion of
manufacturing..."

Basically, this wouldn't change anything for a private citizen who doesn't sell, or intends to sell, their "manufactured" part.

Getting back to the 80% however, this is my concern:

"Use of any special tooling or equipment upgrading in order to improve the capability of assembled or repaired firearms;"

So, an 80% is NOT a firearm, that's not in argument.  However, can the 80% be used to improve an existing firearm?  Say for arguments sake, an AR clone?

Rational AR owners would say "Of course not" since it doesn't need an 80% to function.  The argument I believe may come up however, is that the 80% can be made into a "M" receiver.

In any event, the current Executive Office has made it clear that U.S. Laws aren't relevant, with this (not to mention agreeing with ITAR at all) and the superceding of DOMESTIC shipping requirements with INTERNATIONAL requirements, to the point where I have to wonder why the current Executive Office still exists.