Hornady® is proud to introduce the new 6mm ARC (Advanced Rifle Cartridge). Recently tested, selected and fielded by a specialized group within the U.S. Department of Defense for its multipurpose combat rifle program, the 6mm ARC is a truly versatile cartridge that maximizes the potential of the AR-15 platform. The consumer offerings will feature bullets selected to deliver ideal performance for hunting, match shooting and personal protection applications.

“The 6mm ARC began with a simple question: What can we do with today’s technology to maximize the performance of the AR-15 platform?” Hornady Ballistician Jayden Quinlan said. “We subsequently modeled and tested a variety of designs in different calibers until we were able to produce the most flexible cartridge possible within the limits of the AR-15 system.”

This new cartridge delivers less felt recoil than larger short-action-based cartridges, yet takes full advantage of modern, heavy caliber 6mm bullets that provide excellent accuracy and ballistic performance at extended range.

The 6mm ARC delivers substantially better ballistics than the 5.56 NATO with similar recoil and yet delivers comparable ballistics to the venerable .308 Winchester with 30% less weight on both weapons system and ammunition.

Hornady plans to have the CIP approval at the end of 2020. The 6mm ARC will be available in the following product lines: 6mm ARC 105-grain BTHP Hornady BLACK®; 6mm ARC 108-grain ELD® Match™; and 6mm ARC 103-grain ELD-X® Precision Hunter® (Available Fall 2020).

Hornady also offers everything needed to reload the 6mm ARC with a multitude of existing 6mm Hornady bullets, dies and components. Reloading data will be available on the Hornady Reloading App.

Hornady.com/6mmARC

ST ENGINEERING SECURES OVER $1.6B IN NEW CONTRACTS

ST Engineering announced new contracts worth about $1.6B, secured by its Aerospace and Electronics sectors in the first quarter (1Q) of 2020. These contracts are over and above a defence contract that its Land Systems arm secured.

The group’s Aerospace sector secured about $838M across its spectrum of aviation manufacturing and MRO businesses. The MRO contracts included A320 heavy maintenance contracts and CFM56-7B engine maintenance contracts from Chinese airlines and a component Maintenance-By-the-Hour (MBHTM) contract from a Southeast Asian airline to provide comprehensive component maintenance services for its entire fleet of Boeing 737 and Bombardier Q400. ST Engineering’s Electronics sector secured about $730M worth of contracts for products and solutions in smart mobility, cybersecurity, data analytics as well as training and simulation.

Defence Contract by the Land Systems Sector

In addition to the above $1.6B new contracts, the group’s Land Systems arm secured a Phase 2 contract for the production and supply of the Hunter Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) from the Singapore Ministry of Defence. Under the contract, ST Engineering will also provide integrated logistics support which includes spares, training and documentation.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its evolving circumstances, ST Engineering is discussing adjustments to delivery schedules or addressing order cancellations with its customers. As at the end of 1Q, the group’s order book remains robust.

The above developments are not expected to have any material impact on the consolidated net tangible assets per share and earnings per share of ST Engineering for the current financial year.

All figures are denominated in Singapore dollars unless indicated otherwise.

ST Engineering is a global technology, defence and engineering group specializing in the aerospace, electronics, land systems and marine sectors.

stengg.com/en/singapore-technologies-engineering

In January 2020, Elbit Systems announced that its subsidiary, IMI Systems was selected by the Finnish Ministry of Defence (Finnish MOD), following a competitive testing by the Finish Defence Forces (FDF), to provide the Finnish Army with the M339, a NATO-compliant, 120mm High Explosive Multipurpose ammunition and Data Setting Units for its Leopard 2 Main Battle Tanks (MBTs).

Suitable for all NATO 120mm smooth bore gun MBTs, the M339 is a high-accuracy, multipurpose 120mm tank ammunition that complies with NATO STANAG requirements. The FDF selected the M339 to improve the fire power and ability of the battle tanks to engage different types of targets.

imisystems.com

ELBIT SYSTEMS AWARDED INITIAL $31M CONTRACT FOR PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Elbit Systems announced on January 7, 2020, that it was awarded an initial contract from the Production and Procurement Directorate of the Israeli Ministry of Defense (IMOD) valued at approximately $31 million to provide Iron Fist Active Protection Systems (APS) for the Eitan Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The contract will be performed over a 5-year period.

Under the contract, Elbit Systems will equip the IDF’s new wheeled AFVs with the Iron Fist Light Decoupled (IFLD) Systems. The Iron Fist System uses optical sensors, tracking radar, launchers and countermeasure munitions to defeat threats at a safe distance. The Iron Fist System provides 360-degree protection coverage for close-range scenarios in both open terrain and urban environment. The systems’ high-performance, versatility and negligible residual penetration, as well as its low size and weight and ease of integration, position the Iron Fist as an optimal APS for any fighting vehicle.

elbitsystems.com

TURKISH ARMED FORCES ADDS ARMED DRONE SYSTEM

SONGAR™, the first national armed drone system to be developed by ASİSGUARD^TM, has been delivered to the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) after the successful completion of acceptance tests. Equipped with advanced features, SONGAR will undertake critical tasks in operations conducted by both TAF and the security forces.

Equipped with an automatic machine gun, SONGAR can carry out operations within a 3km radius. The system can transfer images in real time and carry 200 rounds of 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition. The drone features a specially designed, flexible ammunition feed chute (ammunition belt) and an automatic firing mechanism and can operate at altitudes of 2,800m.

Ayhan Sunar, General Manager at ASİSGUARD, underlined that the SONGAR system is currently unique, saying: “As one of the most prominent drone systems in our product family, SONGAR can undertake many critical tasks, including locating the target area, eliminating the threat, transferring real-time images and carrying out post-operation damage assessment. It stands out as one of the leading national capabilities in asymmetric warfare as a result of its firing accuracy.”

SONGAR has achieved further success in field tests after the integration of a grenade launcher in place of the machine gun, and its firing precision has been significantly improved with the inclusion of an “Electronic Sight and Ballistic Calculation Module,” specially designed by ASİSGUARD. National and international patent applications have been made for SONGAR’s unique stabilisation system.

ASİSGUARD develops systems, subsystems, hardware and software in for military land vehicle electronics; autonomous micro-, mini- and medium-class UAVs; electro-optics; border security; artificial intelligence; and big data.

asisguard.com

QUANTICO TACTICAL ANNOUNCES TLS CONTRACT AWARD

On March 9, 2020, Quantico Tactical announced the award of TLS (Tailored Logistics Support) contract SPE8EJ-19-D-0015. This is an indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity with a firm fixed price of $4,000,000,000 for use through March 6, 2021. This contract allows for special operation equipment to be purchased and delivered to our nation’s military and federal agencies.

Quantico Tactical is a leading supplier of special operations equipment to the U.S. government, DoD and federal law enforcement agencies. This contract expedites the purchase and fielding of necessary equipment for our warfighters. Quantico Tactical has partnered with over a thousand of manufacturers to fulfill this need.

“We have been consistently ranked as the best customer service and highest on-time deliveries of all contractors within the TLS contract. In fact, we are the only current DLA TLS contract awardee to hold DLA’s highest award for operational excellence,” said David Hensley, president of Quantico Tactical. “We will continue to provide the best products, with world class service to our warfighters and federal agents.”

As the nation’s combat logistics support agency, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) manages the global supply chain, from raw materials to end user to disposition, for the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, 11 combatant commands, other federal agencies and partner and allied nations.

quanticotactical.com

Finally, on January 23, 2020, the most recent effort to reform the U.S. Munitions List was published in the Federal Register, with an effective date of March 9, 2020. On the day of publication, 21 states filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court to delay or prohibit the new regulations from taking place over concerns that 3D-printed firearms would not be subject to sufficient export controls.

On Friday, March 6, 2020, a federal judge in Seattle, WA, agreed with the Trump Administration to allow most of the regulations to take effect on March 9, 2020. The court issued a very narrow injunction against the section of the regulation governing the export of technical data related to 3D-printed firearms.

Transfer of Jurisdiction

Prior to March 9, 2020, the U.S. State Department held jurisdiction over most small arms and ammunition, with the exception of shotguns and shotgun ammunition, which were governed by the U.S. Commerce Department. Under the new regulations, nearly all common sporting firearms, to include single-shot, bolt-action and semiautomatic firearms will transfer from State Department jurisdiction to Commerce Department jurisdiction.

At this juncture, it’s probably easier to state what remains in U.S. Munitions List Category I (under State Department jurisdiction):

(a) Firearms using caseless ammunition.

(b) Fully automatic firearms to .50 caliber (12.7mm) inclusive.

(c) Firearms specially designed to integrate fire control, automatic tracking or automatic firing (e.g., precision guided firearms). Note 1 to paragraph (c): Integration does not include only attaching to the firearm or rail.

(d) Fully automatic shotguns regardless of gauge.

(e) Silencers, mufflers and sound suppressors.

(f) [Reserved.]

(g) Barrels, receivers (frames), bolts, bolt carriers, slides or sears specially designed for the articles in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of this category.

(h) Parts, components, accessories and attachments, as follows:

(1) Drum and other magazines for firearms to .50 caliber (12.7mm) inclusive with a capacity greater than 50 rounds, regardless of jurisdiction of the firearm, and specially designed parts and components therefor;

(2) Parts and components specially designed for conversion of a semiautomatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm.

(3) Parts and components specially designed for defense articles described in paragraphs (c) and (e) of this category; or

(4) Accessories or attachments specially designed to automatically stabilize aim (other than gun rests) or for automatic targeting and specially designed parts and components therefor.

(i) Technical data (see §120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (see §120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles described in this category and classified technical data directly related to items controlled in ECCNs (Export Control Classification Numbers) 0A501, 0B501, 0D501 and 0E501 and defense services using the classified technical data. (See §125.4 of this subchapter for exemptions.)

New ECCNs

Most small arms that were once in USML Category I will be moved to 13 new Commerce ECCN categories in the 0X5zz range. In addition, four new “600” series ECCN classifications will be created. The 17 new ECCNs created are:

0A501 – Firearms and Related Commodities: This ECCN governs most firearms (non-automatic, non-semiautomatic and semiautomatic, up to and including .50 caliber), magazines (with a capacity greater than 16 rounds, but less than 50 rounds), receivers, barrels, cylinders and trunnions.

0A502 – Shotguns and Related Commodities: This ECCN governs all non-automatic shotguns, to include those with barrels shorter than 18 inches in length and shotguns with barrels exceeding 18 inches. It also includes controls on parts and components previously listed in ECCN 0A984, the ECCN that previously controlled shotguns and their parts.

0A503 – Discharge Type Arms: This ECCN governs less lethal projectiles and grenades. It is a direct replacement of ECCN 0A985. The new regulation makes clear that such projectiles are classified in that ECCN 0A503 and not classified under ECCN 0A602 or on the USML.

0A504 – Optical Sighting Devices: Previously regulated under ECCN 0A987, the new ECCN no longer differentiates between ITAR-controlled optics previously controlled under USML Category I(f). Export restrictions on most optics are eased or lifted, with limited controls in place for those “specially designed” for use in firearms that are “subject to the ITAR.”

0A505 – Ammunition: This new ECCN governs most ammunition for small arms (up to .50 caliber), blank ammunition, shotgun ammunition up to 10-gauge and the related parts and components. Caseless ammunition, tracer ammunition, ammunition utilizing depleted uranium and ammunition of any caliber preassembled into links or belts (and thus, presumably for use within an automatic weapon) remain controlled by the ITAR under USML Category III.

0A602 – Guns and Armament: This ECCN controls guns and armament (and their parts) manufactured between 1890 and 1919, as well as military flame throwers with an effective range less than 20m. Export restrictions on these commodities are eased, as they do not provide significant military advantage. Modern artillery remains subject to the ITAR under USML Category II. Black powder guns and armament manufactured in and prior to 1890 (and their replicas) have been designated as EAR99.

0B501 – Test, Inspection and Production Equipment for Firearms

0B505 – Test, Inspection and Production Equipment for Ammunition

0B602 – Test, Inspection and Production Equipment for Guns and Armament: These three 0Byyy ECCNs cover “test, inspection and production” equipment for the development or production of firearms, ammunition and (antique) guns. It also extends controls over jigs, fixtures and other metal working implements and accessories designed to be used in the manufacture of firearms, ammunition, ordnance or guns.

0D501 – Software for Firearms

0D505 – Software for Ammunition

0D602 – Software for Guns and Armaments: These three 0Eyyy ECCNs govern software specially designed for the development, operation or maintenance of their respective subject matter categories.

0E501 – Technology for Firearms

0E502 – Technology for Shotguns

0E504 – Technology for Sighting Devices

0E505 – Technology for Ammunition

0E602 – Technology for Guns and Armament: These five 0Eyyy ECCNs govern the export of technical data for their respective subject matter categories. Given the current state of litigation over 0E501 and the issuance of an injunction by the courts, it is possible that the language within 0E501 will change or be modified within coming months.

Removed ECCNs

The following nine ECCNs will be removed, as they have been incorporated into the newly created 0X5yy ECCN categories:

0A918 and 0E984 – Removes the controls over technology for the development, production and/or use of bayonets.

0A984 and 0E984 – Controls over shotguns have been modified and are now controlled under 0A502 or 0A505.

0A985 – Controls over electro-shock weapons have been modified and incorporated into ECCN 0A503.

0A986 and 0E986 – Controls over shotguns shells, equipment to load ammunition and related technology have been modified and incorporated into ECCNs 0A505, 0E502 and/or 0E505.

0A987 and 0E987 – Controls over firearm optics and related technology have been modified and incorporated into ECCN 0A504.

While the new regulatory scheme seems overly burdensome, the reality is that the new regulations should assist in making the export of U.S. arms and equipment easier. Admittedly, the new scheme will require new training throughout the industry to include Commerce Department licensing officers, U.S. Customs officials, foreign end users, manufacturers and exporters. As the barriers to arms export fall, one should anticipate a wave of new “international arms dealers,” who believe that they can effectively export arms with little or no industry experience and who believe that they can export with minimal regulatory interference. In reality, strong controls on the export of arms remain in place under the new regulatory scheme, with the same (or greater) penalties in place for conducting an improper export. As general advice, manufacturers and foreign end users should continue working with existing partners who are well-versed in the export of arms and equipment to avoid civil and criminal penalties for export violations. In return (and with the benefit of time), the industry should see increased export sales under the new regulatory scheme.

Mr. Wong is a Washington licensed attorney. He regularly provides legal counsel to the firearm and defense industry via his law firm, The Firearms Law Group. Mr. Wong also manages Hurricane Butterfly, an import/export company that assists firearm manufacturers, resellers and collectors from around the world wade through the regulatory quagmire of U.S. import/export regulations. The preceding article is not intended as legal advice and should not be taken as legal advice. If the reader has specific legal questions, seek competent legal counsel.

B.E. Meyers & Co., Inc., announced that the BOARS®-M2 optics and accessory rail system has been issued National Stock Number (NSN)1240-01-682-8650 by TACOM, U.S. Army, following successful evaluation and testing through the U.S. Army Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP). A total of 4,752 complete BOARS®-M2 units have been procured for initial fielding by PM Soldier Weapons, PEO Soldier. Designed to support a variety of mounted machine gun optics for the M2 and M3 family of weapon systems, the BOARS-M2 provides a modular, low-profile optics and accessory rail mount with true return-to-zero capability. The BOARS-M2 is ideal for those wishing to easily transition from a day optic to a night optic while retaining boresight for both systems and without interfering with the operation of the spade grips or the feed tray cover. The low-profile M2 mount for optics and accessories translates into a lower end-user defilade and increases operator survivability during use.

bemeyers.com

ELBIT SYSTEMS’ XACT WEAPON SIGHTS IN OPERATIONAL SERVICE WITH IDF

Elbit Systems announced that two configurations of the company’s XACT family of weapon sights have entered operational use with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The company was recently selected to provide thousands of its XACT th65 and XACT th64 uncooled thermal imaging weapon sights to marksmen of both Infantry and Special Operation Forces of the IDF. Last year Elbit Systems announced it concluded delivery of 4,800 XACT th65 weapon sights to the Australian Army.

In a clip-on or stand-alone configuration, the compact XACT weapon sights enable effective operation in day and night. Featuring a high resolution colored OLED display, image processing capabilities and a Region of Interest algorithm, XACT weapon sights enable effective target engagement even under degraded visibility conditions. Embedding a unique calibration algorithm, XACT weapon sights eliminate the need for Non-Uniformity Calibration (NUC) or shutter-based calibration thereby enabling continuous and consistent operation. The XACT th64 provides vehicle target recognition from a 1,100m range and human target recognition from a 600m range, while the XACT th65 enables vehicle target recognition from 1,250m and human target recognition from 750m. Both weapon sights are housed in a sealed fully submersible metal housing.

elbitsystems.com

ELBIT SYSTEMS INTRODUCES VEHICLE-LAUNCHED MULTI-ROTOR MICRO-DRONE

Elbit Systems is launching MAGNI, a fully autonomous and robust multi-rotor vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) that is designed to significantly enhance the situational awareness capabilities of mobile forces. Compact and lightweight, MAGNI enables rapid deployment and launch (in less than 1 minute) from any combat vehicle transforming it to an effective intelligence gathering platform.

The MAGNI system includes a thermal payload, a communications suite (dual S-Band or LTE), an automatic coordinate tracking capability, as well as a built-in interface with Battle Management Systems (BMS). Carrying up to 350gr of payloads it offers a range of up to 3km, a maximum operational altitude of 4,000ft and 30 minutes of endurance. Operated by a single user, MAGNI enables vehicle-mounted forces to generate beyond-the-hill visual intelligence during day and night and seamlessly feed target information to command and control systems. Its unique size, weight and power (SWaP) parameters make MAGNI well-suited for squad, platoon and company levels.

elbitsystems.com

ELBIT SYSTEMS AWARDED $35M TO EQUIP MONTENEGRO’S 4X4 VEHICLES WITH RCWS

Elbit Systems also announced that following a contract signed between the Israeli Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Defense of Montenegro, it was awarded approximately $35 million to supply the Montenegrin Armed Forces with Remote Controlled Weapon Stations (RCWS) for the new Oshkosh Defense (Oshkosh) 4×4 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV). In this contract Elbit Systems will perform full integration of the RCWS onboard, the JLTV over a 3-year period and will provide logistic support for a 7-year period.

Elbit Systems 12.7mm RCWS is lightweight, low silhouette, dual axis and is stabilized, mounted externally onboard armored vehicles. The RCWS offers accurate firing on-the-move and is operated via handles and Smart Displays by the gunner from within the vehicle, providing full protection for the vehicles’ crew who are safely located inside.

elbitsystems.com

Wrong Product Exported from the United States

Exporting from the United States generally (but not always) requires an export license from the U.S. State Department or the U.S. Commerce Department. When errors are made on an export, the first questions to ask are what regulatory agency has jurisdiction and whether a violation occurred. In rare cases, a mistake may not be an export violation.

Example 1: Export of 12-gauge shotgun shells where an export license is not required. Typically shotgun shells require a Commerce Department license. In this case, the export of shotgun shells does not require an export license. Shipped the wrong product? If the error was the wrong type or load of 12-gauge shotgun shells, there may be no violation. The exporter would want to examine the documents filed with U.S. Customs to make sure that the documents were correct and accurate. Since there was no export license required, shipping the wrong product may not be a big deal.

Example 2: Export of 12-gauge shotgun shells where an export license is required. In this case, details matter. Since an export license was required, the first assessment should be to determine what was supposed to be shipped and what was actually shipped. Potential questions may include a determination of what was shipped, what was noted on the pack list and what was noted within the filing with U.S. Customs. Is the cargo still in transit? Can it be re-routed and returned? If the cargo is still in transit, it may be possible to intercept the shipment and have it returned.

If the cargo has already arrived at the destination, did foreign Customs get involved and intercept the cargo as a potential import violation? As one may imagine, every situation will be different based upon the facts and circumstances of the situation. One common theme to all Commerce export violations is self-report. Upon discovering that an export violation has occurred, one should work quickly to provide notice to the U.S. Commerce Department. One needs not know all of the details, but the sooner notice is provided, the better. In general terms, the Commerce Department is much more lenient if the exporter self-reports a known violation. Penalties are generally much greater if Commerce discovers and investigates the export violation.

Example 3: Export of the wrong ITAR-regulated item. In the small arms sphere, the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) currently regulates the export of centerfire firearms, centerfire ammunition, suppressors and NFA firearms. Similar to a Commerce license violation, every situation will be different based upon the facts and circumstances of the situation. Like a Commerce violation, the exporter should file a Voluntary Disclosure as soon as possible, with the known facts and circumstances. The disclosure need not state all of the facts; the initial filing may be amended and additional facts may be added upon later investigation and discovery.

Return of a Wrongly Shipped Item

Depending upon the situation, it may be possible to return the shipment without too much additional paperwork. The degree of paperwork and difficulty in returning the product will depend upon whether the shipment was intercepted prior to delivery, what was noted on the export filing with U.S. Customs and where the item was manufactured. In the easiest of cases, it may be possible to return the goods without an import permit under a “U.S. Goods returning” exemption.

Receipt of the Wrong Imported Item

U.S. importers could have a little harder time if the wrong product is imported into the U.S. Again, details matter. Importers generally file an ATF Form 6, Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Implements of War, in order to import regulated firearm parts into the U.S. In the event that the Form 6 is not fully consumed, the foreign seller may be able to make a second shipment to correct the delivery of the wrong item. If the Form 6 is fully consumed by the shipment with the wrong item, the importer may need to re-apply for a new import permit, adding additional time and expense to the process.

Return of the wrong product may (or may not) require an export license from Commerce or State, depending upon the type of product imported. As noted above, shotguns and shotgun parts do not always need an export permit from the Commerce Department. Parts for centerfire firearms (at the time of drafting this article) require a U.S. State Department export license. Export licenses generally take a minimum of 30 days to be reviewed by the U.S. State Department, making timely return of the wrong parts to the seller difficult.

The Form 6A has a notation that can be made in the importer certification section, and any discrepancies, if noted before filing the Form 6A, should be noted there as well.

Export reform for the export of USML categories I, II and III is ongoing and should take effect prior to the end of 2019. When the new regulations take place, it is expected that the U.S. Commerce Department will assume export jurisdiction of most civilian (non-NFA) firearms. It is entirely possible that the export of firearms and firearm parts will get much easier in the future, depending upon how export reform is implemented. Until then, try to keep the errors and mistakes to a minimum.

Jason Wong is a Washington-based lawyer who focuses on regulatory matters involving import and export of small arms. The preceding article is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended to be, and shall not be, relied upon as legal advice. Import and export issues can be complex, and the consultation with qualified professional advisers is strongly recommended.

By Jason M. Wong

Draft regulations have been published regarding the transfer of USML categories I, II and III from the U.S. State Department to the U.S. Commerce Department. Once the new regulations become effective, the change will represent the single largest change to small arms export policy in decades. Thankfully, the changes to the export of small arms will not be without precedent—the changes to USML categories I, II and III represent the last categories to undergo export reform. Thousands of commodities have already been transferred from State Department jurisdiction to Commerce jurisdiction, and the process for export licensing has mostly been worked out.

The 600 Series

Nearly all items formerly under State Department jurisdiction have been classified under a scheme designated the “600 series.” The series isn’t new but rather are an addition to existing Export Control Classification Numbers, or ECCNs. Military aircraft propulsion systems formerly controlled by the ITAR under USML category VIII are now classified by Commerce as ECCN 9A610 or 9E610. The “600 series” classification comes from the middle number of the ECCN. The 600-series is not a “new” ECCN category but rather new additions to existing ECCN categories, with the “6” designator to show that the commodity was formerly ITAR classified. As with the rest of the ECCN, the alpha classification (A through E) designate what type of commodity is being exported. Items can be easily classified by looking at the ECCN: (A) designators are for physical items, (B) designators are for test inspection and production equipment, (C) designators are for raw materials, (D) designators are for software, and (E) designators are for technology.

As a general rule, Commerce treats 600 Series commodities in nearly the same manner as the ITAR. Exporters of USML items must obtain an export license before exporting any item on the USML, barring use of any available exemption. Export of 600-series items will almost always require an export license. As a general matter, the 600 Series ECCNs are subject to the following export controls: National Security Column 1 (NS1), Regional Stability Column 1 (RS1), Anti-Terrorism Column 11 (AT1) and United Nations embargo (UN). In addition, all exports of 600 Series items must be reported via the ACE export system, regardless of value or destination. 600 Series items are also subject to U.S. arms embargoes; they cannot be exported to countries subject to a U.S. arms embargo.

Exemptions—Know the Rules of the Game

The stated goal of export reform was intended to make exports of U.S.-made goods easier and simpler. While nearly all 600-series items will require an export license, there are a number of exemptions that may apply to 600-series commodities.

Recall that under the proposed reform of USML Category I, the U.S. State Department is retaining jurisdiction over most NFA classified weapons—machine guns, suppressors and destructive devices. Items shifted to the 600 Series have been deemed to be less militarily significant. As a result, Commerce has indicated that license exceptions for the export of 600 Series items should be more available than comparable ITAR exemptions. One potential exemption currently available for the export of 600-series commodities includes the Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) exemption, allowing the export of 600-series items to government end users within 36 countries in the A-5 Country Group listing without an export license. As with any exemption, the details matter, and exporters should carefully review the requirements of any license exception relied upon for export. Also recall that the final version of the regulations concerning small arms has not been released; there may be additional restrictions on the use of the STA exemption as applied to small arms and ammunition.

Facing Forward

The next few years are likely to be challenging for manufacturers, exporters and foreign end users. Manufacturers will potentially no longer need to register under the ITAR if they are not manufacturing ITAR regulated items. The export of small arms and ammunition may become easier, with less governmental oversight for some transactions. Exporters will likely face lower registration fees, as fewer export transactions will require a DSP-5 export license. It is likely that there will be many new faces in the arms export field within the next few years, as barriers to entry (via ITAR registration) are eliminated. There are no financial costs associated with Commerce license applications, and exporters who formerly only handled Commerce regulated items (or were unwilling to register under the ITAR) are likely to claim expertise in small arms exports. There are likely to be many new entrants to the field of arms exports, as there are no longer registration costs associated with conducting an export. U.S. Customs will likely face increased numbers of export violations and seizures as exporters work their way through the new regulatory requirements. Foreign end users should be cautious, as those without practical experience in arms exports (whether they have experience as an exporter or are new to the field) may not be the best choice for delivering product internationally. The end result should be increased arms exports from the United States, in an easier and less restrictive environment—as long as the regulations are followed. The new regulations should be published for final rule making in mid-2019, with the rules being implemented before the end of the year.

Jason Wong is a licensed attorney that manages Hurricane Butterfly, a U.S.-based company that specializes in the import and export of small arms. He may be reached via email: Jason at HurricaneButterfly.net. The foregoing is not intended as legal advice, and readers should not rely upon the foregoing without additional research. If readers have specific questions, they should seek competent legal counsel.

Dealing with the U.S. Government is not always the easiest or most straight forward exercise. Numerous Federal agencies are involved in the import and export of arms from the United States – U.S. Customs, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Commerce Department, and even the U.S. Census Bureau. The two main agencies are obviously the State Department, and ATF. While both agencies have defined roles in the import and export realm, there are surprising overlaps within the two agencies.

Exports from the United States

When dealing with exports from the U.S., we often talk of ITAR, DDTC, and the U.S. State Department. The U.S. State Department is currently tasked with the review and approval of most export licenses. Centerfire rifles, crew served weapons systems, ammunition, and explosives are all governed by the U.S. State Department. These exports are normally conducted on a DSP-5 export license for permanent exports from the U.S.

One would be led to believe that the U.S. State Department is the de-facto authority on export of firearms from the U.S., but this would not be true. For the export of shotguns, shotgun ammunition, night vision equipment, and some body armor, the U.S. Commerce Department governs. The U.S. Commerce Department has its own forms and license submission process; in general terms, the forms used by the U.S. State Department are not compatible with the forms used by the U.S. Commerce Department in seeking export approval.

To add further confusion to the export process, ATF get involved in the export of firearms governed by the National Firearms Act (NFA.) NFA-regulated firearms are recorded within an ATF managed registry that tracks for all NFA firearms within the U.S., whether assigned to a police department, a firearms dealer, or an individual. When an NFA registered firearm is exported, ATF requires the submission of an ATF Form 9 for export approval. This author has often argued that the ATF Form 9 should be a notice-based submission – ATF should have no discretion to “approve” an export when the U.S. State Department has already given its blessing to the export transaction via an approved DSP-5. As an aside, there is a basis for such notice-based filings, most notably the ATF Form 2, informing ATF that a manufacturer has manufactured an NFA firearm. In an ideal world, an ATF Form 9 would merely serve as notice to ATF that an NFA firearm has been exported, and that the NFA registry needs to be updated to reflect the export. Sadly, this is not the state of the ATF Form 9.

Submission of an ATF Form 9 requires the inclusion of an approved U.S. State Department DSP-5 as a required document. As a result, there’s really no basis for ATF to deny a Form 9 except possibly for errors in descriptions or serial numbers. Nevertheless, under the current regulations, ATF requires an approved Form 9 prior to shipping any NFA firearm from the U.S. Submission of an ATF Form 9 can typically add 30 days or more to the approval process needed for an export transaction.

Imports into the United States

Imports into the United States require (in most cases) an approved ATF Form 6. Bear in mind that there are many exceptions to this rule; far too many to list and cover within this brief space. The ATF Form 6 process is pretty straight forward – licensed importer sends in a completed Form 6 application, the application is reviewed by ATF, and the application is either approved or denied. This is probably the most basic and easiest means of importing firearms into the U.S. Potential issues arise when attempts to import firearms deemed “non-sporting” by ATF are pursued.

The import of NFA firearms into the United States can pose issues for importers. ATF is unlikely to grant an import unless specific documentation is provided from a law enforcement agency or the U.S. Government. This paperwork may not always be available, particularly when firearms are being imported into the U.S. for use within a trade show or exhibition. In some cases, a previously exported firearm may need to be returned to a U.S. manufacturer for repair. In these cases, a temporary import may be better suited to the transaction. Recall however that ATF only governs permanent imports into the United States. Likewise, NFA firearms that are not recorded within the NFA registry (generally) do not require ATF oversight. Instead, for the temporary import of a firearm into the U.S., we turn back to the U.S. State Department for review and approval.

The temporary import of firearms into the U.S. is governed by the U.S. State Department via the DSP-61. Use of the DSP-61 allows importers wide latitude in describing a number of different situations and transactions. As discussed above, the temporary import of a firearm for use and display at a trade show is one use. In the case of NFA firearms transiting the U.S. – namely, from one foreign manufacturer to an end user in a third country, a DSP-61 is needed as a form of transit license. Approval of a DSP-61 in these cases is not automatic, and are sometimes denied.

One experience involving a DSP-61 comes to mind, where a Chinese based manufacturer was legally exporting shotguns to Canada. While legal in both China and Canada, the shotguns met the U.S. definition of a short barreled shotgun. As a result, the shipment required an approved DSP-61 to transit through the U.S. from China to Canada. The sporting shotguns (that is, the shotguns with barrels longer than 18-inches) passed through the U.S. without ATF or State Department involvement or oversight; it was the short barreled shotgun characteristics that invoked State Department governance.

Submission of a DSP-61 was submitted on behalf of the Canadian importer, where it was reviewed and ultimately denied by the U.S. State Department on the basis of foreign policy. The end result required the Canadian based importer to return the shotguns to China and start the shipping process from the beginning, adding significant shipping costs and delays to delivery.

Exemptions from Temporary Import Permits

There are other cases of temporary imports where no import permit is needed for the import of firearms into the United States. Most notable are cases where lawfully exported firearms are delivered to a foreign end user, but later require inspection and/or repair. In these cases, a DSP-61 could be used to affect a temporary import, but there are exemptions within the regulations that allow for faster and more cost effective transactions.

Within the ITAR regulations are temporary import license exemptions. Some of these exemptions may be found at 22 CFR 123.4. Notably, 22 CFR 123.4(a)(1) specifically allows for the import of U.S.-original defense items without an import license where the defense items are to be serviced, inspected, tested, calibrated, or repaired. Use of the 22 CFR 123.4 exemption makes temporary imports into the U.S. easy and convenient – usually one need only reference the regulation during the U.S. Customs clearance process.

Imports and exports to and from the United States are not clearly regulated, and a number of unexpected U.S. Government agencies often get involved in international transactions. Knowing the commodity being shipped, knowing the applicable regulations, knowing how to apply the applicable regulations, and knowing how to structure a transaction all lead to a successful transaction. U.S. export reform is underway, with some aspects of exports being transferred between the U.S. State and Commerce Departments. Sadly, export reform has not come to small arms and ammunition, so these commodities are still governed by the U.S. State Department. At this time there is no discussion of reforming U.S. import controls.

While most U.S. based importers are well versed in the regulations, there are times when an outside expert may be needed. In these cases, a penny spent on prevention may prevent a pound of aggravation. The cost of an expert may add to the final cost of the transaction, but ultimately ease the transaction through the regulatory scheme.

Mr. Wong is a Washington licensed attorney. He regularly provides legal counsel to the firearm and defense industry via his law firm, The Firearms Law Group. Mr. Wong also manages Hurricane Butterfly, an import/export company that assists firearm manufacturers, resellers, and collectors from around the world wade through the regulatory quagmire of U.S. import/export regulations. He may be found online at HurricaneButterfly.net

The preceding article is not intended as legal advice, and should not be taken as legal advice. If the reader has specific legal questions, seek competent legal counsel.

As computing systems get more advanced, there are increased opportunities to automate previously mundane or tedious tasks. In automating common tasks, systems are able to better screen data for errors and process data more efficiently than the prior manual systems. The U.S. Government has discovered that automating systems in the import and export arena makes transactions easier and faster, without sacrificing screening and compliance checks. Within the past several years, ATF has implemented an E-forms systems for digital submission of common forms, to include the ATF Form 6 import permit application. Although partially automated, ATF still accepts the bulk of data submissions the old-fashioned way – via written paper submission of forms.

The U.S. State Department has required electronic submission of export license applications for several years, but has gone a step further in that it no longer accepts paper submissions in any form. Initial registration, submission of export licenses, Commodity Jurisdiction requests, and General Correspondence are all now accepted via an on-line electronic portal. It only makes sense that a similar system would be set up for outbound export shipments.

The need to declare outbound export shipments is not new. Prior to AES, the system was paper based, labor intensive, and prone to errors. Launched in 1995, AES is a joint venture between U.S. Customs, the Census Bureau, the U.S. Commerce Department, the U.S. State Department, other Federal agencies, and the export trade community. AES is the system by which an exporter notifies U.S. Customs of a pending export shipment. Export information is collected electronically and edited immediately, and errors are detected and corrected at the time of filing, thereby eliminating reporting errors. Since 1997, AES has been available for all outbound vessels (air or ocean) at all ports throughout the United States.

Until recently, AES was not well known outside of the export industry. It should be noted that AES filings are required for all exports of a commercial nature – regardless of commodity. An AES filing is not limited only to small arms and ammunition. AES filings are required for the export of vehicles, olive oil, and binoculars, for examples. Nevertheless, this article provides examples of AES requirements as it relates to the small arms industry.

Recently, the U.S. State Department, (in its desire to automate all aspects of its operations) determined that temporary exports of firearms outside of the United States must be reported via AES. Previously, hunters heading out of the U.S. would file a CBP Form 4457, and have their firearms inspected by U.S. Customs prior to leaving the country. Upon return, presentation of the completed Form 4457 would be sufficient to allow the firearms back into the country. This scenario changes with the requirement of an AES filing prior to travel. As a portal intended for industry, a basic test must be completed prior to registering for access to the AES portal. Once online, the system is not difficult to navigate with some experience and knowledge of export procedure. For the casual traveler, filing an AES report is not easy, nor practical. Because there is little reason for the casual international hunter to become AES trained, U.S. Customs announced that its officers will help travelers with firearms fill out CBP Form 4457 “to ensure that no traveler attempting to legally take their firearm out of the country experiences significant delays.”

What about permanent exports? Not all firearm parts require an FFL to manufacture. Some firearms, namely those manufactured prior to 1898 (or replicas of pre-1898 firearms,) do not require an export license. While there may be no ATF or State Department oversight over these items, an AES filing would still be required prior to export. As an example: A replica pre-1898 Blunderbuss rifle would require no ATF paperwork to build, and could be exported without an export license from the U.S. State Department. But, if the blunderbuss was shipped outside of the U.S., an AES filing would be required. Similarly, there are export license exemptions for small transaction that do not exceed $500. Filing an AES filing places U.S. Customs on notice that the shipment is outbound, allows U.S. Customs to confirm that the transaction fits within the confines of the exemption, and helps the exporter ensure compliance with U.S. export regulation and law.

Failure to file with AES prior to shipping will often result in seizure of the shipment and a potential fine. The minimum fine levied by U.S. Customs for an AES violation is $500, and escalates upward quickly. Failure to pay the fine usually results in surrender (and loss) of the goods being shipped.

Automation on the part of the Government will continue to increase. Automated systems are getting better at verifying compliance, at a lower cost, and with greater efficiency than manual verification. The AES is but one means for the Government to ensure compliance with export law, whether by verifying the quantity and value of the items being exported, or the proper use of an exemption. The scope of automation sometimes seems to be over-reaching – namely in the case of the temporary export of a firearm by a U.S. hunter. Nevertheless, automation allows Customs and other Federal agencies to focus on more important aspects of law enforcement, and allows U.S. exporters to effectively and efficiently ship their products worldwide.

Mr. Wong is a Washington licensed attorney. He regularly provides legal counsel to the firearm and defense industry via his law firm, The Firearms Law Group. Mr. Wong also maintains Hurricane Butterfly, an import/export company that assists U.S. firearm manufacturers and foreign buyers wade through the regulatory morass of U.S. import/
export regulations.

The guidance provided within this article was correct and current at the time it was written. Policies and regulations change frequently. The preceding article is not intended as legal advice, and should not be taken as legal advice. If the reader has specific legal questions, seek competent legal counsel.

On June 3, 2015, the U.S. State Department published a proposed rule on the publication of firearms related information on the internet. Word of the proposed rules was quick to spread across the internet via on-line firearm discussion forums, firearm industry blogs, and other social media sites online. In light of the proposed restrictions, what’s the big deal? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution regulates free speech, with that right applying to the internet. Why the big fuss?

The heart of this issue starts with the creation of the International Trade in Arms Regulations, or the ITAR. Created long before the advent of the internet, the regulations do not contemplate the free exchange of information across international borders at near light speed. Instead, the regulations seek to govern the export of defense articles, defense services, and technical data. Herein, lies the issue – now more than ever, it is possible to transfer sensitive technical data around the world, instantly. When restricted technical data is posted to a public U.S.-based internet forum, there are usually no restrictions on who may visit the forum – Syrians, Iranians, Chinese, and Cubans – countries prohibited from receiving U.S. arms exports under the ITAR suddenly have access to technical data that would otherwise be restricted. To better understand the issue, one must first understand the basics.

What is technical data? Technical data is defined within the ITAR as “information… required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles. This includes information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.” (See 22 CFR 120.10) As one can see, this definition is quite broad, and could (if strictly applied) cover almost all online discussion between firearm designers, hobbyists, and enthusiasts. With the definition of technical data clearly defined, why does an online discussion matter to the U.S. State Department?

The ITAR defines an export as the “sending or taking a defense article out of the United States in any manner, except by mere travel outside of the United States by a person whose personal knowledge includes technical data; or… disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or transferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad.” (See 22 CFR 120.17) Publishing technical data on a U.S. based website could result in the disclosure of technical data to a foreign person that happens upon the internet forum. Indeed, there are many known foreign users on AR15.com and subguns.com, two well-known internet venues for the discussion of firearms. Both websites promote the vigorous debate and discussion of firearm design, usage, and modification.

Thankfully, not all discussion about firearms is regulated. Under 22 CFR 120.11, there are exemptions for information in the public domain. The ITAR defines the public domain as “information which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public… through sales at newsstands and bookstores; through subscriptions which are available without restriction to any individual who desires to obtain or purchase the published information; or [information found] at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.” Note that 120.11 does not mention the internet – there was no internet when the regulations were first drafted, and section 120.11 has never addressed the internet and information disclosed via the internet. That is, at least not until June 3, 2015, when the U.S. State Department proposed new rules regarding public domain and disclosure of technical data.

The “modern” internet was created in 1990. On-line forums focused on the discussion of firearms date back to at least 1995, when F.J. Vollmer created a website to discuss NFA (National Firearms Act) firearms. AR15.com was formed shortly thereafter in 1996. After nearly 20 years of online discussion, why the recent interest in online firearm discussions? In December 2012, a Texas based educational organization named Defense Distributed published files for the creation and manufacture of a single shot pistol manufactured entirely via a three-dimensional printer. Unlike other written forms of publication, the files were published online. In response, on May 8, 2013, DDTC sent notice to Defense Distributed that read, “DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.”

Defense Distributed removed the files from its servers, but not before the files had been downloaded more than 100,000 times. Based upon the original file, additional CAD files have reportedly been developed increasing the strength and reliability of the single shot pistol.

First Amendment Considerations and Pre-Publication Approval of Technical Data

From 1969 to 1984, there was a presumption that ITAR Section 125.11 imposed a prepublication approval requirement for privately generated ITAR-controlled technical data. The regulation at the time noted that “[t]he burden for obtaining appropriate U.S. Government approval for the publication of technical data falling within the definition in § 125.01, including such data as may be developed under other than U.S. Government contract, is on the person or company seeking publication.”

In 1978, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a series of written opinions advising Congress, the White House, and the Department of State that imposing a prior restraint on publications of privately generated unclassified information into the public domain violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, in 1980, the Department of State Office of Munitions Control, (the predecessor to DDTC) issued official guidance that section 125.11 did not require pre-publication approval for publication of technical data within the United States. (Emphasis added.) ITAR section 125.11 was later amended to make clear that there is no pre-publication requirement, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

Are the Defense Distributed Files Technical Data?

Are the Defense Distributed files technical data? Therein lies the issue. If the files are not technical data, the files can be freely distributed without ITAR restriction. If the files are deemed technical data, there are ITAR restrictions on distribution, notwithstanding the public domain exemption. In response to DDTC’s order to remove the files, Defense Distributed sent a commodity jurisdiction request to DDTC and the Department of Defense Office of Prepublication Review and Security (DOPSR). Together, the two agencies are tasked with determining whether data submitted for review is ITAR controlled. As of publication, and more than two years after the commodity jurisdiction request was submitted, no determination has been made by DDTC or DOPSR. Without a determination that the files are technical data, there can be no analysis or determination of whether the public domain exemption fits the Defense Distributed case.

The Defense Distributed files are very likely to be classified as ITAR controlled technical data. Recall that technical data is “information required for the manufacture or assembly of a defense article.” A single shot pistol is classified as a defense article under the U.S. Munitions List Category I (a).

The Defense Distributed files were exported under the definitions of the ITAR. The export of technical data (under the current regulations) easily occurs via the internet. It is not hard to imagine the transfer of a CAD file or blueprint showing the critical dimensions of a firearm from the United States to a foreign national via e-mail. Notwithstanding the ease in which the transfer may happen, the transfer of technical data to a foreign national is a regulated act under the ITAR. Technical data is ITAR controlled. Transfer of technical data to a foreign national is an “export” under the regulations. The export of technical data requires DDTC approval prior to transfer.

Does the public domain exemption cover Defense Distributed? Possibly. Note that the 1980 guidance removes the requirement for pre-publication approval of technical data within the United States. The guidance predates the modern internet by at least ten years, and could not possibly contemplate the modern capability of transferring information instantly throughout the world. Defense Distributed may have created a better case had they published the files within this magazine, or on an established firearm publication’s website. Nevertheless, most public libraries offer access to the internet, and there are many examples of publications that exist solely online. Can the internet be public domain? Possibly – but if the internet is public domain, anything published online is not outside of the current ITAR regulation on export and transfer of ITAR governed technical data. The proposed changes to internet publication by the U.S. State Department on June 3, 2015 are meant to address this issue.

What about the First Amendment issues? There are generally two ways in which free speech within the United States may be restricted. Regulations may be imposed upon the time, place, and manner of expression, but the restrictions imposed must be content-neutral, the restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and the restrictions must leave open ample alternative avenues of communication. Restrictions on content (as being contemplated by the U.S. State Department proposed change to the ITAR) may be permissible if the restriction passes “strict scrutiny.” Strict scrutiny requires the government to show that the restriction serves “to promote a compelling interest” and is “the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest.” It is unlikely that DDTC can overcome the strict scrutiny threshold under the current proposed regulation language.

Why Does This Matter to the International Community?

In strict terms, the proposed rulemaking only applies to U.S. citizens and U.S.-sourced technical data. A firearms enthusiast in New Zealand, the Netherlands, or the Philippines is free to post technical data from their home countries without restriction as long as the technical data is not U.S.-based or sourced. Sadly, the U.S. State Department takes a skewed view of international jurisdiction. When exporting a defense article, DDTC takes the position that it retains jurisdiction over the re-transfer and/or sale of the item for the life of the item. As an example, a rifle exported to Canada, and resold to the Netherlands requires (under U.S. law) DDTC re-transfer approval. The transaction could be many years old – yet DDTC asserts that it retains jurisdiction over re-transfer. The same policy would also apply to the re-transfer of technical data.

Major allies are typically quick to follow U.S.-based regulations. In countries without First Amendment protections, adoption of similar regulations and policies would have a chilling effect on the discussion of firearms in online forums.

What Happens Next?

What happens next? Defense Distributed filed a lawsuit against DDTC and DOPSR on May 6, 2015, seeking a determination of whether its files are ITAR restricted technical data, and seeking a determination that pre-approval of free speech within the U.S. is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. Motions for preliminary injunctions from both parties are scheduled throughout the summer. Litigation in this case is likely to take quite some time to be resolved. In the meantime, the proposed regulatory changes to the ITAR are located at 80 FR 31525, and online here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2015-06-03/2015-12844. Comments (for or against the proposed change) were accepted by the U.S. State Department through August 3, 2015. Updates on this issue will be published here in future issues as the case matures and develops.

Mr. Wong is a Washington licensed attorney. He regularly provides legal counsel to the firearm and defense industry via his law firm, The Firearms Law Group. Mr. Wong also manages Hurricane Butterfly, an import/export company that assists firearm manufacturers, resellers, and collectors from around the world wade through the regulatory quagmire of U.S. import/export regulations. He may be found online at FirearmsLawGroup.com.

The preceding article is not intended as legal advice, and should not be taken as legal advice. If the reader has specific legal questions, seek competent legal counsel.