.223, 308, 7.62X39, etc Outlawed

SakoAlberta · #1 09-25-2008, 08:17 PM

As an importer we are used to having to play the game with the US State Department, keeping them happy with whatever new rules they come up with. Here's the latest:
As of this past Monday, any current 'military' chambered rifles will have to have extra paperwork and be pre sold. In other words, the end user(who is buying to use, not to sell) must be known before importing. It will be impossible for anybody to stock these chamberings according to the latest madness.
This was changed so the US State could keep better track of where their military stuff was ending up. However, some paper pusher decided to apply it to all rifles regardless of action type. I've got Cooper .223 Rem single shots that will be affected!
Hard to say if this will go on for weeks or months before somebody with some common sense decides to fix it.
Moral of the story: US Gov't employeees are just far removed from common sense as some of ours. (and better get that .223 or .308 that you have been thinking about)

Pioneer2 · #2 09-25-2008, 08:52 PM

BATF + US State Dept.= Gestapo Making their own rules up as they go along.........................Harold

Wrongside · #3 09-25-2008, 08:57 PM

Sad state of affairs. Esp. coming from 'The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave'.

The death of common sense............

spudislander · #4 09-25-2008, 09:25 PM

Does this apply to 6.8 SPC as well. I was thinking about buying a varmint rifle in 6.8mm.

SakoAlberta · #5 09-25-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudislander

Does this apply to 6.8 SPC as well. I was thinking about buying a varmint rifle in 6.8mm.

Not sure. I didn't have a single 6.8 on the order. Of course, many consumers may not even know this happenned, by the time the distributors here get low, the rules will likely change yet again.

Okotokian · #6 09-26-2008, 08:57 AM

This is one where it might make sense to complain to the Canadian government. If the US government wants the name of the end-user, it must be for some purpose, i.e. to approve or deny the sale. Otherwise why need the name? So we have two law abiding Canadians with legal PAL in hand, say "Ted McGregor" and "Ahmed Masoud". Perhaps one gets approved and one doesn't? Just maybe?

It is illegal under Canadian law for a Canadian company (even a US subsidiary) to refuse to sell to a lawful buyer. I believe this was originally brought in so that US companies could not force their Canadian subsidiaries not to sell to Cuba. They still try to stop it anyway. I've worked for one in the past. The way they did it is just what is being tried here. We (the subsidiary) were deemed to have no stock, and that the sale (or non-sale) was actually conducted by the parent company. They would give no reason why the sale was denied, and we could say it wasn't our decision or our stock.

So SAKO, I'd say if you are a party to these shenanigans, you might want to talk to a knowledgable lawyer to make sure the Canadian government couldn't come after you. At the very least, you may be collecting personal information that could be covered under privacy legislation.

gibbs · #7 09-26-2008, 08:48 PM

I see Browning still makes the BAR which actually was used in a war, but perhaps it doesnt look scary enough by today's standards? Also isnt the .223 and 5.56 Nato technically two different cartridges? I gave up trying to understand gun laws a long time ago, apparently one would be more dangerous to the public with a single shot .223 than with a semi-aut BAR in .300 Mag.

Solothurn · #8 09-26-2008, 10:01 PM

I am glad you were the first to post this. No-one ever believes me when I post the DOS stupid rule of the day.
This is EXACTLY the same info I received. Basically any caliber that was, or is used by any military, whether domestic or foriegn is affected. I know the US military has never officially adopted 7.62x39 or 7.62x54R, yet these are on the list as well.

Okotokian a legal challenge internationally would be VERY expensive and from experience we should know what the US government would say, the same thing they said about the softwood lumber issue, which basically said tough cookies we will do as we please with impunity, even defying the decision by the "world court".

Gibbs the BAR used late in WW1 and through most of WW2 were totally different rifles from the sporting version of the BAR, same operating principal, but other than that little similarity.
223 and 5.56 have the same external dimensions, but the 5.56 has thicker brass resulting in less case capacity and a lower operating pressure with the same projectile.

Cappy · #9 09-26-2008, 10:02 PM

The old browning automatic rifle of yester year is no longer in service and is a different beast then the Browning BAR sporting rifle of today.
Regardless the laws are pretty crazy and are interpreted differently by every different person at the desk in charge of making decisions. I had to send a Leupold CQT scope down to the U.S. for repairs (Mk4 series scopes can't be done up here) via Leupold Canada.......it took 2 years for the scope to get back to me because the State Department kept holding things up. I had to fill out all sorts of end user agreements. Even though it was already owned legally here in Canada, they were threatening not allow it to come back up. Seem since branchs of their special forces use it, it comes under even stricter controls.