How odd. On Oct 27, the U.S. Department of Commerce said they were enacting a temporary halt to the issuance of export licenses for most civilian firearms and ammunition for a period of 90 days.
Commerce used vague “national security and foreign policy interests” as an excuse for implementing the halt, Reuters reported. The halt applies to only non-governmental users, the department said.
No other details were provided for the pause, which also includes shotguns and optical sights, but said an urgent review will assess the “risk of firearms being diverted to entities or activities that promote regional instability, violate human rights, or fuel criminal activities.”
The department made no mention if that included funding terrorist states such as Iran or abandoning billions of dollars in weapons for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The Commerce Department issued no further comment beyond what was posted on its website.
The pause was initially reported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s (NSSF) Larry Keane on Friday, Bearing Arms reported. That information turned into reality just hours later.
The decision by the Commerce Department is unprecedented, some say. Johanna Reeves, a lawyer who specializes in export controls and firearms with the law firm Reeves & Dola in Washington, said the halt covers a majority of the guns and ammunition available for purchase in U.S. gun stores.
“For sure, they have individual country policies–but nothing like this,” Reeves said.
Export licenses for countries currently embroiled in conflicts, such as Ukraine and Israel, will not be affected. However, the temporary halt is expected to impact U.S. firearms companies, including Sturm Ruger & Co., Smith & Wesson, and Vista Outdoor.
During the “pause,” exporters can submit license requests; however, they will be “held without action” until the pause is lifted.
The text of the FAQ section the Bureau of Industry and Security released in conjunction with the pause reads, in part, as follows:
Effective immediately, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) is pausing for approximately 90 days the issuance of new export licenses involving certain firearms, related components, and ammunition under its jurisdiction and the provision of new export assistance activities for such products to all non-governmental end users worldwide, apart from those in certain destinations. The Department may take additional steps to further U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.
During this “pause” period, the Department will further assess current firearm export control review policies to determine whether any changes are warranted to advance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. The review will be conducted with urgency and will enable the Department to more effectively assess and mitigate risk of firearms being diverted to entities or activities that promote regional instability, violate human rights, or fuel criminal activities.
The “pause” has confused many in the pro-2A movement, with Cam Edwards writing in Bearing Arms that he didn’t understand why the Commerce Department needed to “pause” commercial exports beyond Ukraine, Israel, and NATO states.
“...though I suspect it has more to do with bullying the firearm industry than anything else. I do find it somewhat ironic that Biden is still willing to grant new export licenses for commercial arms shipped into war zones like Ukraine and Israel while he’s trying to prevent us here at home from fully exercising our Second Amendment rights…”
As Edwards notes, the FAQ section of the release doesn’t answer the most basic of all questions, which is, “Why is this ‘pause’ necessary?”
“Can’t the BIS conduct its assessment of ‘current firearm export control policies’ while the current system is in place, especially since the existing licenses are still valid? After the 90-day ‘pause’ is complete, is the BIS going to immediately implement changes to the export licensing process, or will there be a period of public comment before any changes are finalized? And if that is the case, then why not just implement the ‘pause’ during the comment period itself?”
Edwards reached out to the NSSF to get their input on the pause, with public affairs director Mark Oliva responding as follows:
This move to “pause” firearm, ammunition, and accessories exports is highly irregular. There are already end-to-end user checks as part of the verification process required by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security. In fact, the whole reason for the U.S. Munitions List to Commerce Control List reforms that were completed by the Trump administration was to ensure a higher fence around a smaller yard of those actual items that are considered defense-related articles.
The Biden administration hasn’t offered any explanation for this, so it seems that the timing of this, in the wake of the White [House] Office of Gun Violence Prevention meeting with gun control groups and lieutenant governors, seems suspiciously political. It is another instance [of] the Biden administration doing all they can to disrupt the firearm industry and weaken the industry that provides the means for exercising Second Amendment rights.
This “interruption” certainly seems to smell bad and looks like another attempt, as Oliva said, to kneecap the firearms industry.
Bloomberg reported that “while the department [Commerce] gave no indication of what long-term changes it will make, the review could alter or even reverse a set of notably pro-industry policies that have helped domestic manufacturers expand sales abroad.
“Those include shifting in 2020 the oversight of most commercial gun exports from the State Department to the business-friendly Department of Commerce and strong support for the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show, known as SHOT show, a gun marketing expo that occurs every January in Las Vegas.”
In July, Bloomberg started an investigation into global sales of firearms, focusing on Thailand, ”which last year suffered one of the world’s worst mass killings.”
Of course, one would be remiss in not wondering if there isn’t a lot more to this. After all, the Biden administration is not immune to using its “authority” to further ulterior motives.
Comments