Oct
10
You’ll Shoot Your Eye Out, Kid!
Posted by Clif Burns at 2:58 pm on October 10, 2007
Category: BIS
Oh good grief.
Daisy Manufacturing just agreed to pay $20,400 to settle charges that it exported “rifle scopes” without a license. The Bureau of Industry and Security charged that the “rifle scopes” were classified under ECCN 0A987.
Most guys, particularly guys my age, are quite familiar with Daisy Manufacturing. Hell, anyone who has ever seen A Christmas Story is probably familiar with Daisy. The company makes BB guns and air rifles — like the Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle featured in the film.
And export folks of any age are probably familiar with ECCN 0A987 which controls:
Optical sighting devices for firearms (including shotguns controlled by 0A984); and parts, n.e.s.
That’s right — optical sighting devices for firearms. Now the Export Administration Regulations don’t bother to define firearms, but it would seem reasonable to look at the definition of firearm in the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. A firearm is defined in that act, at 18 U.S.C. §§921(a)(3) and (4), to cover only weapons which “expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” or, if expelling the projectile by other means, have a rifle bore of greater than one-half inch in diameter. The Daisy air rifles do not meet either criterion.
And the scopes manufactured by Daisy, like this one, all appear to be made for Daisy’s air rifles and, therefore, not properly classified under ECCN 0A987 as claimed by BIS. The BIS charging and settlement documents don’t provide sufficient detail as to the types or model numbers of scopes being exported. Once again, those documents refer to a schedule of violations which is missing from the documents posted on the BIS website. So there remains the possibility, albeit unlikely, that Daisy was exporting scopes for other rifles that could properly be defined as firearms.
All that notwithstanding, does anyone else feel that a scope on a BB gun is, well, cheating? What next? Laser designators?
Permalink
Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
6 Comments:
Under the new leadership, OEE doesn’t focus on the law, just the bodycount.
The Daisy site also carries these scopes:
Product Link
The product page states they’re “For use with most break-barrels, air rifles and firearms.”
Guessing from the name of the product, these scopes were made by Winchester, so perhaps they were originally designed for use on actual firearms? Perhaps these items were the subject of the violation.
Good catch, EB. You may well be right. If the schedule of violations referred to by the charging documents had been included that could answer the question because that scope is clearly ECCN 0A987.
“Under the new leadership, OEE doesn’t focus on the law, just the bodycount.”
This remark should be backed up by some facts. It is a serious allegation. You are saying that law enforcement officers, sworn to uphold the Constitution, would not “focus” on the law, just to make a “body count.” Not sure what this comments means, but the the implication is that OEE is doing something illegal. This is absurd. Furthermore, OEE doesn’t decide what charges, if any, are levied in an administrative enforcement case. In these cases, fines and penalties are decided by the ACRB, which is a function of BIS, not just OEE.
askike: First, the continued expiration of the EAA raises the question of the legal existence of OEE (not to mention the EAR itself), because unlike ICE or CBP, it has no separate statutory legislative authority. At a minimum, OEE agents are not “law enforcement officers” and they shouldn’t be wearing guns, not that they have ever needed them anyway: Arming and firearms/combat training OEE agents is a vanity thing, and waste of taxpayer money, plus it attracts some of the wrong sorts, but I digress. Second, by enforcing the EAR as though the EAA was in effect, OEE ignores the statutory limitations in IEEPA, most notably the exclusions in 50 USC 1702(b). Third, OEE, in one occasion with which I am thoroughly familiar, OEE attempted to intimidate defense counsel in a criminal proceeding by questioning witnesses both in interrorgation and before a grand jury about defense counsel’s conversation with those witnesses and with others, including foreign counsel that the US defense counsel had engaged in order to help prepare the case. I could go on, but you get the drift.
As an “alumnus” of Commerce, an Investigative Team Leader back in the 80s and on the licensing side briefly in the 70s, my feelings toward OEE have gone from friendship, admiration and respect for the Office and the team when it was under the capable and principled leadership of Mark Menefee and his predecessors, to something considerably less than that. There are still many good people there, people that I still like, admire and respect; but, I can no longer say that about the organization as a whole.
Mike, hellooooo out there. Were you on the Grassy Knoll when you wrote this? Did Oliver Stone help you write your response? C’mon Mike. You were asked to defend your inappropriate comments about a “BODY COUNT” and you come out with this rant. Whoa! I guess it must be some sort of grand conspiracy on the part of the whole Government to let BIS/OEE exists. (Shhhhhh. All of us law abiding citizens don’t want word of this beyond this blog) (Oh don’t worry…3 people frequent this blog anyway). It seems you have some issues with authority. Don’t know where you worked, if you are who you say you are, you should know that OEE doesn’t decide on charges. I just read some of your previous posts…
“understand that BIS didn’t appeal the decision, but what’s the status of the appeal by the one defendant who was convicted? Comment by Mike Deal — September 11, 2007 @ 4:58 pm”
Man, are you off the mark on this one too. Appeal a settlement? Hummmm.
Mike, say hello to the Boogie Man for me at the next UFO Convention.
PS. OJ was framed!
