Effort to Block Transfer of Gun Export Controls Shows Misunderstanding of ITAR, EAR, State Department Says
A lawsuit filed by 20 states to block the transfer of export controls over firearms from the State Department to the Commerce Department is unfounded, the State Department said, adding that the states don’t understand the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Export Administration Regulations. The “plaintiffs are simply wrong,” the State Department said in a Feb. 24 court filing. “Several basic misunderstandings about how the respective regimes operate negate the Plaintiffs’ claims and any basis for preliminary injunctive relief.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The 20 states and Washington, D.C., said the Trump administration's recently released final rules, scheduled to take effect March 9 (see 2001170030), will create a dangerous lack of oversight over technology and software used for the 3D printing of guns and violated the Arms Export Control Act (see 2001240047). But the State Department said the states hold a “mistaken view” that the rules will “effectively deregulate” sales of firearms, including the 3D printing of guns.
The State Department said it considered whether maintaining oversight of the controls would be in the best interest of U.S. national security and concluded that the EAR will be “at least as effective” as the ITAR in regulating firearms. “The overall rulemaking will significantly advance the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States by ensuring State has the capacity to keep ‘higher walls’ around the items most significant to U.S. interests,” the State Department said.
The agency also argued that the final rule did not violate notice-and-comment standards, as the states alleged. The “actual comments received” by the State Department proved that “commenters did have meaningful notice,” adding that the rule includes “three full-page columns” describing and addressing the comments it received about 3D printing.
In addition, if the injunction is granted, it would cause “significant harms to U.S. national security,” the State Department argued. The State Department’s U.S. Munitions List “sweeps in items” that do not provide “critical” military advantages and makes it “more difficult” for the State Department to focus its “export control resources” on sensitive military technology, the filing said. The injunction would damage U.S. national security by “preventing the implementation … of final rules that will enhance U.S. national security and foreign policy,” the State Department said, “and better utilize our export licensing and enforcement resources to focus on those items, destinations, and end-uses of greatest concern.”
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the filing.