DDTC publishes comments on revision of USML categories, I, II, III

The US State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (‘DDTC’) has published public comments on its revision of USML categories I, II and III – which cover most firearms, artillery systems and ammunition.

A controversial aspect of the reform is that non-automatic (i.e., including semi-automatic) firearms are removed from ITAR control under the proposed rule.

One comment received by the DDTC, from Aaron Karp of Virginia’s Old Dominion University, reads in part: ‘As an analyst of the global arms trade and weapons proliferation for thirty years, I recognize the transformative power of regulatory reform. But this is something else. The proposed revisions promise short-term benefits, which seem unlikely to amount to much in an already competitive global market. That makes this deregulation for the sake of deregulation itself.’

Karp argues that were the revision to go ahead the change ‘marks a fundamental shift in the nature of arms export oversight. By reducing the role of the US Government, it leaves regulation exclusively to the recipient government. This shifts the burden of proof in international human rights and state oppression, from outside powers with no direct interest in the outcome, to the recipient governments, governments that are often guilty of using imported weapons in appalling or frightful ways, ways that would be completely illegal in the United States.’

A contrasting opinion is that of gunsmith Josh Rowe who argues that the reforms ‘should go further’, and that businesses should not need to register with DDTC as manufacturers of military goods unless they are either doing business with military entities, or actively engaged in import and export.

Rowe writes: ‘While there is no doubt having the ability to track these items is of the utmost importance to our national security, the overwhelming majority of licensed firearms manufacturers in the US do not, and likely will never produce a single item for export. Should a foreign customer become interested in acquiring an item, an export permit would be needed regardless of registration status and I see no reason why registration could not be completed on an as-needed basis.’

For all the comments, see: https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/?id=ddtc_public_portal_news_and_events