BATFE Import Permit? For a Stock?

My brother mentioned he’d ordered a new stock for his M1A; he was just waiting for the ATF to approve his import permit.

His what?

Sure enough:

USA customers, please note: you will require a permit from the BATF in order to export the Blackfeather “RS” from Canada. When you place your order, you will be sent a BATF Form 6 Part 1 by email completely prepared and filled out for processing. (Permits have been returned here in as little as 3 weeks). It is a simple process!

Grumble gnash jackbooted grumble WHY?

Seriously, in this age of just ordering shit from wherever over the internet, I just assumed innocent parts like a rifle stock could be bought, sold, and shipped just like the Japanese DVD I received from a Thai broker the other day. Buying things from overseas, without necessarily intending to, is just normal nowadays for a lot of folks. Commerce is so smooth it’s easy to ignore the seller’s location, who cares? Hell, I’m so bad with Amazon nowadays I’ll occasionally use the “Buy Now With One Click” feature and be surprised when the book I ordered shows up from England. “Oh that’s why it took three days to arrive instead of the usual two.”

This entry was posted in Have Gun, Will Travel, Order of the imperial upraised middle finger., The Government is Not Your Friend. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to BATFE Import Permit? For a Stock?

  1. Davidwhitewolf says:

    My brother did note that he’ll probably end up on some sort of list. Ah well, aren’t we all nowadays?

  2. Mollbot says:

    Some likely more than others.

  3. Kristophr says:

    Weapon parts imports have required a Form 6 ever since congress passed ITAR, decades ago. When traveling with a weapon abroad, you need to get a slip of paper from the local US Customs business office as proof that you are not importing it when you return to the US.

    It’s been this way for years. Ordering any weapon related stuff from Canada is a PITA.

    Good morning, David.

  4. Davidwhitewolf says:

    Dayum. Guess I need to reread that portion of Unintended Consequences.

  5. Linoge says:

    Huh. I do not remember that disclaimer being on their site a few years back… Thought about getting one, but it was not overly compatible with a SOCOM II. Guess I should have, although ignorance is no excuse of the law Kristophr mentions…

  6. Chris Byrne says:

    Ayup, as KB pointed out, this isn’t actually the ATF, or the Canadian .govs fault; it’s the UN, specifically AECA/ITAR/USML/DDTC issues.

    Even the idiotic interpretation of those regulations isn’t the ATF’s fault… In fact, it’s a gigantic hassle for them in some ways, and they’ve actually argued for simplification of some things. It’s the state department and DOD that make things so difficult here.

  7. Mollbot says:

    Has there been any point since the Civil War when the State Dept was on our side?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.