New Postal Regulations, Part II


#1

Since I made the original post on this subject on 11 March


#2

I think the complaining and touting of ignoring regulations were things that were meant as opinions and comments for this forum alone, since forums are all about opinions after all. Any official correspondence to the USPS with comments on this issue would certainly be arranged more thoughtfully and fact-driven to be effective. But the commentary in so far as those in the forum who find serious fault with the governmental regulations speak mostly from experience with a flawed-logic system which ineptly punishes the masses in an attempt to exact regulations on the few serious abusers (abusers which care nothing of regulations anyway). So all points are easy to find credence in here I think. Any notion of not caring about doing anything about the problem is also probably born out of years of experience with various government on all levels, and how virtually no amount of logic or voice can change certain things. But… I just have to keep asking myself this though… Aren’t 90% of all potential affected shippers with regard to inert ammo just oblivious to this obscure regulation change anyway, should anyone care, and most importantly, does the USPS, or federal government (who have created these regulations) really even care at all, or care enough to invest in checking even 0.05% of anything worth checking?? And when they happen upon a shipment of 1 or 3 or 7 random old curio collector inert-cartridges being shipped to Sweden or wherever, are they really going to press forward with charges, or shouldn’t they have the wherewithal to understand that this is just about individuals trading bits of collectible copper & brass, and not about peddling hundreds or thousands of surplus-bought tank shell casings to Iran or Syria or wherever like this law was probably meant to prevent from happening? After hearing all the comments, and reading the regs, I tend to think that “drilling” a casing is the same as “cutting” a casing anyway, and so this topic may be way past moot at this point. Only my opinion.


#3

As per Mel


#4

Pepper,
I think a number of us are very concerned by the proposed regulations, but there is also a significant “want-to-stay-under-the-radar-factor” at work. Could you post a few of the major points you made in your letter so that any of us who want to add our little bit of weight can present a united image?
Thanks.


#5

This topic has been drowned in the past by OPINION and COMMENTS, but has been very short on facts.

a. What is the EXACT language of the proposed regulations (link???)

b. What exact definitions are used for terms like: ammunition, bullet, cartridge, primer, loaded, inert, dummy, explosive, gun pwoder, propellant, small arms ammuniton, or other relevant terms. (Or, as is likely, are they NOT precisely defined?)

c. Are there any exceptions, exemptions, or appeal options which may apply?

d. What will be the effective date?

e. What is the nature of a violation of the regulations (Criminal or civil charges, misdemeanor or felony)? What range of penalties which may result? [Remember conviction of any offense for which a prison term of one year COULD be applied is a mandatory permanent loss of all gun rights, inlcuding possession of a single round of ammunition, and there is no appeal or restoration of rights which can reverse this!)


#6

John,

  1. The link to the Federal Register web site listing that has the exact wording is a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 … 8-4459.htm

The part we are interested in says: “11.5 Replica or Inert Munitions. Replica or inert munitions that bear a realistic appearance, such as simulated grenades or other simulated explosive devices, are not permitted in the mail.”

  1. I share your concern re definitions. During my very cordial conversation with Mr. Lee, I brought this up as a matter of concern and asked that the USPS clearly define munitions and other terms. I mentioned original factory dummy small arms cartridges that did have a “realistic appearance,” but that were also readily identified as inert dummies by a lack of primer, struck primer, holes and/or flutes in case, blackened case or primer, etc. Mr. Lee was very receptive to my ideas and suggestions. He said the intent of the proposed regulations was not to prevent the mailing of original dummy small arms cartridges, but instead was to prevent replica grenades, dynamite, and such from creating huge problems for the postal service, as has happened frequently in the past. Read the Supplementary Information paragraph at the above link for specifics.

  2. Your other questions, while perfectly valid and relevant, can only be answered by the Postal Service, and I would suggest you ask them. The comment period ends 7 April, so there’s still plenty of time.


#7

Mel–The link above does not seem to work. All I get when I click on it is “This Page Can Not Be Found”.

The link below that you published in your original posting some time back does still work.

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 … 8-4459.htm


#8

Ron,

You’re right. Don’t know why mine didn’t work at first, but it does now. Thanks for catching that.


#9

I think the complaining and touting of ignoring regulations were things that were meant as opinions and comments for this forum alone, since forums are all about opinions after all. Any official correspondence to the USPS with comments on this issue would certainly be arranged more thoughtfully and fact-driven to be effective. But the commentary in so far as those in the forum who find serious fault with the governmental regulations speak mostly from experience with a flawed-logic system which ineptly punishes the masses in an attempt to exact regulations on the few serious abusers (abusers which care nothing of regulations anyway). So all points are easy to find credence in here I think. Any notion of not caring about doing anything about the problem is also probably born out of years of experience with various government on all levels, and how virtually no amount of logic or voice can change certain things. But… I just have to keep asking myself this though… Aren’t 90% of all potential affected shippers with regard to inert ammo just oblivious to this obscure regulation change anyway, should anyone care, and most importantly, does the USPS, or federal government (who have created these regulations) really even care at all, or care enough to invest in checking even 0.05% of anything worth checking?? And when they happen upon a shipment of 1 or 3 or 7 random old curio collector inert-cartridges being shipped to Sweden or wherever, are they really going to press forward with charges, or shouldn’t they have the wherewithal to understand that this is just about individuals trading bits of collectible copper & brass, and not about peddling hundreds or thousands of surplus-bought tank shell casings to Iran or Syria or wherever like this law was probably meant to prevent from happening? After hearing all the comments, and reading the regs, I tend to think that “drilling” a casing is the same as “cutting” a casing anyway, and so this topic may be way past moot at this point. Only my opinion.[/quote]

We at www.ammo-one.com have written a letter to the post office and, in short, pointing out all the business that would be lost in an already hurting economy, not only for the dealer selling goods but to the post office in lost revenues on goods no longer shipped.
We suggested that if a ruling is made to limit shipping of inert items, a permit system would ensure that real dealers that only ship INERT items by USPS and package them so as not to cause problems would be a better answer to the problem vs. putting honest businesses out of business and less shipping revenues for the post office.
Passing this law will only hurt the honest dealer, as the normal citizen shipping an item for a special reason will never know the rule has passed.
It is still not to late to send the USPS letters, more letters the better.
Sincerely, Dave, www.ammo-one.com