US International Traffic in Arms Regulations seem to be very broad. I’ve seen ITAR warnings about products whose military uses seem pretty limited or are the sorts of things that would be readily available almost anywhere in the world. Despite what the regulations say and evidently apply to, though, in watching videos of military operations around the world I wonder what sort of monitoring or enforcement there is of the regs. I’ve seen Leupold scopes in use by active combatants, and a Savage precision rifle being used by a supposed Georgian (the country) sniper in Ukraine. The same man was even loading a magazine from a box of Hornady match ammunition.

Yes, I fully realize that the question may seem naïve, but if you can offer anything worthwhile, please bear with me and explain what you can. I know that it would be very easy to smuggle almost any small item out of the country, but are any efforts made to actually enforce the regulations? Or are they nothing more than a way for the US or other countries to say, “Well, we tried”?

Enforcement of ITAR regs is very real, and companies are often fined for violations. It typically applies to commercial transfers of technology to other countries. So when you see a Saudi F-16, for example, the US Government can transfer certain technologies (with limitations).I hope that helps.

Not sure I understand the question, but ITAR/EAR is absolutely regulated. Go to any international security trade show and people are there on the floor making sure you're in compliance.

Just like FCPA, ITAR/EAR has teeth and absolutely shouldn't be taken lightly.

I imagine items like hunting rifles and ammunition and scopes are exported legally. Probably some hoops to jump through and whatnot, but they're sporting items so it's probably not as hard a sell as say the fire control computer from an Abrams.

But that's just me over here spitballing.

quote:

Originally posted by sooma:
Not sure I understand the question ....

Despite my disclaimer, I was hoping to not seem too naïve, but to ask it in a different way: In light of how strictly the ITAR are reportedly enforced, how do Leupold “tactical” scopes and a Savage “precision rifle” with MDT chassis end up being used by Russian FSB personnel and a Georgian volunteer for the Ukraine army?

When I asked a Leupold rep what the objective lens mount screw thread specifications were for a Mark 6 scope, he refused, citing ITAR. It therefore seems to be a big deal in theory, but the practice is what I’m asking about.

To reiterate, ITAR cover a large variety of items. For example, the Leupold 12×40mm sight with fine duplex reticle is listed on their site as being subject to them. Various sight mounts are also listed there and elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
I imagine items like hunting rifles and ammunition and scopes are exported legally. Probably some hoops to jump through and whatnot, but they're sporting items so it's probably not as hard a sell as say the fire control computer from an Abrams.

But that's just me over here spitballing.

Scopes are a big area of concern. I’m not talking about dumb scopes, but the I am talking about scopes with computers, electronics, night vision, thermal imaging, etc.

I am in no way an expert or well-versed in ITAR or in its enforcement. Having said that, I worked in a technology field, semiconductors, that was most certainly regulated by it.

Back in the mid to late 1990s, there was a good bit of controversy when then President Clinton approved the transfer of various technologies to China, which had been banned. The controversy, at least as I understood it, was that while this technology could be used in peaceful commercial applications such as the launching/ deploying of communication satellites, it could also be used for both conventional and nuclear warhead missiles. While Republicans objected to the tech transfer, reportedly the Clinton administration felt there were no significant threats to national security and provided documents when justifying the transfer.

However, there was likely a political motive for the tech transfer as well.

Although I was not in any way involved, my understanding was that semiconductor technology transfer included a complicated tool known as a Scanner, used in the Photolithography portion of the manufacturing process, and that this fell under ITAR regulation, but this was explained to me by someone else and could just be heresay.

There is little doubt, though, that China's missile tech leapt generations ahead after the transfer of this technology.

I can't say for certain whether the technology mentioned in these two articles were regulated specifically under ITAR, or perhaps some other tech regulations:

Clinton Approves Technology Transfer to China

Clinton Defends China Satellite Waiver


Depending on just how in-depth and "froggy" you feel in delving into this subject, here is a lengthy de-classified Congressional report on the investigation into security breaches by US based tech companies who leaked info to the Chinese after accident investigation into the destruction of a U.S. satellite during launch. The report goes into the regulation of various satellite, missile, nuclear, submarine detection, jet engine, computer, software technologies, as well as the investigation of theft of such technologies. Among other regulatory authorities, you will find ITAR mentioned, on page 131 of Vol. 1. I have not read the report, but briefly skimmed it.

U.S. National Security and Military/ Commercial Concerns with the Peoples Republic of China

In rereading my original post, I understand why what I was curious about wasn’t clear.

I’m not talking about things like tech transfers, but rather the small physical objects I mentioned. How does a set of scope rings that someone warns on their web site is subject to the ITAR end up on a Chechen sniper’s rifle? Is it a matter of, “Hey, Joe, remember me: We met in Vienna and you said you’d help me outfit my hunting rifle. Can you send me a pair of Leupold Mark 4 extra high scope rings?” Or are there more organized operations for such things?

https://www.seattletimes.com/s...technology-to-china/

This instance stands out, as he lived on the block I would celebrate the 4th of July on. Of course, without the informant they wouldn’t have been caught. Makes you feel warm and fuzzy about all the foreigners brought over for tech jobs.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
In rereading my original post, I understand why what I was curious about wasn’t clear.

I’m not talking about things like tech transfers, but rather the small physical objects I mentioned. How does a set of scope rings that someone warns on their web site is subject to the ITAR end up on a Chechen sniper’s rifle? Is it a matter of, “Hey, Joe, remember me: We met in Vienna and you said you’d help me outfit my hunting rifle. Can you send me a pair of Leupold Mark 4 extra high scope rings?” Or are there more organized operations for such things?

ITAR works great on large scale sales between manufacturer, distributor and dealer. After that it gets very difficult to control transfers of retail products.
A store sells 3 Leupold scopes to a customer. The customer puts them in the mail, or his luggage and they end up in a nation bordering a conflict, then used in the conflict.

quote:

Originally posted by TSE:
After that it gets very difficult to control transfers of retail products.

That has been my assumption, but I was curious whether there are any other known systematic diversion operations.

As for the guy with three scopes in his luggage, does TSA notify our customs enforcement if something like that is spotted in a security screen, or do other countries have restrictions on their importation and be likely to seize them upon entry?

And for those who always assume the worst about people who start threads like this, no, I’m not planning any of that myself. Just wondering (to reiterate) how a Georgian sniper was able to acquire a Savage rifle.

Battlefield acquisitions? I don't think the ITAR is applied to guys as they're being deployed, but it's applied to ordering and having stuff shipped while you're already overseas. So they can bring it with them, but can't get it shipped to them once they're there. I learned this while I was in Korea trying to buy an optic for my service weapon before they were standard issue.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
I imagine items like hunting rifles and ammunition and scopes are exported legally. Probably some hoops to jump through and whatnot, but they're sporting items so it's probably not as hard a sell as say the fire control computer from an Abrams.

But that's just me over here spitballing.

Scopes are a big area of concern. I’m not talking about dumb scopes, but the I am talking about scopes with computers, electronics, night vision, thermal imaging, etc.

Right, that's what I'm talking about too. I mean, the Savage rifle is a hunting rifle, and I assume the scope being talked about is just a regular scope. Hunting and sport shooting do exist outside of the US, it might be more difficult to get into, obviously, but it wouldn't be out of the ordinary I would think for someone to buy a hunting rifle in Russia, or Ukraine, or Georgia, and then take it off to war with them.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by TSE:
After that it gets very difficult to control transfers of retail products.

That has been my assumption, but I was curious whether there are any other known systematic diversion operations.

As for the guy with three scopes in his luggage, does TSA notify our customs enforcement if something like that is spotted in a security screen, or do other countries have restrictions on their importation and be likely to seize them upon entry?

And for those who always assume the worst about people who start threads like this, no, I’m not planning any of that myself. Just wondering (to reiterate) how a Georgian sniper was able to acquire a Savage rifle.

US customs pre clears flights going to the US from other countries, I am not sure if they also check flights leaving the US, but I have never seen a customs check for a departing flight otherwise. The security checks would not consider any scope an issue. There are not many countries which would consider even a tactical or military scope a controlled good for import. Furthermore the countries most likely to have them imported for use in conflict are also the least likely to be concerned. For example it is pretty unlikely Ukraine would stop imports of military optics, similarly neither would Syria, Lebanon, Georgia etc.

Okay, thanks for all the comments.

I guess I’m still annoyed that a US scope manufacturer would use ITAR as an excuse to refuse to help me determine whether another company’s sunshade would fit a scope that they don’t make one for.

And I suppose it’s correct that the Savage would be considered no more threatening than any other bolt action rifle and is therefore likely not restricted. Things like muzzle threads and AR-type grips on bolt action rifles don’t seem to (yet) be evidence of nefarious intentions even in our most benighted states, so I am probably making incorrect assumptions about that gun. On the other hand, a long list of Leupold Mark 4, 6, and 8 scopes that don’t have any smart targeting capabilities or electronics other than illuminated reticles are nevertheless on their 2016 ITAR roster.

Perhaps they fall under the $100 exemption (now increased to $500?) of certain items?

ITAR Exemption

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
Perhaps they fall under the $100 exemption (now increased to $500?) of certain items?

There is that, but not the scopes I was thinking of.

To be honest, I would think that the items you are describing would be considered "dual use" and fall under the Department of Commerce's Export Administration Regulations (E.A.R.) instead of the Department of State's International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (I.T.A.R.). E.A.R. is not as strict as I.T.A.R.

I use to work for a subsidiary of a foreign company whose products were classified as Category XIII munitions under ITAR. The products were manufactured by parent company in their home country.

The parent company could sell to anyone they wanted, but once the products came into the United States they fell under I.T.A.R. If something was defective we had to get permission from State Department to send it back to the parent company for repair.

Our territory was all of North America. We use to sell product to Canada. The parent company could ship directly to Canada without any problems. But we had to get permission from State Department to ship the exact same product.

When you are dealing with I.T.A.R., it isn't just ship it and forget it. You also have to make sure the entity you are selling your product to has the necessary policies and security in place to make sure the only people who get the product are people that the State Dept. approves.

I.T.A.R. is very complicated. I had a neighbor who worked for State once tell me that they don't even understand I.T.A.R. I sincerely doubt that Leupold has anyone on staff that understands I.T.A.R. They probably subcontract it out to a law firm that specializes in it. The rep was probably just blowing smoke. I bet if you tried talking to another rep you would get a different answer.

According to some research I got around to, the ITAR have changed in recent times, so perhaps you're right about the specifics. As for Leupold, their most recent posted list was from 2016.
Thanks.

Maybe I should start advertising my unneeded scopes on the international market. I could probably do better than the fire sale prices I have been asking.

<-- (For the folks who are sense of humor or reading comprehension challenged, “That’s a joke, son; a joke.”)

As I recall, it's a $10K fine for each instance of non-adherence.

Ship 20 widgets that fall under the ITAR/EAR umbrella incorrectly, and the fines can be pretty hefty. (Also, the fine can be applied to the offending individual, not just the corporation.)