Guys,
I am heading to the US in a week, and need help buying a scope from a US supplier as I don't have a US based credit card.
If anyone can help please message me.
This is my final attempt to buy a scope without supporting chinese clones.......
Johnson
Anyone able to help organise a scope purchase?
Anyone able to help organise a scope purchase?
Was Lee painted red to annoy the Dillon Bull(y)?
-
Blaster7Romeo
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:47 pm
- Location: Western NC
-
Blaster7Romeo
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:47 pm
- Location: Western NC
Well you done have to do business with them!!
If I was you I would bring get some American money and walk in to the biggest badest gun store in Las Veges and just buy it with cash and take it back.. You just need get on the on internet find the gun stores in Veges and give them a call and see what they got.
But I don't know how hard it would be to get it back on the plain with you when you go back, i think there are export laws...
maybe someone ells can help out with that info.
If I was you I would bring get some American money and walk in to the biggest badest gun store in Las Veges and just buy it with cash and take it back.. You just need get on the on internet find the gun stores in Veges and give them a call and see what they got.
But I don't know how hard it would be to get it back on the plain with you when you go back, i think there are export laws...
maybe someone ells can help out with that info.
Returning
Returning from the US with a civilian scope that was purchased as such, has no ramifications.
If it was a current or ex military scope then it would fall within the bounds of the export restrictions.
The fact that the same scope is sourced and used by the US military does not actually define it as a military scope.
Same argument as saying that an R22 Robinson helicopter is an enforcement item due to the useage by enforcement agencies......
A helicopter (the same as a riflescope) is simply that - until the item is used for a particular defining purpose.
Almost everything has many purposes, but just because fertilizer can be used in another fashion does not make it illegal nor something that is restricted from a person wishing to use it on their farm or their lawn at home.
Its easy to say I don't have to do business with them, but the biggest gun store in vegas (with an Internet presence) hasn't responded to my email contact.
If it was a current or ex military scope then it would fall within the bounds of the export restrictions.
The fact that the same scope is sourced and used by the US military does not actually define it as a military scope.
Same argument as saying that an R22 Robinson helicopter is an enforcement item due to the useage by enforcement agencies......
A helicopter (the same as a riflescope) is simply that - until the item is used for a particular defining purpose.
Almost everything has many purposes, but just because fertilizer can be used in another fashion does not make it illegal nor something that is restricted from a person wishing to use it on their farm or their lawn at home.
Its easy to say I don't have to do business with them, but the biggest gun store in vegas (with an Internet presence) hasn't responded to my email contact.
Was Lee painted red to annoy the Dillon Bull(y)?
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
-
Cortland
We're not talking about helicopters, we're talking about gun parts. A rifle scope is a gun part, and the export of gun parts is regulated regardless of whether they are "civilian" or "military."
Where exactly is "Oceania?" Since you don't know how to spell organize, I'm guessing Australia or New Zealand; if so you should be able to get whatever you want so long as you find a U.S. retailer set up to export.
Where exactly is "Oceania?" Since you don't know how to spell organize, I'm guessing Australia or New Zealand; if so you should be able to get whatever you want so long as you find a U.S. retailer set up to export.
-
Cortland
I think it's just a matter of finding a retailer who will export for you. Natchez says they will export rifle scopes to certain countries (I believe so long as you're NATO, ANZUS, Japan, Canada, etc. you're good). See here. Natchez doesn't have the widest variety of optics, but I'm sure you could find someone who has what you want who will export.
Or you could just buy a scope while you're in the US and stick it in your luggage, but I think you're playing with fire there.
Or you could just buy a scope while you're in the US and stick it in your luggage, but I think you're playing with fire there.
Good points
All good points.
Specfically I was hoping to purchase a super sniper to settle an argument about chinese scopes (i.e. put my money where my mouth was).
I have Leupolds amongst others, but in the lower price bracket many people in Australia are now buying chinese knock offs.
As for legalities, I am well abreast of them and are completely within the law with what I propose to do.
This incident only serves to highlight what I said in the chinese clone thread... people should not be punished for copying or purchasing genuine articles that merchants refuse to sell.
Thanks anyway.
Specfically I was hoping to purchase a super sniper to settle an argument about chinese scopes (i.e. put my money where my mouth was).
I have Leupolds amongst others, but in the lower price bracket many people in Australia are now buying chinese knock offs.
As for legalities, I am well abreast of them and are completely within the law with what I propose to do.
This incident only serves to highlight what I said in the chinese clone thread... people should not be punished for copying or purchasing genuine articles that merchants refuse to sell.
Thanks anyway.
Was Lee painted red to annoy the Dillon Bull(y)?
-
Cortland
I don't mean to belabor the point, but clearly you're not within the law. Maybe you're well within the law of Australia or New Zealand or the Federated States of Micronesia or wherever the heck you're from, but if you buy a scope in the U.S. and "export" it in your luggage, you're not within U.S. law.As for legalities, I am well abreast of them and are completely within the law with what I propose to do.
People shouldn't be punished for a whole slew of harmless but illegal acts. But it happens.people should not be punished for copying or purchasing genuine articles that merchants refuse to sell.
Short.
From the Leupold website;
Found here http://www.leupold.com/resources/product_service.htm
A: "We are required under U.S. law to obtain an export license to ship riflescopes overseas."
further down the page..
B: "Import/Export Licensing Requirements:
A. Customers located in the following countries may return riflescopes to the product service facility in their country or the Leupold factory WITHOUT import/export licensing requirements:
AUSTRALIA, BELGIUM, DENMARK, FRANCE, GERMANY, GREECE, ICELAND, ITALY, JAPAN, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, NEW CALEDONIA, PORTUGAL, SCOTLAND, SPAIN, TURKEY, ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM"
Further to this....
SWFA site http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.a ... 1&get=last
the relevant section "Here is some further clarification. It is our descision not to export, all scopes are not banned from importation neither are all mil-dot scopes like many people think."
Further...
SWFA state on their site the scope was built to their specifications and the fact they obtained a military contract meant they could keep the cost reasonable.
Thus the scope was not built per the definition for the military, in fact the SS was a civilian scope - they bought the rights and had it again manufactured, this time they were able to obtain a US contract for it.
SO it is a civilian specified scope that was then sent for trials and has been
subequently awarded a contract to the military.
Yes there is a cross over on ITAR talking about being built to military specifications - but again SWFA talk about the scope being built to NATO standards - (see here http://www.swfa.com/c-231-super-sniper- ... copes.aspx)
NATA is NOT a military organisation in fact it stands for
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. (see http://www.nato.int/)
So again... it fails to meet the criteria for all;
(ITAR)
Department of Export
(EAR)
Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
Department of State
and U.S. Department of Commerce
Unless I am missing something? - in which case, please correct my understanding..
http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2002/sturm_ruger.htm
Excerpt from above
"A license is required to export the rifle scopes to most destinations in order to ensure that the scopes will not be used to violate human rights."
Found here http://www.leupold.com/resources/product_service.htm
A: "We are required under U.S. law to obtain an export license to ship riflescopes overseas."
further down the page..
B: "Import/Export Licensing Requirements:
A. Customers located in the following countries may return riflescopes to the product service facility in their country or the Leupold factory WITHOUT import/export licensing requirements:
AUSTRALIA, BELGIUM, DENMARK, FRANCE, GERMANY, GREECE, ICELAND, ITALY, JAPAN, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, NEW CALEDONIA, PORTUGAL, SCOTLAND, SPAIN, TURKEY, ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM"
Further to this....
SWFA site http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.a ... 1&get=last
the relevant section "Here is some further clarification. It is our descision not to export, all scopes are not banned from importation neither are all mil-dot scopes like many people think."
Further...
SWFA state on their site the scope was built to their specifications and the fact they obtained a military contract meant they could keep the cost reasonable.
Thus the scope was not built per the definition for the military, in fact the SS was a civilian scope - they bought the rights and had it again manufactured, this time they were able to obtain a US contract for it.
SO it is a civilian specified scope that was then sent for trials and has been
subequently awarded a contract to the military.
Yes there is a cross over on ITAR talking about being built to military specifications - but again SWFA talk about the scope being built to NATO standards - (see here http://www.swfa.com/c-231-super-sniper- ... copes.aspx)
NATA is NOT a military organisation in fact it stands for
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. (see http://www.nato.int/)
So again... it fails to meet the criteria for all;
(ITAR)
Department of Export
(EAR)
Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
Department of State
and U.S. Department of Commerce
Unless I am missing something? - in which case, please correct my understanding..
http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2002/sturm_ruger.htm
Excerpt from above
"A license is required to export the rifle scopes to most destinations in order to ensure that the scopes will not be used to violate human rights."
Was Lee painted red to annoy the Dillon Bull(y)?
-
Cortland
That says no import/export paperwork is needed for returning a scope that was already lawfully exported. You're not sending a lawfully exported scope to be serviced, you're taking a scope to Australia!A. Customers located in the following countries may return riflescopes to the product service facility in their country or the Leupold factory WITHOUT import/export licensing requirements:
It is in fact legal to export this Super Sniper scope to Australia, but there is export paperwork that needs to be done beforehand. You can't just export it in your suitcase.
The Arms Export Control Act says:
"every person (other than an officer or employee of the United States Government acting in an official capacity) who engages in the business of manufacturing, exporting, or importing any defense articles or defense services designated by the President under subsection (a)(1) shall register with the United States Government agency charged with the administration of this section, and shall pay a registration fee which shall be prescribed by such regulations."
So basically to export something on the U.S. Munitions List, you have to have a license and jump through a lot of hoops.
The U.S. Munitions list is available here and includes "riflescopes manufactured to military specifications" as well as "Accessories and attachments are associated equipment for any component, end-item or system, and which are not necessary for their operation, but which enhance their usefulness or effectiveness." which I believe is generally interpreted to mean all riflescopes.
So a conservative reading of the Munitions List would say that you need a bonafide exporter for all rifle scopes which "enhance the usefulness or effectiveness" of a military firearm (i.e., all riflescopes). However, even the most permissive reading of it clearly exclude scopes manufactured to "military specifications." SWFA boasts that the Super Sniper was built to NATO specs and awarded a Navy contract, so it clearly qualifies.
Of course this is the law related to defense articles. I thought there was another regulating the export of firearms (and maybe parts) in general but I can't find anything specific. You'll note that Natchez says they can only export riflescopes to certain countries and don't say anything about military vs. nonmilitary -- I'm not sure if this is because of an additional law regulating firearms parts in general or due to a conservative reading of the Arms Export Control Act.
So in the case of riflescopes you may in fact be correct about the military vs. nonmilitary distinction, but in the case of this particular scope it obviously fits the definition of defense article according to the U.S. Munitions List and thus requires a licensed arms exporter.
Cortland,
I didn't provide links for this list;
(ITAR)
Department of Export
(EAR)
Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
Department of State
and U.S. Department of Commerce
but they regulate the civilian stuff and it doesn't fall into their jurisdiction.
Again.. NATO is NOT a military foce - thus being built to NATO specs is dramatically different to those built to US military specifications.
and your interpretation:
"which I believe is generally interpreted to mean all riflescopes."
Applying the same logic means your 2nd ammendment rights don't exist.
Again I state - I don't need an export license to return with a scope that was built to civilian specifications (NATO is a treaty alliance of countries NOT A MILITARY) to my country and bought in your country.
The rifle scope was built to international standards..... not military..
"you'll note that Natchez says they can only export riflescopes to certain countries and don't say anything about military vs. nonmilitary"
yes I did note this - I also verified with a number of US government websites.
IF this scope was built to US Military standards, and then they got the contract - you would be correct...
BUT this scope was built to NATO standards, a treaty alliance organisation?
So do you propose that a scope built to ISO (International Standards Organisation) standards [if they released a STD] would be equivalent? and as such would be eligible to be classified a military export?
Looking through the Arms Export Act found (excerpt)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/us ... 10_39.html
This is supposed to regulate international arms trafficking - not the domestic sale of a sporting riflescope.
I didn't provide links for this list;
(ITAR)
Department of Export
(EAR)
Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
Department of State
and U.S. Department of Commerce
but they regulate the civilian stuff and it doesn't fall into their jurisdiction.
Again.. NATO is NOT a military foce - thus being built to NATO specs is dramatically different to those built to US military specifications.
and your interpretation:
"which I believe is generally interpreted to mean all riflescopes."
Applying the same logic means your 2nd ammendment rights don't exist.
Again I state - I don't need an export license to return with a scope that was built to civilian specifications (NATO is a treaty alliance of countries NOT A MILITARY) to my country and bought in your country.
The rifle scope was built to international standards..... not military..
"you'll note that Natchez says they can only export riflescopes to certain countries and don't say anything about military vs. nonmilitary"
yes I did note this - I also verified with a number of US government websites.
IF this scope was built to US Military standards, and then they got the contract - you would be correct...
BUT this scope was built to NATO standards, a treaty alliance organisation?
So do you propose that a scope built to ISO (International Standards Organisation) standards [if they released a STD] would be equivalent? and as such would be eligible to be classified a military export?
Looking through the Arms Export Act found (excerpt)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/us ... 10_39.html
This is supposed to regulate international arms trafficking - not the domestic sale of a sporting riflescope.
Was Lee painted red to annoy the Dillon Bull(y)?
Any definitive answer
Again
http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2002/sturm_ruger.htm
Excerpt from above
"A license is required to export the rifle scopes to most destinations in order to ensure that the scopes will not be used to violate human rights."
My destination does not violate any US laws..
Is no one willing to help purchase a scope from the US?
http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2002/sturm_ruger.htm
Excerpt from above
"A license is required to export the rifle scopes to most destinations in order to ensure that the scopes will not be used to violate human rights."
My destination does not violate any US laws..
Is no one willing to help purchase a scope from the US?
Was Lee painted red to annoy the Dillon Bull(y)?
-
Cortland
You're playing a really silly semantic game here. NATO is a military force. Just ask the Serbians, ask the Taliban, ask the NATO "Supreme Allied Commander" (sounds kind of like a military doesn't it?).Again.. NATO is NOT a military foce
I don't care about the intent of the law, it's the legal word and effect of the law that matters.This is supposed to regulate international arms trafficking - not the domestic sale of a sporting riflescope.
Again, you're playing a really silly semantic game by claiming that NATO is not a military organization. Even if it weren't, this scope sure seems to fall under the U.S. Munitions List. If it's legal, you should be able to find a retailer who will help you -- but instead you're having to beg private individuals to do your dirty work. I'm certainly not going to put my ass in dutch helping you export a riflescope, and I hope nobody else does either.Is no one willing to help purchase a scope from the US?
Call it a semantic game all you like, its a simple fact and it is what occurs every single day when interpreting legislation.
Clearly you lack a basic understanding of the legal principles of international law....
Check the NATO website http://www.nato.int/
NATO is an alliance of countries (26) committed to fulfilling the GOALS of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949.
The United Nations are an alliance - they too use sanctioned military force... and they too have military Commanders.
"If it's legal, you should be able to find a retailer who will help you"
Thank you - I hope to... however it doesn't help having ignorant weekend lawyers like yourself spreading disinformation based on your personal opinion. Some of those retailers would read your diatribe and then 'to be safe' err on the side of caution and not assist a legitimate request in helping a person.
As for begging?
It's time to close this thread and perhaps Rob Silvers could delete it completely - I haven't been begging at all.
In fact I asked a completely straight forward question, from a community of like minded individuals.
I have been honest, and have provided references of the information I have checked and simply cannot find basis for the grounds you claim.
You are well entitled to err on the side of caution - but don't sully my reputation with 'begging' or 'dirty work'.
Again your dissent has been noted - my thread duly hijacked and nothing has been gained.
Thanks a bundle, remind me to put you on my Christmas card list.
R.Silvers - please delete this thread - its gone nowhere and contributes nothing but another meaningless argument.
Sorry to everyone else for the time you wasted reading this.
Clearly you lack a basic understanding of the legal principles of international law....
Check the NATO website http://www.nato.int/
NATO is an alliance of countries (26) committed to fulfilling the GOALS of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949.
The United Nations are an alliance - they too use sanctioned military force... and they too have military Commanders.
"If it's legal, you should be able to find a retailer who will help you"
Thank you - I hope to... however it doesn't help having ignorant weekend lawyers like yourself spreading disinformation based on your personal opinion. Some of those retailers would read your diatribe and then 'to be safe' err on the side of caution and not assist a legitimate request in helping a person.
As for begging?
It's time to close this thread and perhaps Rob Silvers could delete it completely - I haven't been begging at all.
In fact I asked a completely straight forward question, from a community of like minded individuals.
I have been honest, and have provided references of the information I have checked and simply cannot find basis for the grounds you claim.
You are well entitled to err on the side of caution - but don't sully my reputation with 'begging' or 'dirty work'.
Again your dissent has been noted - my thread duly hijacked and nothing has been gained.
Thanks a bundle, remind me to put you on my Christmas card list.
R.Silvers - please delete this thread - its gone nowhere and contributes nothing but another meaningless argument.
Sorry to everyone else for the time you wasted reading this.
Was Lee painted red to annoy the Dillon Bull(y)?
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Rob,
from the SWFA website
"Our "U.S. only" policy came about for several reason. The first reason was an insane amount of credit card fraud from International orders and we have to eat every single one of them......not the credit card company. Second was the lack of participation by International banks in the address verification part of the credit card approval. Third was packages getting lost or damaged (routinely) and having to fight for months to get paid from the insurance. Fourth was International customers continuously asking for us to lie on the customs form so they would not have to pay duty and taxes, then getting mad because we would not break the law. If we declare a $1,000.00 scope to be worth $72.00....guess how much we get paid when it gets lost or stolen??? Fifth was International customers getting very upset of what the actual shipping charges were costing on high value shipments. Sixth was the government restrictions and minimum 10 million dollar fine."
found http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.a ... 1&get=last
And in answer as to why not cabelas.
from SWFA
"Don't be fooled by cheap imitations, the genuine Super Sniper scopes are only available from SWFA, Inc. We are the manufacturer and only sell them to the military and direct to the public."
from the SWFA website
"Our "U.S. only" policy came about for several reason. The first reason was an insane amount of credit card fraud from International orders and we have to eat every single one of them......not the credit card company. Second was the lack of participation by International banks in the address verification part of the credit card approval. Third was packages getting lost or damaged (routinely) and having to fight for months to get paid from the insurance. Fourth was International customers continuously asking for us to lie on the customs form so they would not have to pay duty and taxes, then getting mad because we would not break the law. If we declare a $1,000.00 scope to be worth $72.00....guess how much we get paid when it gets lost or stolen??? Fifth was International customers getting very upset of what the actual shipping charges were costing on high value shipments. Sixth was the government restrictions and minimum 10 million dollar fine."
found http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.a ... 1&get=last
And in answer as to why not cabelas.
from SWFA
"Don't be fooled by cheap imitations, the genuine Super Sniper scopes are only available from SWFA, Inc. We are the manufacturer and only sell them to the military and direct to the public."
Was Lee painted red to annoy the Dillon Bull(y)?
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Thanks Mongo,
but no - only popping over to the US for a short trip.
Rob why buy Leupold? - it is outside the price range (twice the price here)...
The argument was about cheap scopes - I was stupid enough to buy into all of the US based reviews that for the price it was an incredible scope.
As stated already.. in the price range, everyone is buying knock-off scopes.
This was supposed to be all about a decent scope for X amount of $$.
yes I can buy a cheap Nikko Stirling or Tasco etc - but they don't have the praise the Super Sniper has had and from personal experience we have found them to be significantly lacking.
but no - only popping over to the US for a short trip.
Rob why buy Leupold? - it is outside the price range (twice the price here)...
The argument was about cheap scopes - I was stupid enough to buy into all of the US based reviews that for the price it was an incredible scope.
As stated already.. in the price range, everyone is buying knock-off scopes.
This was supposed to be all about a decent scope for X amount of $$.
yes I can buy a cheap Nikko Stirling or Tasco etc - but they don't have the praise the Super Sniper has had and from personal experience we have found them to be significantly lacking.
Was Lee painted red to annoy the Dillon Bull(y)?
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
To me knock-off scopes simply do not exist. I consider it the ultimate is lameness to have a clone-scope on a rifle.
Buy a Super Sniper from eBay -- there are several for sale right now.
What about http://www.snipercentral.com/bushtact.htm
Buy a Super Sniper from eBay -- there are several for sale right now.
What about http://www.snipercentral.com/bushtact.htm
Rob,
Good call - if they are in shops I'll bring one of those back..
the link you provided won't ship internationally - least not the purchase here link;
From cheaper than dirt (linked for purchase)- "Why don't you ship internationally?
In some countries, it's illegal to own military surplus items - even if they originated there! It would be impossible to keep up with all the laws in other countries to determine if a product - surplus or otherwise - can be shipped there legally. Because we don't send products internationally, we won't mail our catalog outside the US."
The eBay listings - same deal...
http://cgi.ebay.com/SWFA-10x42-Super-Sn ... dZViewItem
from the SWFA eBay advert - "We only do business in the United States of America"
The other private eBay adverts - are all stating "U.S. sales ONLY!!"
It isn't because it needs paperwork for export - its because people don't understand the laws..... or they couldn't be bothered due to a perception about difficulty with international trading.
Good call - if they are in shops I'll bring one of those back..
the link you provided won't ship internationally - least not the purchase here link;
From cheaper than dirt (linked for purchase)- "Why don't you ship internationally?
In some countries, it's illegal to own military surplus items - even if they originated there! It would be impossible to keep up with all the laws in other countries to determine if a product - surplus or otherwise - can be shipped there legally. Because we don't send products internationally, we won't mail our catalog outside the US."
The eBay listings - same deal...
http://cgi.ebay.com/SWFA-10x42-Super-Sn ... dZViewItem
from the SWFA eBay advert - "We only do business in the United States of America"
The other private eBay adverts - are all stating "U.S. sales ONLY!!"
It isn't because it needs paperwork for export - its because people don't understand the laws..... or they couldn't be bothered due to a perception about difficulty with international trading.
Was Lee painted red to annoy the Dillon Bull(y)?
