FIRST ON FOX: The House Small Business Committee chairman and 4 of his GOP colleagues despatched a letter to the Biden Department of Commerce demanding solutions on the 90-day pause on issuing gun export licenses.
Chairman Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas, led the letter to Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Alan Estevez concerning the division’s pause on issuing gun export licenses.
“The Biden Administration is continuing its relentless attack on small businesses with yet another decision that will only make our entrepreneurs’ lives more difficult,” Williams advised Fox News Digital.
SECOND AMENDMENT GROUP TO URGE CONGRESS TO OVERTURN ATF PISTOL BRACE RULE
House Small Business Committee Chairman Roger Williams, R-Texas, led the letter to Commerce Under Secretary Alan Estevez concerning the division’s pause on issuing gun export licenses. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc by way of Getty Images)
“Moreover, this decision could very well be in violation of our Second Amendment – which I will not stand for,” Williams stated.
“I am eager to hear from the (Bureau of Industry and Security) on this issue and hope to have a detailed response with their justification.”
In the letter, the lawmakers warned that the 90-day “prohibition places a substantial burden on those businesses and individuals that rely on exporting as a source of income and for manufacturers of weapons and ammunition.”
“It appears that the Department of Commerce and [the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)] may not have properly considered the impact of this decision on American businesses, especially smaller entities, nor sufficiently rationalized its decision to comply with the Constitution and its principles,” the lawmakers wrote.
The House Small Business Committee chairman and 4 of his GOP colleagues despatched a letter to the Biden Department of Commerce demanding solutions on the 90-day pause on issuing gun export licenses. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
“The Committee is unsure of how to properly characterize the document the BIS made its announcement with, as it is listed as a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) document. A FAQ document hardly seems like the proper venue for announcing a restriction that touches and concerns a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
“Further, this announcement doesn’t adequately clarify the premise for why such a prohibition is critical.”
LIBERAL ACTIVIST SHAREHOLDERS SET TO SUE SMITH & WESSON AS PART OF ESG PUSH TO CRIPPLE GUN MANUFACTURERS
The lawmakers pointed out that the “FAQ doc’s solely rationale for this motion is that it ‘will enable the Department to more effectively assess and mitigate risk of firearms being diverted to entities, or activities that promote regional instability, violate human rights, or fuel criminal activities.’”
The Republicans also wrote that while “these causes may doubtlessly be enough if totally defined, BIS has not articulated why this stuff are of concern, to what extent a difficulty exists, nor does the BIS tie this motion, both immediately or not directly, to any ongoing international coverage points.”
The lawmakers pointed out that the “FAQ doc’s solely rationale for this motion is that it ‘will enable the Department to more effectively assess and mitigate risk of firearms being diverted to entities, or activities that promote regional instability, violate human rights, or fuel criminal activities.’” (Celal Gunes/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
“Additionally, on this order the BIS didn’t prohibit licensure for the export of Torture Devices. … If the BIS’s order is predicated on the concern of human rights abuses, this appears a extra apparent place to start out,” the lawmakers wrote.
The lawmakers wrote that BIS’s actions “should not rooted in a delegation from Congress” as in legal precedence, and that “the doc comprises far too little data to assist a declare of unilateral government authority.”
“What’s extra, this FAQ doc borders on carrying the drive of regulation, which means it could require an precise rulemaking to effectuate lawfully underneath the Administrative Procedure Act,” the lawmakers noted. They referenced a D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling that found “{that a} steering doc issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which outlined when and the way it could settle for purposes for plans to conduct sure kinds of waste disposal, carried the drive of regulation, and required a rulemaking.”
“Rulemakings which have a big affect on a considerable variety of small entities are required to adjust to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and clarify the principles affect on small entities,” the lawmakers wrote.
The lawmakers wrote that BIS’s actions are not rooted in a delegation from Congress” as in authorized priority and that “the document contains far too little information to support a claim of unilateral executive authority.’ (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
“Additionally, this ‘pause’ serves as an outright ban on new, doubtlessly small exporters coming into the market,” the lawmakers warned. “Additionally, the FAQ doc lacks essential particulars and is troublesome to seek out on the BIS’s or Department of Commerce’s web site.
“It is unclear how the BIS anticipates businesses, especially smaller businesses, would even understand that this moratorium has been put in place, let alone understand how to comply.”
The lawmakers peppered Estevez with questions concerning the pause, together with one searching for an “explanation of the constitutional basis and rationale used by the BIS to determine it had the authority to establish this prohibition.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Joining Williams on the letter are fellow GOP committee Reps. Tracey Mann of Kansas, Mark Alford of Missouri, Eli Crane of Arizona and Aaron Bean of Florida.
The Department of Commerce didn’t instantly reply to Fox News Digital’s request for remark.
