http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/346 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:45:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/346/comment-page-1#comment-19543 Brian Cattin Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:57:01 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=346#comment-19543 ATC didn't seem to mind it being called a weapon, when it was featured on the Discovery Channel's show Future Weapons season 1. See the attached link. ATC didn’t seem to mind it being called a weapon, when it was featured on the Discovery Channel’s show Future Weapons season 1. See the attached link.

]]> http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/346/comment-page-1#comment-19535 Clif Burns Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:18:52 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=346#comment-19535 JH, that would be my concern. ATC must have some theory on why this isn't the case; saying that it's a communications device doesn't really cut it in my view. JH, that would be my concern. ATC must have some theory on why this isn’t the case; saying that it’s a communications device doesn’t really cut it in my view.

]]> http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/346/comment-page-1#comment-19533 JH Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:11:59 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=346#comment-19533 Even if it isn't a weapon, and its just a long range communications device, isn't it still USML because it was specifically developed for a military application? Even if it isn’t a weapon, and its just a long range communications device, isn’t it still USML because it was specifically developed for a military application?

]]>