Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading

redneckbuckeye · Apr 21, 2009

Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading
-- Even BB guns could be on the chopping block

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Gun Owners of America

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who "wasn't going to take away
our guns"?

Well, guess what?

Less than 100 days into his administration, he's never met a gun he
didn't hate.

A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and
bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn't have the
political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that
didn't keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun
owners.

It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing
of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other
Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really
nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the "illicit" manufacture
of firearms, what does that mean?

1. "Illicit manufacturing" of firearms is defined as "assembly of
firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...."

Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from
a kit -- is clearly "illicit manufacturing."

Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be "illicit manufacturing."
And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it
could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy
definition of "illicit manufacturing."

2. "Firearm" has a similarly questionable definition.

"[A]ny other weapon" is a "firearm," according to the treaty -- and the
term "weapon" is nowhere defined.

So, is a BB gun a "firearm"? Probably.

A toy gun? Possibly.

A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.

If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama
administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of
the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning Reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to
adopting "necessary legislative or other measures" to criminalize
illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that "illicit manufacturing" includes reloading and modifying
or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama
administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the
basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress
to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning Gun Clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized
acts should include "association or conspiracy" in connection with said
offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by
regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun
clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to "adopt
such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention" under a
variety of circumstances.

We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its
streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico
to define offenses "committed in its territory" in a very broad way.
And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of
the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty
to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.

Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful
American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute
through "other means of peaceful settlement."

Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on
the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision
in a pro-gun manner?

* Microstamping. Article VI requires "appropriate markings" on
firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be
used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a
requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are
not technologically possible or which are possible only at a
prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun Registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records,
for a "reasonable time," that the government determines to be necessary
to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal
portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a
national registry or database.

ACTION: Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I am urging you, in the strongest terms, to oppose the Inter-American
Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

This anti-gun treaty was written by international bureaucrats who are
either stupid or virulently anti-gun -- or both.

This treaty could very well ban the ability to reload ammunition, to put
new stocks on rifles lawfully owned by American citizens, and, possibly,
even ban BB guns!

There are too many problems with this treaty to mention them all in this
letter. The rest can be read on the website of Gun Owners of America
at:
GOA's CIFTA Treaty Analysis

Please do not tell me the treaty has not yet been abused in this way by
the bevy of Third World countries which have signed it. We do not
expect the real ramifications of the treaty to become clear until the
big prize -- the U.S. -- has stepped into the trap.

For all of these reasons, I must insist that you oppose ratification of
the treaty.

Sincerely,

General Geoff · Apr 21, 2009

Irrelevant whether it's ratified or not. International treaties cannot supersede the Constitution. There is Supreme Court precedent on this. And I would say that banning the practice of reloading for onesself would definitely fall under 2nd amendment protection.

TexasRifleman · Apr 21, 2009

Irrelevant whether it's ratified or not. International treaties cannot supersede the Constitution.

Yeah, right.

The treaty provisions call for signing parties to change their existing laws to match the treaty, if they don't already.

You believe that the current Congress would not take that opportunity/excuse to change some gun laws?

cbrgator · Apr 21, 2009

Clinton tried this too and it failed. If they can't pass an AWB right now, I doubt this will have much support.

Dark Skies · Apr 21, 2009

Obama sure is selling a lot of guns, ammo and reloading equipment for an anti. Munitions manufacturers must have rubbed their hands with glee when he got in. Business is so good they must feel it a shame he won't get a second term.

legaleagle_45 · Apr 21, 2009

You believe that the current Congress would not take that opportunity/excuse to change some gun laws?

Changing "some gun laws" is not equivalent to amending the Constitution.

TexasRifleman · Apr 21, 2009

Changing "some gun laws" is not equivalent to amending the Constitution.

Dont' have to amend the Constitution to bring US law into alignment with this treaty.

As we saw in the other thread this treaty would require signing parties to require licenses for loading ammo.

Wouldn't take a Constitutional amendment to change US law to match that.

As for whether reloading would fall under the Second, we'd have to see on that one I guess.

I mean, it's just a license, it's not like they are trying to stop it right?

ServiceSoon · Apr 21, 2009

Is reloading protected by the constitution? Even if it was protected, that doesn't mean congress couldn't pass a law regulating it.

legaleagle_45 · Apr 21, 2009

As for whether reloading would fall under the Second, we'd have to see on that one I guess.

It would.... but your observation that merely requiring a license to do reloads may not run afoul of the 2nd is well taken.

Harve Curry · Apr 21, 2009

How many laws, regulations, licenses, permits, fees, expirations dates, does it take before the words shall not be infringed have been tread on?? Common sense will tell you one.

Gungnir · Apr 21, 2009

Ok hold on one second berfore we all burst into flames. Here's a link to the actual treaty http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/49907.htm

A lot of what is in the treaty (which happens to date from 1997) would result in FOPA being eliminated, likely licensing for gun owners, and if it's still allowed licensing for reloaders.

Not to mention that there are legal questions about assembly of firearms in the text of the treaty, would rebuilding your firearm after stripping for cleaning for instance constitute assembly? Thus illicit manufacture

One other point is the yahoo's in DC might be foaming at the mouth to increase gun control, but how do you think the public is going to react if it's pushed through from what appears to be some form of American Continent Sovereignty treaty. Gun ownership is up, fueled by fears of the economy, possibly leading to rising crime, and the fear of gun control laws being enacted.

You may have different opinions.

ants · Apr 22, 2009

You may read it differently, but...

I read the treaty language. As I understand it, manufacturing (guns, ammo, explosives) would be unlawful if one is engaged in illicit trafficking. Illicit trafficking is defined as carrying the goods across the US/Mexico border for illicit purpose. Which is already illegal anyway.

So if you and I assemble our own AR-15 or custom 1911 pistol, or reload ammo for our own lawful purposes, we are not engaged in illicit trafficking. Thus we are not violating any laws, and do not have to get a special license. We are exercising our own 2nd Amendment rights here in the USA.

It appears that the treaty's intent is to bust smugglers carrying illicit goods over the border. The treaty simply appears to ask both countries to agree to prosecute smugglers, rather than simply accept their bribery money south of the border and wish them well.

ants · Apr 22, 2009

In fact, here is some cut-and-paste language from the treaty

It appears that there is no intent to change current domestic law.

RECOGNIZING that states have developed different cultural and historical uses for firearms, and that the purpose of enhancing international cooperation to eradicate illicit transnational trafficking in firearms is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties;

RECALLING that States Parties have their respective domestic laws and regulations in the areas of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and recognizing that this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character, and recognizing that States Parties will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention;

With language like this, it's hard to give credibility to a few people who over react at everything.

cliffy · Apr 22, 2009

Only Americans can Protect America

Mexicans enter America because we let them. Imagine a bastion of Americans guarding our entire southern border . . . Yet what would we provide but hundreds of thousands of dead Mexicans, who only seek a better life than in Mexico? I harbor mixed emotions regarding this important issue. An American Border Patrol with TEETH could STOP all illegal entry, but is this an American priority? So long as Foreign Terrorists don't follow suit, what's the real Harm? Americans need to continue with their COLLEGE DEGREES, leaving only Walmart open to Mexican intervention. Part-time employment circumvents employee BENEFITS benefitting Corporate American profits. A catch 22 if I ever saw one. What if Canadians decided to decend upon America? Would we man our Northern borders and pop them? What a crazy world we live in, with America being the melting pot of MILLIONS! I'm an American of patriotic concern, yet I FEEL for Internationals hoping for a better life. Keeping people out is a full-time job, but seemingly overwhelming. cliffy, just a thought

bonza · Apr 22, 2009

Cliffy said:

I FEEL for Internationals hoping for a better life.

Then let them do what I, & thousands of others, have done over the years.....apply for LEGAL immigration.

KC0QGL · Apr 22, 2009

Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who "wasn't going to take away
our guns"?

But hes trying to and this proves it.

irishsquid · Apr 22, 2009

How many laws, regulations, licenses, permits, fees, expirations dates, does it take before the words shall not be infringed have been tread on??

The following definitions are from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

infringe

transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2: obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon<infringe on our rights>

encroach

intransitive verb
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits <the gradually encroaching sea>

To answer your question (which, yes, I'm sure was rhetorical)...

They've already gone well beyond that point.

...and it will only get worse. :fire:

So for all of you BO supporters who sold out your RKBA: :cuss:

TexasRifleman · Apr 22, 2009

ants said:
It appears that there is no intent to change current domestic law.

Funny how you left out the other half.....

Legislative Measures

1. States Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials..

That pretty much says specifically there is an intent to change current domestic law.

As for your other argument, the treaty defines illicit manufacturing and illicit trafficking separately.

In the terms this treaty lays out one could be guilty of illicit manufacturing even if not guilty of illicit trafficking.

You need to read it again in its' entirety, not just pull out snippets that you like the sound of.

ants · Apr 22, 2009

Thanks for your opinion, Texas Rifleman.

You and I both read the treaty in its entirety, and we conclude differently. You may wish to fight the treaty, while I focus my pro-2A efforts elsewhere. I'm sure we'll both be effective, each in his own way.

We both cut and paste snippets to illustrate our own reading of the document. That doesn't make either one of us wrong, as each illustrative point must be read in its original context. That's why we cut and paste a snippet rather than the whole document. Hopefully other members will open the full document and read it.

TexasRifleman · Apr 22, 2009

That's why we cut and paste a snippet rather than the whole document. Hopefully other members will open the full document and read it.

The whole document is in the other thread, now 3 pages long.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=443755

That thread was going on before GOA decided to jump in. I think a lot of people tend to minimize things the GOA says since they are known for being a bit "over anxious" but in this case they seem to be correct in their reading.

The parts you reference are in the pre-agreement, or the part of the treaty that discusses WHY the treaty exists, and it's intent.

The part I reference is in the "actionable" part of the treaty, where the language around sporting purposes etc is no longer present.

The reasoning section is the statement of "why", the actionable section is the list of specific promises the signing parties make to each other. The actionable section of this treaty contains no language exempting any kind of currently legal activity, it simply redefines what is considered "legal", and loading ammo is removed from the definition of legal and placed in the category of "illicit manufacturing" with no exceptions made at all.

A treaty could say "We agree global warming is bad but agree that people still need transportation" then the actionable section can say "the signing parties agree to ban all personal forms of transit". Those 2 statements would not be in contradiction.

Same as this thing here. The reasoning portion says "No, we don't intend for this to apply to lawful purposes" but then the actionable section redefines what is "lawful" so that the 2 sections are not in conflict.

Crow1108 · Apr 22, 2009

I'm an American of patriotic concern, yet I FEEL for Internationals hoping for a better life.

I do too, just so long as they apply for it legally. Anyone who is allowed to stay here illegally is a slap in the face to my family. My wife and I were separated for 8 months waiting for her visa to show up because of a lot of bureaucratic red tape, and by God if they want into this country, they should do the same.

charlie-6 · Apr 22, 2009

Who knows what the dem's will do next.

damien · Apr 22, 2009

So, do they have the 66 votes in the Senate or not?

I think they are going to come up short.

X-Rap · Apr 22, 2009

My understanding of treaties as explained by a morning talk show host Neil Boortz who is a Lawyer states that once ratified they invite international law to be the deciding arbitrater in relative decisions. If this is true it voids the constitution in matters relating to the treaty?
No matter how you view it I think this arms treaty is a much bigger danger than some have let on.

Dokkalfar · Apr 22, 2009

ants, i would have to disagree with you as well.

ants said:
I read the treaty language. As I understand it, manufacturing (guns, ammo, explosives) would be unlawful if one is engaged in illicit trafficking. Illicit trafficking is defined as carrying the goods across the US/Mexico border for illicit purpose. Which is already illegal anyway.

Treaty said:
ARTICLE I
Definitions

For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply:

1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.

the way i read this, the use of the term "or" does not require that the firearms be trafficked through the border illegally. The 'or' means that this could be read as: "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place

also, your quote in the second post ends with this: and recognizing that States Parties will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention

i would seem to see that this treaty might not have been written to 'take our guns' but it certainly leaves HUGE loopholes for any sorts of restrictions to be imposed under the treaty.

As to the treaty-Constitution argument, i remember a book on law i read that describes how an unConstitutional law does NOT stop applying after the courts rule it unConstitutional, but the unConstitutionality of the law applies from the time it is enacted, therefore anything that comes out of said law is invalid and not applicable in any way. How treaty applies to our law would fall under the same circumstances.

Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading

Member

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads