What is the Latin American Arms Treaty?

[sacp81170a]

Ammo shortage + No reloading without license = Firearms little better than clubs.

The antis win.

Illicit manufacture could also be you or I assembling a FAL, AK, or AR rifle on our property with a serialized receiver and then selling it at a gun show,

It's worse than that. "Illicit trafficking" is defined as selling or buying without a license. Are you listening, Fudds? California style regulation nationwide. De facto registration. I don't see how you can read it any other way. Do we all want to go through an FFL for every transaction?

ETA:

Check that last.

2. "Illicit trafficking": the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it.

At least on the surface it looks like it covers deals from one nation to another. Can't confirm my comment about FFL's for every transaction, so I retract it.

 

[Old Fuff]

By now we should be wise enough to:

1. Read the fine print.

2. Examine ways that it might be enforced

3. Ask if it can be expected to solve or affect the problem(s) it is supposed to address.

We have often pointed out that the principal weakness of gun control laws is that criminals don't bother to obey them. The same is true of international treaties.

Those countries that do have manufacturing facilities that can or might manufacture military-class weapons (the United States, Brazil and Argentina come to mind) already have domestic laws and regulations to identify and control the distribution of these kind of firearms. Others may not manufacture weapons, but are distribution points because the respective governments are too weak to stop it, don’t care, or sometimes support the trade for they’re own benefit.

So when you get to the bottom line the proposed treaty is another unenforceable piece of paper that makes some gun control advocates feel warm and fuzzy, but not much else.

The danger to U.S. citizens is that a national government that is looking for an excuse to pass more domestic laws or regulations might use the treaty to further its own agenda. As we have noticed lately, the Obama administration has been desperately looking for something they can use as a rationale to impose more control over the importation, manufacture, commerce and ownership of small arms that resemble military ones. So far they’re efforts haven’t borne fruit. They will keep trying of course, and this treaty is yet another example of that game plan. :banghead:

If you happen to write either the White House or your congress-critters, ask them point blank; “Just how do you think this treaty can be enforced, and if it can’t, why do we need it?”

 

[DammitBoy]

All the talk radio pundits were buzzing about this treaty last night - claiming it had a clause in it that required all gun owners to register their weapons.

I'm not reading that here or am I missing it...?

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm not reading that here or am I missing it...?

If you take the section that requires a country to be able to track firearms then you could infer that the only way to do that 100% is to track all of them from cradle to grave.

It doesn't require registration specifically, but it could be argued that the only way to track is to track them all.

There's a reason this thing has been sitting around for so many years. Keep in mind this treaty was signed by President Clinton over 10 years ago, but has not been ratified.

 

[everallm]

If you take the section that requires a country to be able to track firearms then you could infer that the only way to do that 100% is to track all of them from cradle to grave.

Complete bull.

Weapon is seized, manufacturer and serial number recorded, say it's a Colt with S/N 123456789.

ATF goes to Colt and asks who they sold the weapon to, Billy Bob Wholesalers of Texas.

ATF goes to Billy Bob and looks who they sold it to, Bobby Bills Guns n Gear of Alabama.

ATF goes to Bobby Bills and looks at the 4473, sold to Jim Bob of Mountain Falls.

ATF goes to Jim Bob and starts there.

No registration, no changes, no paranoia.

The reality is the search probably won't even get to Colt as it will otherwise turn out to be one of a batch of weapons sold to the Mexican Army all legal and above board with End User Certificate and everything.

No more than a handful of weapons details will ever be passed from Mexico to the US.


As for this Chicken Little squawking about licences for re-loading etc, more bull.

Read the text.

ILLICIT MEANS WHERE IS IT IS ILLEGAL........If it is not illegal it cannot be illicit. Reloading is not illegal in any state in the US folks.

There is not one single element in this piece of paper that is not already within the law or ATF regulations.

For example. want to make a weapon and sell it, ATF says it has to have a serial number either one already from the manufacturer or you have to stamp one on.

Inter state sharing of information.......Where do you think the spurious "90% of weapons seized in Mexico came from the US" came from, a small set of serial numbers were "shared" to the ATF.

As an aside the actual original comment was that of the very small, pre-filtered set of serial numbers shared with the ATF, 90% of THESE where found to be from manufacturers in the US, NOT 90% of ALL serial numbers as they were never "shared".

Nothing new, no new law, no new anything for the US, this is a pure PR and feel-good piece of vanity paper.

 

[cjw3cma]

It's not a law; it is a convention*. Big difference and it applies to import / export of firearms between the countries that ratify said convention. Unless our Congress decides to institute new LAWS based on the contents of this convention, nothing here to get too worked up about (IMHO).

* A convention is a set of agreed, stipulated or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms or criteria, often taking the form of a custom. Certain types of rules or customs may become law and regulatory legislation may be introduced to formalize or enforce the convention (e.g. laws which determine which side of the road vehicles must be driven). In a social context, a convention may retain the character of an "unwritten" law of custom (e.g. the manner in which people greet each other, such as by shaking each other's hands).

 

[DammitBoy]

No registration, no changes, no paranoia.

I don't think you can call expecting Pelosi and company to do what they say they want to do being paranoid.

It is the opposite of paranoid to expect another weapons ban from a Democrat held congress and executive branch - regardless of how they try to accomplish their goal.

It may have nothing to do with this treaty, but it's silly to call discussing the topic 'paranoia'...

 

[TexasRifleman]

ILLICIT MEANS WHERE IS IT IS ILLEGAL........If it is not illegal it cannot be illicit. Reloading is not illegal in any state in the US folks.

Sorry, that is wrong. The Treaty REDEFINES what the meaning of "illicit" is. The Treaty defines "Illicit" as anything done without a license.

It doesn't matter what YOU think the definition of "illicit" is.

The treaty defines illicit manufacturing to mean:

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

So, under the treaty (not current law) the signing states agree that reloading without a license is "illicit".

So, the argument can then be made that reloaders must have a license else the US is in violation of the treaty.

Nothing new, no new law, no new anything for the US, this is a pure PR and feel-good piece of vanity paper.

Until legislators decide that US law needs to be changed to bring the US into compliance with the treaty, which would require amending the law to include licenses for ammo reloaders.

 

[everallm]

Read what it says,

2. "Illicit trafficking": the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it.

It is not illegal in the US therefore it is not illegal in the US.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It is not illegal in the US therefore it is not illegal in the US.

No, you quoted the illicit TRAFFICKING definition, not the llicit MANUFACTURING definition.

By signing the treaty the signing parties agree to abide by ALL the provisions of the treaty, both trafficking AND manufacturing.

And since illicit manufacturing means loading ammo without a license, the signing parties agree that that activity is "illicit".

 

[everallm]

You are still failing to read what is written.

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.


Unless you are breaking the law it CANNOT be illicit and since it's not illegal in the US, so long as you follow the existing law and ATF regulations it's legal and cannot be illicit.

This only has effect if you are performing actions that are illegal in your home country, since none of the actions are illegal they have no impact.

 

[Old Fuff]

Let us say that the treaty is ratified. Shortly thereafter it is decided that to have the required control it will be necessary to certify certain “semi-automatic tactical firearms” under the 1934 NFA which would require registration with Uncle Sam among other things, and possibly a tax stamp too boot. To buy one of the listed firearms would require permission from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your county. Of course sales would no longer go through regular FFL dealers.

It would be necessary to do all this because of the large numbers of "semi-automatic tactical firearms" which were obtained from commercial dealers or private owners in the U.S. and then been recovered in operations against various Mexican drug cartels. Clearly this illegal traffic violates the treaty.

All it would take to do this is a notice filed in the Federal Register.

During a future press conference the president would explain that, “This did not impinge on anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights, and no gun ban was proposed or will be.” “Deer hunters and target shooters have nothing to fear,” he explained.

Is there any reason we should sit back and not oppose this “pure bull” treaty because we have nothing to fear? The Old Fuff thinks we might have a whole lot to worry about.

 

[sacp81170a]

Unless you are breaking the law it CANNOT be illicit and since it's not illegal in the US, so long as you follow the existing law and ATF regulations it's legal and cannot be illicit.

TexasRifleman nailed it. Also, examine this section of the treaty:

Article IV
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.

It's not illegal to manufacture your own ammunition, yet. A parallel is the Convention on Migratory Waterfowl signed and ratified by the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The treaty's provisions were placed in force in the U.S by the Wetlands Protection Act, a law which is a blatant violation of private property rights (I know this from personal experience) and yet passes Constitutional muster because its' purpose is to bring us into compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

Still don't believe it can happen? The question isn't whether or not it's illegal or illicit now, but what the antis can use to give themselves cover to pass the laws that will make it so. No treaty has force in the U.S. without legislative action from the Congress. They (the antis) are just itching for an excuse.

 

[TexasRifleman]

You are still failing to read what is written.

I guess you are trying to be funny or something? Do you see the word OR in what you just posted?

I'll pretend for a moment that you are serious and can't read English.

Take the preamble sentence:

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

Then read section a. That ends with the word "or" so it doesnt matter whether we meet section a or not, we proceed to b which says:

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

Using English language construction methods that are shockingly well known we end up with a sentence that says :

"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

That does not say anything about the activity being legal or illegal before the treaty. By agreeing to the treaty, the signing parties agree that from that moment forward the activity of making ammo without a license is "illicit".

Then, the signing parties also agree to change their existing laws to make it illegal:

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.

First they define reloading without a license as illicit per the treaty, then require signing states to pass laws making it such.

You cannot possibly be so poorly versed in reading the English language as to read this in any other manner.

 

[MD_Willington]

Well if EBRs go NFA, form a trust... don't go through your local LEO

 

[everallm]

I'm afraid TexasRifleman, that you simply rejecting reality and substituting your own does not make it so.

It's plainly pointless carrying on a discussion with you on this topic.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm afraid TexasRifleman, that you simply rejecting reality and substituting your own does not make it so.

No, I am substituting the treaties understanding of the word "illicit" for yours. You refuse to believe that the treaty can change the meaning of the word illicit.

You continue to insist that for something to be illicit it has to be illegal.

Using Websters dictionary you would be 100% correct, but the treaty re-defines the word to mean something entirely different.

It's very clearly written in the treaty but you keep substituting your definition of the word illicit, and that's where the tricky part comes in.

It doesn't matter what the commonly accepted meaning of a word is, it matters what this document says it means.

And again, the treaty says that "illicit" means "manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials without a license".

You are welcome to refute the wording of the treaty, but all you continue to do is say "illicit means illegal so it cant be right".

Oh, and here's an example of one of these "harmless" treaties, and how it's hurting gun and accessory makers:

http://www.progunleaders.org/DDTC/

 

[Old Fuff]

Well if EBRs go NFA, form a trust... don't go through your local LEO

An interesting thought, but I think the folks that are enforcing the regulations will quickly address that issue if it became a problem. The Federal Register is always available.

 

[Zoogster]

This is a very dangerous piece of legislation. How it is upheld in the US would be subject to the agency tasked with upholding gun laws.
The ATF will have the discretion of saying what those subjective terms mean, enforcing the law and punishing violators.

everallm:

Complete bull.

Weapon is seized

A weapon seized is being traced after the fact, not tracked. Tracking requires the government can tell where it is before the evil weapon is involved in something bad. That it can at any time account for the whereabouts of that evil item.

This treaty can be used to seriously erode rights and give ATF discretion on the building of firearms from components (manufacturing), reloading or casting ammunition, and could at any point in the future be used to impose registration. Making a 922R compliant gun from an import for example could become the least of your worries, and similar restrictions of many firearm and ammunition relateds things could become standard.
The actual policies created to enforce the law will be administratively imposed (ATF) as they are for enforcement of some other gun laws. That means rules not actualy in the law itself are imposed to uphold the spirit of the law. Consider that many current regulations on numerous modifications or aftermarket parts are subject to the NFA if the ATF says so, or likewise exempt if they say so. They can declare when something is or is not a violation of this treaty.

This could be used to close the "gun show loophole" requiring all purchasing and selling of firearms to go through an FFL.
In CA all sales require an FFL and a DROS or "dealer's record of sales" to be processed with the CADOJ. That creates a database that registers all weapons. The state even uses it to track all handguns in a database that all police can access at any time from thier patrol cars.
It can even lead to fishing expeditions. If say a crime is commited with a certain caliber and there is x number of people with that caliber registered in a given area. Most likely all of them are innocent because criminals usualy use stolen firearms, but it can still lead to such suspicions. It also allows profiling of "gun nuts" who have a lot of firearms registered to them. They won't ever say that to the voters, but I have known such people with no criminal record to be harassed just because of what the cop pulls up on thier computer. A guy with "excessive" amounts of guns registered to them causes a red flag. They can be viewed differently during stops, and if they are ever actualy involved in some sort of dispute or altercation where the police get involved some of the police will treat that person differently.
There is many other examples of how it can negatively effect legal owners, but for the sake of time...


Additionaly this will make import and export much more difficult. You don't care because you don't plan to import or export? What about a trip you want to take with a firearm? Take a boat somewhere in Latin America? Not only would you have potential violations in the other nations, but the USA could impose more serious legal violations for export.
Think accidently crossing the border with a single round of ammunition lost somewhere in your vehicle is bad now, just wait until you are hit on both sides of the border for it, even your own nation where you "shall not be infringed".

Once again it means free people have more to fear, and the bad guys will continue to do as they are, already breaking numerous laws that could put them away for life (like murder.)

 

[JoshM]

Another reason to oppose this proposed treaty is the impact it will have on fledging RKBA movements in other signatory nations.

In nations that do not have recourse to constitutional RKBA provisions (the U.S. and Mexico being the exceptions). I believe it is reasonable to assume that this Treaty will be used as a new tool to hammer the various overseas RKBA movements (esp considering Brazil's upstart RKBA movement and its recent success).

Why else would they want to pass it ?

The Treaty will also be pointed to by anti gun campaigners, in the United States, as showing a "natural" progression towards international harmonisation of gun control legislation. That's not good for the RKBA in either an American* or world-wide sense.

*You know there is a reason why the BBC and the Economist love to run articles on American gun issues, and it is not because they consider the RKBA to be an ideal/movement they want to see spread!

 

[TexasRifleman]

FYI the NRA has re-issued it's objection to this treaty being ratified.

The treaty does appear to include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict "lawful ownership and use" of firearms . Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners.

 

[Old Fuff]

Which brings us back to the core question:

Is it likely to be enforceable in a way that will constructively address the problems it's supposed to, or is it yet another "feel good" piece of paper that might be used to provide the anti-gun movement with an additional rational to advance their agenda?

The answer is that the countries that comprise the Americas do not lack in having their own gun control laws. What they do is the will, means, and sometimes the desire to enforce them. An additional treaty won't change any of that.

 

[gyp_c2]

well...

...we don't need it, why sign on to it...
I see no benefit and plenty of potential for abuse...
As a basis for more regulation...most certainly...
The less our constitution is cited, and the more the worlds' needs'...take precedence, the less I like it...

 

[TexasRifleman]

...we don't need it, why sign on to it...
I see no benefit and plenty of potential for abuse...
As a basis for more regulation...most certainly...

Just FYI the US signed this over 12 years ago when Clinton was President but the Senate has repeatedly refused to ratify it.

 

[sacp81170a]

Just FYI the US signed this over 12 years ago when Clinton was President but the Senate has repeatedly refused to ratify it.

Just exactly what does it take to drive a stake through the heart of a treaty like this? BHO gets to have his cake and eat it too if he can get the Senate to vote in favor of this monstrosity. It seems to me that once the Senate makes an up or down vote on a treaty it should have to be "re-signed" by whoever happens to be POTUS at the time. BHO could claim that he had nothing to do with it, that his hands were tied, thus giving him cover while at the same time advancing the statists' agenda. :banghead: