All UN small arms/reloading treaty threads
- Thread starter flamatrix99
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Obama Proposes Signing Treaty To Ban Reloading
This is a work-around to bypass normal legislation.
http://gunowners.org/fs0901.htm
http://www.infowars.com/obama-pushing-treaty-to-ban-reloading/
Gun Owners of America Fact Sheet
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
When President Obama went to Mexico in April, he proposed that the United States sign the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
Despite the fact that it purportedly deals with “illicit manufacturing and trafficking,” GOA is convinced that this convention defines these terms much more broadly and potentially presents serious dangers to Americans lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights.
PURPOSES AND DEFINITIONS
Although the word “illicit” is used extensively in order to make the convention sound less anti-gun than it actually is, we need to look very carefully at the purposes and definitions to see whether it is, in fact, limited in scope to persons illegally moving guns across borders in order to arm violent criminal cartels:
The seventh precatory clause “STRESS[ES] the need, in peace processes and post-conflict situations, to achieve effective control of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials in order to prevent their entry into the illicit market;” -- thereby endorsing comprehensive gun and ammunition control, in violation of McClure-Volkmer (which deregulated ammunition) and of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Furthermore, the tenth precatory clause supports a “know-your-customer policy for dealers [in firearms]” -- something which would rapidly lead to an abolition of firearms in a country as large and transient as the United States.
And the twelfth precatory clause acknowledges the rights of parties to enact their own gun laws, but only with respect to aspects of a “wholly domestic character.”
We have seen, as recently as the April 15 New York Times, how battles with the Mexican drug cartels have been fanned into an issue which is being used to justify the passage of every major gun control initiative in modern American history.
We see how these “slippery slope” findings are actually implemented when we look at the definitions:
“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.”
“Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition. Borrowing from the open-ended definitions in federal law which have continue to vex us (and people like Olofson in Wisconsin), any barreled weapon “which... may be readily converted to expel a bullet” would be a firearm. Even worse, “any other weapon” (a term which is not defined) is a “firearm.” This surely includes BB guns -- and who knows what else.
“Cartridge cases” and “projectiles” are defined as “ammunition.”
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
In Article IV, parties 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 any firearm in any way. And, while treaties should not trump the Bill of Rights (in contrast to what the Supreme Court held in Missouri v. Holland), they do have the force of statute -- which would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations on the basis of this treaty which would ban any modification or machining of any firearm in any manner whatsoever except by license of the government.
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.
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 it 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 convention. And we also know that other countries such as Spain have tried to use their treaty powers to put American officials on trial.
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.
Article VII requires confiscation and forfeiture of illicit firearms.
Articles VIII, IX, and X would increase the role of government, in ways which cannot be foreseen, in supervising the import and export of firearms and ammunition.
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.
Article XIII authorizes the “exchange of information” with respect to FFL’s -- presumably providing information on Americans to the corrupt Mexican police which are the source of many, if not most, of the illicit firearms.
Finally, 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 sweltering in a Mexican jail at the mercy of the Obama administration?
This fact sheet was prepared by Mike Hammond, GOA’s legislative counsel.
This is a work-around to bypass normal legislation.
http://gunowners.org/fs0901.htm
http://www.infowars.com/obama-pushing-treaty-to-ban-reloading/
Gun Owners of America Fact Sheet
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
When President Obama went to Mexico in April, he proposed that the United States sign the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
Despite the fact that it purportedly deals with “illicit manufacturing and trafficking,” GOA is convinced that this convention defines these terms much more broadly and potentially presents serious dangers to Americans lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights.
PURPOSES AND DEFINITIONS
Although the word “illicit” is used extensively in order to make the convention sound less anti-gun than it actually is, we need to look very carefully at the purposes and definitions to see whether it is, in fact, limited in scope to persons illegally moving guns across borders in order to arm violent criminal cartels:
The seventh precatory clause “STRESS[ES] the need, in peace processes and post-conflict situations, to achieve effective control of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials in order to prevent their entry into the illicit market;” -- thereby endorsing comprehensive gun and ammunition control, in violation of McClure-Volkmer (which deregulated ammunition) and of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Furthermore, the tenth precatory clause supports a “know-your-customer policy for dealers [in firearms]” -- something which would rapidly lead to an abolition of firearms in a country as large and transient as the United States.
And the twelfth precatory clause acknowledges the rights of parties to enact their own gun laws, but only with respect to aspects of a “wholly domestic character.”
We have seen, as recently as the April 15 New York Times, how battles with the Mexican drug cartels have been fanned into an issue which is being used to justify the passage of every major gun control initiative in modern American history.
We see how these “slippery slope” findings are actually implemented when we look at the definitions:
“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.”
“Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition. Borrowing from the open-ended definitions in federal law which have continue to vex us (and people like Olofson in Wisconsin), any barreled weapon “which... may be readily converted to expel a bullet” would be a firearm. Even worse, “any other weapon” (a term which is not defined) is a “firearm.” This surely includes BB guns -- and who knows what else.
“Cartridge cases” and “projectiles” are defined as “ammunition.”
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
In Article IV, parties 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 any firearm in any way. And, while treaties should not trump the Bill of Rights (in contrast to what the Supreme Court held in Missouri v. Holland), they do have the force of statute -- which would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations on the basis of this treaty which would ban any modification or machining of any firearm in any manner whatsoever except by license of the government.
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.
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 it 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 convention. And we also know that other countries such as Spain have tried to use their treaty powers to put American officials on trial.
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.
Article VII requires confiscation and forfeiture of illicit firearms.
Articles VIII, IX, and X would increase the role of government, in ways which cannot be foreseen, in supervising the import and export of firearms and ammunition.
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.
Article XIII authorizes the “exchange of information” with respect to FFL’s -- presumably providing information on Americans to the corrupt Mexican police which are the source of many, if not most, of the illicit firearms.
Finally, 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 sweltering in a Mexican jail at the mercy of the Obama administration?
This fact sheet was prepared by Mike Hammond, GOA’s legislative counsel.
Actually, that's correlation, not causation. Those gun laws came after crime got worse. What you should focus on is that those gun laws never have any effect at all on crime rates. All they do is change the way crime is performed, and remove citizen's personal ability to cope with crime.
Works in reverse, too. The reason why gun owners technically are more likely to be murdered is that people who live in dangerous places tend to buy guns. And not everyone trains like most of the people on here.
Really, the point behind these people who want to ban guns being from places where there is tight gun laws is this: There is very little legitimate gun culture in those places. By making guns seem more and more criminal, you drive more and more people away from legitimately owning them and being involved in the gun culture that teaches responsibility, instead of how to control people with violence. That's the only gun culture people from "up north" know of: The culture of people who own guns illegally and use them to control and intimidate people. They are, in fact, the ones who are being closed minded.
I asked this earlier about the reloading bill, but by the specific text of the bill, it sounds like individual US states could issue reloader/builder licenses if this load of useless junk was passed. Does that seem possible to anyone else?
while correlation does not prove causation, with gun control laws, there is enough correlation that it would be prudent to assume causation.
when a certain place enacts gun control law, self defense shooting go down (but this is intuitively obvious to the casual observer) but, violent crime goes up as well. This is normally attributed to the fact that by disarming citizens who are not pre-disposed to commit crime of arms, they are unable to defend themselves against people who don't care about the law.
While places that go from disallowing firearms to allowing them tend to see a decrease in crime rates.
There are of course those cases that don't follow this pattern.....New Orleans is one of them, but in places such as that, it may be able to assume that the crime rate remains high despite the legality of owning/carrying firearms because of the local government stance on carried firearms and the citizenry's stigma against firearms.
ban ammo
I dont have a whole lot of creadence for GOA.most is scare tactics.I place more reliance on the NRA and SAF.I really have not seen anything that GOA have done for gun owners.and what do you think handloaders will do lay down and except bans.
Look at Mass they had 1,700,000 licensed gun owners in 1997 now they have
260,000.the gun owners refused to pay the new license fees,and let their license run out.
I dont have a whole lot of creadence for GOA.most is scare tactics.I place more reliance on the NRA and SAF.I really have not seen anything that GOA have done for gun owners.and what do you think handloaders will do lay down and except bans.
Look at Mass they had 1,700,000 licensed gun owners in 1997 now they have
260,000.the gun owners refused to pay the new license fees,and let their license run out.
I dont have a whole lot of creadence for GOA.most is scare tactics.I place more reliance on the NRA and SAF.I really have not seen anything that GOA have done for gun owners.and what do you think handloaders will do lay down and except bans.
Look at Mass they had 1,700,000 licensed gun owners in 1997 now they have
260,000.the gun owners refused to pay the new license fees,and let their license run out.
Good points.
noblethewhite
B.O.W. Crewmember #515
Yep.
Write our Senators.
David Vitter has already sent his opinion to some of the members.
http://bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16724
http://bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16742
Mary Landrieu on the other hand might have a different opinion.
"So,tell us...
...
...
...how many guns are in your home before I beat you?"
Last edited:
link to the CIFTA Treaty (also known as INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS):
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-63.html
Article XIII
Exchange of Information
1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on matters such as:
a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-63.html
Article XIII
Exchange of Information
1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on matters such as:
a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;
Last edited:
Here's another part of it:
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;
Not saying I like this treaty. What I'm saying is, according to this clause, this treaty only commits a nation to working on things that involve international trade. While that still might cause a whole slew of problems for us regular gun owners here, it does provide a basis for defense: Any "registration" scheme they come up with will be, officially, their own decision, and not "forced" by the treaty.
That gives us just as much of a chance to fight on it as ever.
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;
Not saying I like this treaty. What I'm saying is, according to this clause, this treaty only commits a nation to working on things that involve international trade. While that still might cause a whole slew of problems for us regular gun owners here, it does provide a basis for defense: Any "registration" scheme they come up with will be, officially, their own decision, and not "forced" by the treaty.
That gives us just as much of a chance to fight on it as ever.
Make no mistake - this is the "camel's nose under the tent" for gun control. The Constitution says that treaties are the ultimate law of the land, so if Obama can get a treaty ratified, he can still say he supports the Second Amendment, but his hands are now tied by treaty, so............
Write to ALL of the Senators, not just your own.
Write to ALL of the Senators, not just your own.
SpeedRacer
Well-Known Member
+1
When Obama said he wasn't going to ban weapons, I immediately figured he would go global. He is good at making horrible things happen, but keeping far enough away to feign innocence. Once we get wrapped up in global treaties with other countries collectively controlling our gun rights, it's all over.
Members online
- Bigchillin83
- johnjohn
- CantThinkPastGo
- southerncanuck
- Generalludd
- lilshaunsdad
- WhereIsIt?
- Tigerbend225
- Markrobichaux
- bayoutiger08
- Jerry1090
- jvr
- Redd508
- ONTARGET7.62
- big bear
- k0k0m0
- N4sir
- dfalgout
- jcbvh
- Sainte70
- AdvancedLaser
- kz45
- hokie74
- HogHunter1203
- jmd025
- batonrouge@225
- jimmyjc11
- 03SVT
- SwampyDog
- bearfutedninja
- Abby Normal
- mukwah
- sailem
- Bravo-13
- ebert
- sethtvaughn
- rhettro
- Dusty84
- drill sgt
- The_Shadow
- Nboazman1
- Big H
- Speedtrucker
- Strick8
- Spartan209
- Rodog
- obryap
- Nolastorm
- fishman525
- idkmybffjill
