GOA Alert about the Interamerican Arms Treaty!!!

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by bcj1755, Apr 21, 2009.

  1. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Jul 20, 2008
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    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

    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

    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

    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.


  2. oldogy

    oldogy New Member

    Jan 10, 2009
    East TN
    For the sake of America, get involved guys and girls. When your guns are ineffective your rights are gone. This bunch is lower than whale feces.

  3. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Nov 4, 2008
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    Thanks for the link bcj, I hardly think my Senators will concur, but it's a try. TJ
  4. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Mar 27, 2003
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    I sent my letters to not only the Mississippi folks but also to my very good friends in office in Alabama. :) :)

    Now is the time for ALL OF US to get deeply involved folks. If we sit back and do nothing, we will deserve what we eventually get...... :( :( :( :(
  5. Will_G

    Will_G Member

    Mar 30, 2009
    Thanks for calling this to our attention. I have contacted my Senators Shelby and Sessions through the GOA link.
  6. retired grunt

    retired grunt New Member

    Mar 30, 2009
    Northern NY
    My NY senators have heard from me I'm sure Schumer will laugh
  7. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Jul 20, 2008
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    No thanks needed. I read about this POS treaty about a week ago and have been keeping a watch out ever since. Slick Willy wanted to sign off on it, but the Senate let it die in committee and wouldn't approve it. I emailed both my Senators. I know Hagan will vote in favor, she's a kool-aid drinker. Burr most likely will vote against it, but I"m not 100% positive about that. Of course like I said in another thread about this, I'd not be suprised at all if Barry signed it, then tried to make it law based on his own word and circumvent the Senate altogether.
  8. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk New Member

    Aug 22, 2006
    South Central Texas
  9. glocknut

    glocknut Active Member

    Dec 14, 2003
    Can obama sign this by himself or does he need the congress and senate to go along with signing a treaty?

  10. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Mar 27, 2003
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    The Excutive Branch of Government negotiates and signs treaties.

    However, before a treaty can become effective, it must have the advice and consent of the United States Senate by a two-thirds (67) vote. WRT Treaties, the House of Representatives has no say.

    [See Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution]
  11. Airdale

    Airdale Active Member

    Mar 31, 2009
    N.W. Arkansas
    Copied the letter and pasted it to their Senate web sites contact page.
  12. topper

    topper New Member

    Aug 2, 2006
    deep in the woods
    one thing no one has addressed is how many guns does our new prez own? and would'nt he use a gun for self protection or protection of his family if he had one available

    Keep both barrels loaded!
  13. TheGunClinger

    TheGunClinger Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Aug 3, 2008
    SW Florida, land of NO snow!
    Treaty my behind. We can have all the treaties in the world but the 2nd ammendment will still overrule any treaties that infringe on our Right to bear and own firearms. Our new president cannot pass any leglislation or sign treaties that will inhibit our rights as defined in the US Constitution. If he tries to change the 2nd he would be guilty of dereliction of duty or something like that as he took an Oath that he would DEFEND and PRESERVE the constitution of the USA, not to change it or try to interpret it to suit his whims. He swore on Abe Lincolns bible that he would preserve and protect the constitution of USA. So I am thinking that if he did anything at all that would infringe on our rights as they are spelled out in the constitution he would be violating his sworn duty to protect and preserve. Not his job to ...Change stuff? Not saying, just saying.
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2009