Obama Announces Support for Firearms Treaty

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by kilogulf59, Apr 18, 2009.

  1. kilogulf59

    kilogulf59 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Messages:
    173
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    From the NRA: President Obama Announces Support for Firearms Treaty

    Friday, April 17, 2009

    During an official visit to Mexico on April 16, President Obama announced his support for Senate ratification of an inter-American treaty on firearms trafficking. In response, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox issued the following statement:

    "The NRA is well aware of the proposed Organization of American States treaty on firearms trafficking, known by its Spanish initials as CIFTA. The NRA monitored the development of this treaty from its earliest days, but contrary to news reports today, the NRA did not 'participate' at the meeting where the treaty was approved.

    "The treaty does 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."

    Find this item at: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4780
    -------------------------------------------------
    From Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY http://www.spw-duf.info

    Hidden in the Treaty: Having backed off - for now - from the politically difficult push for a ban of so-called "assault weapons," President Obama hopes to assuage Mexican President Felipe Calderón's disappointment with a promise to push the Senate to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Materials, a treaty signed in 1997, but never ratified in the U.S… I can only assume that this would mandate that anyone who reloads ammunition to save money (and rather a lot of it, given today's ammo prices) acquire a government issued license to do so. What about people who purchase incomplete firearms frames, treated under current U.S. law as inert hunks of metal, and complete the firearm themselves? Would that now require licensing? It certainly seems so. Unacceptable. The larger issue, of course, is that suddenly that which shall not be infringed would become subject to international regulation, and as restrictive as gun laws in the U.S. have become, they're still not draconian enough for the tastes of much of the rest of the world. That's their problem, and it needs to remain their problem.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-L...-Senate-must-reject-InterAmerican-Arms-Treaty

    Related Commentary:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-...-foreign-powers-to-enact-domestic-gun-control
    -------------------------------------------------
    Mexico's problems are their own...not an excuse for "our government" to disarm us... Start writing ALL your elected officials today, local, state, and federal including the president. You can get all their Email addresses from the NRA's site. Tell them that you vehemently oppose the treaty and any infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights...and sign it.
     
  2. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    That "treaty" is full of double speak. In the first few paragraphs the statement is made that no signing country will be required to enact new restrictive laws affecting their own internal affairs. Then you read on down and all the laws and regulations that the treaty REQUIRES are spelled out and most would most certainly have an effect on our current firearms laws and would require the passage of new, more restrictive laws in the US.
     

  3. CJ7365

    CJ7365 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    El Paso TEXAS
    I live on the border, when you go to Mexico, you drive right in, no inspection, when you return, you are search and asked questions.

    How dare the President of Mexico, blame the US for arms being smuggled into his country. Secure you boarder Felipe Calderón, and quit blaming the US.

    Why does'nt the government of Mexico give the FBI the serial numbers of rifles that are smuggled into mexico, BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.

    CLOSE DOWN THE BOARDER NOW!!!!!
     
  4. kilogulf59

    kilogulf59 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Messages:
    173
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    It's just another excuse...that's all.
     
  5. user

    user Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,015
    Location:
    Northern piedmont of Va. and Middle of Nowhere, We
    Really important point: the highest law in the land, according to the U.S. Constitution, is NOT the U.S. Constitution; it's Treaties. It's because of the various treaties ratified in support of the U.N. that we got into war in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq without a formal declaration of war. A treaty gives the president dictatorial powers, regardless of anything to the contrary in the Constitution!!!

    Tell your senators not only not to ratify this one, but see what other treaties they can get the U.S. out of!!!
     
  6. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,255
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    It might sound a little paranoid, but perhaps this how he's going to slip it in on us through the back door (no pun intended). He's been all about trans-nationalism since he's been in office. He's called us all sorts of names abroad, acted like he was apologizing for our bad behavior, "heck, America's not any better than any of the other countries," and agreeing with the Mexicans that "90%" of it's guns are from the US. If he signs a treaty to become part of this trans-national union, our laws go out the window, and we adopt "international treaty laws." I'll just bet that private firearm ownership's not on the list. Since they can't get it done on a domestic stage, they'll do it "internationally." TJ
     
  7. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    Doesn't sound paranoid at all. I'm expecting the very same thing. But even then, Barry doesn't have the manpower to enforce a confiscation and he knows it and he also knows that it will be a while before he can get his national security force in place. Who's going to enforce this treaty? I know Barry and his puppetmasters are smart enough to know what will happen if they invite foreign troops onto US soil to help confiscate firearms to comply with an international treaty.
     
  8. Mouton

    Mouton New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    64
    Location:
    Amelia Island, Florida
    The Kenyan is using this treaty as a ruse to bypass the second amendment. IMO, as long as a treaty does not interfer with the Bill of Rights, it is lawful BUT in this case where it may impinge on the second amendment there will definitely be a challenge. Given the recent DC decision I am not so sure our esteemed SC would over turn the treaty regardless of how it affects the second amendment. Any treaty such as this would immediately make everyone who owns certain firearms as a felon if they do not turn them in. In other words, you may keep them hidden but bring them out to the range or even defend your home with one and you will be incarcerated. 100 days into this horror story and I cannot wait for it to run its course. I keep hoping he will reach too far and get the country against him but then again I buy lotto tickets because I expect to win.

    Vince
     
  9. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,255
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    He seems bent on down playing America to the world. Again, the manpower issue would be supported by other nations within the "treaty." I wonder if the Washington hacks all want this, or will they try to stop this slide to the bottom? If they somehow fall asleep at the wheel, out goes our Constitution and we become the citizens of a "United Nations." He seems to think we need to appeal to this anemic apparatus to stop Iran and N. Korea. I'm AM starting to get paranoid. Just think, "if we all could just get along, what a wonderful world it would be." TJ