PDA

View Full Version : Obama to push for ratification of Latin American arms treaty


tacticalcity
04-16-2009, 12:24 PM
Obama to push for ratification of Latin American arms treaty

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_mexico

This entire thing seems like a way to score political points to me. It makes no sense that Mexico’s drug cartels are relying on the United States for their guns. Our gun laws make the availability of suitable weapons for their trade next to impossible to find in the quantity they would need, while there is little to nothing to stop them from getting much more suitable weapons for less money and effort from Central and South America where they are in abundant supply, thanks to Russia.

Fully automatic weapons (fires more than one bullet per trigger pull) are extremely difficult to find here in America. Our laws essentionally make it so that the general public can only own semi-automatic weapons (fires one bullet per trigger pull) and they have been in place since the Great Depression. There is not a large surplus of fully automatic weapons here in the United States. Guns manufactured in America and in other countries for the American public are intentionally designed to be difficult to convert to fully automatic. In the majority of cases, you would need a machine shop and/or next to impossible to find parts to turn them into fully automatic weapons without destroying them. Even if you could find the parts you need, without having to manufacture them yourself, you would not find them in quantities you would need.

Conversely, fully automatic weapons (fires more than one bullet per trigger pull) are readily available in South and Central America. Venezuela and other countries are trading partners with Russia, and Russia has shown that is perfectly willing to export fully automatic weapons. So why on earth would they settle for semi-automatic weapons from the United States where they have to be smuggled accross a patrolled border (no matter how ineffectively) when they can get much more effective weapons from countries to the South?

Given the above statements, I find it impossible to believe that this bill will be anything more than a toothless effort that wastes money and time that would be better spent elsewhere.

The only thing this treaty will do is help to further demonize guns in the eyes of the general public here in the United States. Most Americans know absolutely nothing about guns. Unless the current Administration is truly that nieve about the gun trade, which is entirely possible, this screams “stepping stone to another American Assault Rifle Ban” to me.

MontClaire
04-16-2009, 12:28 PM
:banghead:so it's all the russians fault, right? it's not usa fault that mexikans have ak47? so now all this crap about ak's shiped through us-meksiko border is spoof and will be stoped, right? I hope so. I hope they stop this crap and tell us it's the CA , NV, TX fault the cartels have machine guns! Because if it takes some meksikans to be killed so that I can have my gun rights- i am ok with that

tacticalcity
04-16-2009, 12:33 PM
You're not getting the big picture my friend.

Their southern borders are not patrolled, and Venezuela is anxious to do anything it can to cause problems for America.

I am not saying they cannot get AKs here. I am just saying it would be much, much easier to get them from Venezuela where they were never welded in half and then rigged back together. They can get a thousand times more of them and in better condition by going to their neighbors to the south than by getting them from us.

Even if they got every single gun today from the United States, which is extremely unlikely, all cutting off that supply would do is send more business Venezuela's way…where they are cheaper and in much more abundant supply.

So my point is...no matter what we do...the Cartels are going to get their guns and Mexicans are going to die. The only question is, how much money and time are we going to waste in futile effort to make certain none of the guns being used came from America? After all, we’ve been SOOOOOO effective at stopping drugs and people from crossing the border…so adding guns to list should be no problem.

To make matters worse, this treaty is completely redundant. We already have laws prohibiting the exportation of firearms and firearms parts outside the United States without a permit. So what is this treaty going to do that the existing law does not except score some political capital?

What I AM saying is that it is not our fault, and there is nothing we do about it, and anything we try and do will be a complete waste of time...as we have already discovered.

yellowfin
04-16-2009, 12:41 PM
What can he do that we won't just sit here and take?

jdberger
04-16-2009, 12:45 PM
The White House is vowing more enforcement of gun laws. But it is not pursuing a promise Obama made as a candidate: a ban on assault-style weapons.

I'm fine with this.

It's about time we enforce the laws we have before enacting new ones.

Though I realize that this might result in the elimination of jobs for our legislators. I'm comfortable with that....

tacticalcity
04-16-2009, 12:50 PM
What can he do that we won't just sit here and take?

I am not sure I undertand your point? Are you asking, "What should we do? We can't just sit here and do nothing while guns are exported accross the border?"

We are already doing something. We patrol the border as effectively as we can with current resources and when truck loads of weapons are found we seize them. We already have laws against exporting weapons without a permit.

The treaty is redundant. Laws are already in place. They just don't specifically name Mexico.

So I guess I am asking the same question as you? What can we do that we are not already doing? What does this treaty do that existing laws do not? Will anything we do be effective and even if stops guns from crossing our border does that do anything at all to stop them from getting guns?

We add more and more Boarder Patrol agents and that has not done much to solve the many, many problems on the border. So why the emphasis on guns of all things when drugs represent more of threat to our population than guns leaving the country? Especially when know they can get the guns elsewhere cheaper and easier?

Short of searching every single vehicle crossing the border, placing the entire US Army on the border, and building solid concrete wall along the border...nothing is going to stop cartels from smuggling guns, drugs and people accross the border. We're kidding ourselves.

Passing more laws, that say and the same thing as existing laws only with a specific country named in it this time certainly will not be effective.

tacticalcity
04-16-2009, 12:57 PM
I'm fine with this.

It's about time we enforce the laws we have before enacting new ones.

Though I realize that this might result in the elimination of jobs for our legislators. I'm comfortable with that....


In part, that is pretty much what I am saying. We already have a law on the exportation of firearms and firearms parts without a permit. So what good is this treaty going to be?

Even if we were able to enforce it, which history tells us we will not be able to, they'll just get them elsewhere...which I STRONGLY suspect they are already doing.

I find it impossible to belive this problem is real rather than perception.

wash
04-16-2009, 1:03 PM
The treaty required maker and date stamps on all guns, all ammunition and all ammunition boxes.

Of course they will still have the same problems, 83% will be un-marked.

It will just make guns and ammo much more expensive in the U.S. and turn reloading in to a crime possibly.

There might be more to CIFTA but that's what I found.

tacticalcity
04-16-2009, 1:06 PM
So what you are saying is that it is a way for them to pass laws that failed to pass in the United States already, and make it look like the reason for doing it is the war on drugs? This is just a way for him to side step congress and keep the American public off his back while doing it because they will think it is for a good cause? This has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the cartels hands and everything to do with passing gun legislation they could not pass on its own merit? I am asking not telling...because I have not seen the text of the proposed treaty.

Very shrewd. Gotta give him points for being crafty, even if it makes me like him even less than I already did. Anybody who comes out against this think is going to look like a racist who wants to see mexicans die rather than spend money. Which DOES NOT describe me. If I thought it would save people's lives I would be all for it. But this thing is going to be completely useless at it's stated goal since laws already exist to ban the exporation of firearms and parts without a permit, but has a lot of potential towards facilitating gun bans here in the United States.

stillnotbob
04-16-2009, 1:13 PM
What I never understood is why is it our problem that guns flow south into Mexico and we need to stop that for them??? Yet, it's also our problem that drugs flow north to the US and we need to stop that ourselves too. Where is Mexico in all this??? Mexico doesn't stop drugs flowing north into the US and they don't stop the guns "flowing" south into their country. So we end up spending all our tax dollars and Mexico gets off without paying anything??!!!:mad:

How about we worry about what's coming into our country and Mexico deals with what flows into their country. Of course this means Mexico has to stop guns flowing in from it's southern boarder too!!!

Sorry for the rant.... it just p*sses me off that everything is America's fault. Mexico doesn't like what flowing into their country???... then Mexico should deal with it. Not come crying to us.

Plus side.... less guns going to Mexico.... lower prices for us as there will be more supply.

tacticalcity
04-16-2009, 1:19 PM
Their new President has actually done a lot to battle the Cartels, more so than anyone before him...and much more than any sane person would do given their power and reach in his country.

Truthfully, the only effective thing we could do to help him would be to send the US Army in there in massive numbers and wipe them out. Obviously that is never, never going to happen.

As for this...

Plus side.... less guns going to Mexico.... lower prices for us as there will be more supply.

..if what WASH is saying above is true costs here will skyrocket.

Vanguard
04-16-2009, 1:20 PM
Anyone who trusts the Obama administration on the issue of the 2nd amendment is a fool.

tacticalcity
04-16-2009, 1:22 PM
Until now I've been hoping Congress would stop him. But if he cloaks it as "the war on drugs" he is likely to be very successful at getting gun legislation passed here in the US that would not otherwise pass. It sounds just far enough to the right to convince the middle to move his way. Never mind that it is exactly the same thing he already failed to pass on its own merit. Congressmen who would get kicked out of office for being anti-gun will easily be able to sell it their constituency if the perception is they are being tough on the war on drugs…very crafty.

Chess not checkers...they play for keeps at that level. If they cannot pass it domestically, disguise it as a treaty the public will swallow and your agenda gets some traction again. Very clever. Much more clever than I am. I did not see that at first. I should have. It did not make sense on its own merit. It seemed too redundant. There's no need for treaty, since legislation already exists to make exporting firearms and parts without a permit illegal. So there had to be more to it. Thanks for pointing that out guys. I get it now.

Legasat
04-16-2009, 1:41 PM
The international black market offers everything these guys need. They can get them cheaper, faster, and with much less hassle than buying cases of AK's from the States.

It's all a smoke screen.

Beware...they are coming

wash
04-16-2009, 1:42 PM
That's only the part of the treaty I found. It's probably much worse.

The 83% number I used is the fact that less than 17% of the guns they confiscate in Mexico can be traced to the U.S., everything else is unmarked. Why would they think that a Mexican drug cartel will abide by an international arms treaty? They will just buy from their regular sources which will continue to supply them with unmarked arms and ammo. The only thing the markings will track is where the cartel stole their stolen arms.

Dirtbiker
04-16-2009, 1:45 PM
So if we are to believe Washington,

Cartels are sending up mules to buy (semi-auto mind you)guns one or two at a time at overly inflated prices. Likewise they are buying up all the ammo at gun shows and in Walmart. Then they are taking the risk of running back over the border.

OR...

More likely El Jefe makes a phone call to his connections to the south and several thousand full auto AKs show up in a warehouse along with 1,000,000 or so rounds of ammo for 1/10th the price they would pay in the US.

OR

The cartels show up at a Mexican Army base and bribe everyone involved with massive amounts of cash. Now they have full auto weapons, grenades, rockets, and C4 PLUS they have recruited fully trained men. By they way Mex buys their guns from the US military direct.

All this is is a ruse, an end run, around Congress to get another ban passed. For ****s sake we already have laws in place that prevents the export of arms. JUST ****ING ENFORCE THEM!!!!

Monkeysauce
04-16-2009, 2:17 PM
My wife is from Mexico originally, and she has a shatload of family in East LA.
Just came back from that cesspoole, and entered some heavily gaurded compounds (razor wire, security fencing, posted lookouts on ever corner with cell phones, etc.) near Fletcher and the Dodger Stadium that really reminded me of Iraq.

Anyway, and this is just my observation in talking with several cholos down there (whom thought I was LE) - as a previous poster mentioned, the real money is not in running 1 or 2 semi-autos and 1,000 rounds via a mule across the border. THis is not cost effective. Small arms, maybe. But the ordinance they are popping off with down there is not coming from here.

Plain and simple economics - the money is in the drugs. And you are going to have a tough time convincing some cholos from this side to stop dealing ($2,000 to $5,000 a day) and mule a piece across at a risk of 5 to 10 years. The Jeffes are not going to risk sending their producers to prison up here trying to run guns! They need them to keep on slinging that **** and sending $1,000 a day home to Mexico. They will be required to arm themselves here - but thats all. Too busy slinging crank in east LA homey! ****, from what I could tell down there - they have a hard enough time getting anything more than a MAC10 or Glock or AK semi-auto. Lotsa ghetto gats. Never heard a whisper about anything more substantial than that.

God I am glad to be away from there. IMHO - that is quickly becoming a part of Mexico - and I feel for anyone that lives there - honestly!

anyway - thanks to you all for opening my eyes about the real mission behind this law.

my question to you is:

How can I help to stop this (besides donating more to Mr. LaPierre and NRA?)

valleyguy
04-16-2009, 2:26 PM
Nothing is going to happen. This is just a smokescreen/red herring to make it look like he is taking action. Like the OP said, it's just to score points -- no one is going to pass any gun control laws or laws that affect the defense industry right now -- both are political suicide. This is much ado about nothing.

Liberty Rules
04-16-2009, 3:44 PM
There is a part of the treaty that causes me a lot of concern. At first blush, the treaty (if ratified by the Senate) would appear to require the U.S. to ban homebuilding. At least that's my fear based on the language I quote below. You can judge for yourself.

Among other things, the treaty bans "illicit manufacturing" of firearms. That is defined as follows:

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. [my emphais added]

As you can see, 1(b) states that a firearm is "illicitly manufactured" unless it is manufactured or "assembled" by someone with a government license to manufacture. Since homebuilding by definition is not done by a licensed manufacturer, it would have to be banned. The treaty requires all signatories to pass laws to effectuate its terms.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks bad.

Lastly, I attached a pdf of the entire treaty. You will note that it would also require marking of firearms, which is not a problem for manufacturers, but would change the rules for homebuilders.

Liberty Rules
04-16-2009, 3:48 PM
And here is the nasty section requiring signatory countries to pass laws criminalizing the conduct prohibited under 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.

2. Subject to the respective constitutional principles and basic concepts of the legal systems of the States Parties, the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses.

wash
04-16-2009, 3:56 PM
Exactly, and the people supplying the drug cartels could care less...

Ishoot
04-16-2009, 4:03 PM
Nothing is going to happen. This is just a smokescreen/red herring to make it look like he is taking action. Like the OP said, it's just to score points -- no one is going to pass any gun control laws or laws that affect the defense industry right now -- both are political suicide. This is much ado about nothing.

My thoughts as well..although I will assume the worst when it comes to this current administration and it's policy towards gun control.

BTF/PTM
04-16-2009, 4:38 PM
I like the fact that the article mentions phrasing like "...the trafficking of automatic weapons..." instead of something like "...the banning of automatic weapons...". That's encouraging.

An important question to ask is, how many supporters of our Second Amendment will be willing to stand in revolt as so many did during the tea parties to protest unwanted anti-gun laws should things turn south?

tophatjones
04-16-2009, 5:45 PM
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/49907.htm

tophatjones
04-16-2009, 6:09 PM
It sounds like it would ban the assembly of parts kits in addition to others. Good bye Fal kits, Ak kits, Ar building. There is also a section on confiscation of said illicitly assembled firearms.

Also depending on ammo laws, I suppose this could make reloading certain ammo illegal as well.

There is a part of the treaty that causes me a lot of concern. At first blush, the treaty (if ratified by the Senate) would appear to require the U.S. to ban homebuilding. At least that's my fear based on the language I quote below. You can judge for yourself.

Among other things, the treaty bans "illicit manufacturing" of firearms. That is defined as follows:

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. [my emphais added]

As you can see, 1(b) states that a firearm is "illicitly manufactured" unless it is manufactured or "assembled" by someone with a government license to manufacture. Since homebuilding by definition is not done by a licensed manufacturer, it would have to be banned. The treaty requires all signatories to pass laws to effectuate its terms.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks bad.

Lastly, I attached a pdf of the entire treaty. You will note that it would also require marking of firearms, which is not a problem for manufacturers, but would change the rules for homebuilders.

wash
04-16-2009, 6:15 PM
You could probably build a kit but you couldn't bend a flat or finish an 80% forging.

The whole system wouldn't make sense because you still couldn't tell when a gun was made if it didn't have the date stamp and it doesn't say anything about existing guns.

Dumb, dumb, dumb!

And I still fail to see how a treaty between American countries can enforce these laws on arms being imported from North Korea and China (probably).

tophatjones
04-16-2009, 6:30 PM
True, except in addition to manufacturing, it will also be illegal to assemble. I'm assuming the word manufacture applies to the receiver and assembly applies to the parts kits. I could be wrong. Who knows the administrations true agenda?

And you're exactly correct, how will these be enforced?

One thing is for sure, if we are pushing for Mexico to ratify, we'll no doubt need to ratify as well, to set an example.

wash
04-16-2009, 6:36 PM
I think their strategy is to attack the problem as far away from the source as possible.

DPC
04-16-2009, 7:05 PM
Why are the rights of American Citizens infringed upon becuase a corrupt forien government can't do thier job properly?

50CalAL
04-16-2009, 9:05 PM
Interesting read from another thread: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

"There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one: It's just not true. In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S."

Moreover, I believe the US government is supplying the Mexican army with guns/weapons to aid in their fight but the problem is that I believe the defection rate for a Mexican soldier is very high so we end up supplying the enemy in the long run.

Bottom line, this treaty isn't going to do anything as the drug cartels are just going to continue getting their full autos from their current suppliers.

tacticalcity
04-20-2009, 8:53 AM
If it makes assembling from kits illegal I'm screwed...I sell a lot of AR kits. But I am not sure assembling kits from premanufactured parts would count as "manufacturing". I can see how the term would apply to AK kits, since those usually require bending a flat, using rivits, welding, heat treating and so on. Building an AR from a kit is like slapping lego peices together compared to building an AK from a kit. Either way it is messed up, and will have no chance of stopping cartels from getting guns...it will just be another backdoor law to infringe on the rights of US Citizens.