PDA

View Full Version : CIFTA Treaty Analysis by GOA


TripleT
04-21-2009, 3:42 PM
I'd really like to hear some of the experts here comment on this analysis (http://gunowners.org/fs0901.htm), because it certainly scares the crap outta' me if what they are saying could even remotely be possible...

Thanks in advance !

TripleT
05-02-2009, 8:31 AM
Lou Dobbs and CIFTA video here (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/05/01/ldt.tucker.gun.rights.cnn?iref=24hours).

Alan Block
05-02-2009, 10:35 AM
a license. It is manufacturing without a license When a License is Required! So if reloading ammo for you and friends does not require a license, then it is NOT illicit!

hvengel
05-03-2009, 10:39 AM
a license. It is manufacturing without a license When a License is Required! So if reloading ammo for you and friends does not require a license, then it is NOT illicit!

Yes but the treaty states that:

“Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...”

and

"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."

Therefore a license would be required to reload ammunition (and perhaps even to reassemble your gun after cleaning it) and reloading without one would make you a criminal. Keep in mind that millions (perhaps even 10's of millions) of gun owners reload. How are these folks going to get a license? Who will issue these licenses? How much will they cost? What regulatory hurdles will be imposed to get and maintain a license? Will these be shall issue? How long will these be good for?

Since this is a treaty the executive branch can promulgate regulations to implement it with out the need for congress to pass any laws. This treaty is way worse than anything that has been seriously on the table before and if it is passed it will impose regulations and restrictions that are comparable to those in countries run by the worlds worst despots.

singleshotman
05-03-2009, 11:45 AM
Would you please stop posting this____. I've read about this on at least a dozen boards by now and i'm tired of it. Our President can sign what he wants, but History is againest him and this treaty is DOA.To pass any treaty you need 2/3 votes of the Senate and he's only got 58 at the most, presuming he can even get the Senate to vote on this.Rebember President Wilson and the League of Nations?

Harrison_Bergeron
05-03-2009, 4:05 PM
Plus, it has also been posted many times, Constitution>treaties. Congress can't sign a treaty to accomplish something they are not legally allowed to do in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

Dirtbozz
05-03-2009, 6:00 PM
Plus, it has also been posted many times, Constitution>treaties. Congress can't sign a treaty to accomplish something they are not legally allowed to do in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

If Congress was inclined to follow the Constitution, I would not be concerned. The current bunch could give a rat's A.. about the Constitution. As stated in another thread, Obama will pack the courts and do what he wants to do. 2010 anyone?

GaryV
05-03-2009, 7:11 PM
If Congress was inclined to follow the Constitution, I would not be concerned. The current bunch could give a rat's A.. about the Constitution. As stated in another thread, Obama will pack the courts and do what he wants to do. 2010 anyone?

If ANY congress, at any time in our history, was inclined to follow the Constitution, we wouldn't need a constitution in the first place. That's whole point of having one to begin with.

M. Sage
05-03-2009, 7:46 PM
If ANY congress, at any time in our history, was inclined to follow the Constitution, we wouldn't need a constitution in the first place. That's whole point of having one to begin with.

Point to GaryV on this one.

Bruce
05-03-2009, 8:44 PM
I'd really like to hear some of the experts here comment on this analysis (http://gunowners.org/fs0901.htm), because it certainly scares the crap outta' me if what they are saying could even remotely be possible...

Thanks in advance !

That's what GOA does best; issue statements meant to scare the crap outta people. :TFH:

DocSkinner
05-04-2009, 1:23 AM
this is proof in my mind there is now "International" collusion to strip us of our 2A.

What - all the other UN pressing demands, etc wasn't enough?


And the " license to assemble" issue - you have to remember that many countries out there require a license FOR EVERYTHING. Its our current CCW issue here in Cali applied to almost every aspect of your life. If you get the gun bans passed, you then also have to get rid of the home-builders. The leaders of those countries don't understand why our leaders allow such insolence and disrespect to law (i.e.:the leaders) as it makes them look bad.

Pretty common in power hungry types at any and all levels - happened to me teaching at UMass. Treated the students as peers and responsible adults and showed respect, and worked the hell out them and they liked me. Annoyed the hell out of the more established faculty - so much so the demanded the dean of the dept call me in for "a talk". Sure many of you have very similar stories!

DocSkinner
05-04-2009, 1:25 AM
If ANY congress, at any time in our history, was inclined to follow the Constitution, we wouldn't need a constitution in the first place. That's whole point of having one to begin with.

exactly -
it is really funny as people are very predictable. The people also, though, have a very short memory.

Ah - the ironies of life.

Sinixstar
05-04-2009, 1:32 AM
What - all the other UN pressing demands, etc wasn't enough?


And the " license to assemble" issue - you have to remember that many countries out there require a license FOR EVERYTHING. Its our current CCW issue here in Cali applied to almost every aspect of your life. If you get the gun bans passed, you then also have to get rid of the home-builders. The leaders of those countries don't understand why our leaders allow such insolence and disrespect to law (i.e.:the leaders) as it makes them look bad.

Pretty common in power hungry types at any and all levels - happened to me teaching at UMass. Treated the students as peers and responsible adults and showed respect, and worked the hell out them and they liked me. Annoyed the hell out of the more established faculty - so much so the demanded the dean of the dept call me in for "a talk". Sure many of you have very similar stories!

What I don't understand - is everybody says the UN is a toothless, useless, defunct organization who's treaties and resolutions aren't worth the paper they're written on.

But now all of the sudden the UN is up there with the word of god?

One or the other people.