PDA

View Full Version : Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading


Cypriss32
04-21-2009, 5:16 PM
MAke your calls and letters NOW!!!!!!!



http://gunowners.org/a042109.htm









Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading
-- Even BB guns could be on the chopping block


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 owners.

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 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 at:

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0901.htm

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.

Sincerely,

SkatinJJ
04-21-2009, 8:53 PM
bump to top.

Otherwise, I'm speechless...

badicedog
04-21-2009, 9:10 PM
We cannot allow this to progress! Remember Australia! They start 'chipping' away at our rights until we have none to defend.:mad:

Adonlude
04-21-2009, 9:14 PM
Darn and I just got into reloading too!

CABilly
04-21-2009, 9:17 PM
Can a treaty trump the Constitution? It certainly sounds like an infringement, to me.

rabagley
04-21-2009, 9:22 PM
No, there's a heirarchy of laws and treaties do not trump the Constitution. They can trump state and federal law, however.

Foulball
04-21-2009, 9:26 PM
Treaties do not trump the Constitution. But that doesn't mean they won't try.

CABilly
04-21-2009, 9:26 PM
No, there's a heirarchy of laws and treaties do not trump the Constitution. They can trump state and federal law, however.

Let's hope, then, that incorporation sticks!

bohoki
04-21-2009, 9:47 PM
well technically we are only only allowed to make our own ammo for our own personal use

it is illegal to make ammo for transfer already without a proper license

what2be
04-21-2009, 9:53 PM
all i see is a bunch of "could" in that post. Doesent mean he will.
More anti Obama rhetoric. Enough allready.

There is not going to be a ban on reloading ammo.

How do some of you sleep at night with all that paranoia? Or is it just spite from how the election turned out?

slappomatt
04-21-2009, 10:15 PM
F obama.

secretasianman
04-21-2009, 10:42 PM
Maybe Assembly Members... but not Feinstein or Boxer. We all know where they stand.

Texas Boy
04-21-2009, 11:06 PM
Personally, I'll wait until I see the legal experts telling me I need to call, write, jump up and down before I get in a panic about what could happen. Lots of things could happen, but a federal ban on reloading ammo would be extremely unpopular and would meet LOTS of opposition. So until Bill, Gene, the NRA, or some similar authority says to worry, I won't.

tony stark
04-21-2009, 11:25 PM
obama can sign any treaty he wants to.
the problem he will have is he has got to get 2/3's of the senate to go along with it.
they don't, no treaty.

constitution article 2 second paragraph

RideIcon
04-21-2009, 11:41 PM
I knew this day would come

:13::whistling:

Bruce3
04-21-2009, 11:51 PM
if this passes he better reimburse me for all my reloading equipment!

AlexBreya
04-21-2009, 11:55 PM
If it passes, reloading will not be illegal. manufacturing firearms would, not manufacturing ammo... i'm not seeing anything in this article that actually relates to ammo, other than the author saying that a ban on maunfacturing guns is the same as on reloading ammo. FUD!!!!

Smokin
04-22-2009, 12:17 AM
Can a treaty trump the Constitution? It certainly sounds like an infringement, to me.

YES!! This is EXACTLY the way the liberal left wing will approach this. If they cant get it through traditional legislative means, they will shove it down our throats guised as a "treaty". DO NOT BE APATHETIC About this treaty. With his ultra-left wing trans-nationalist tendencies, the obama administration has shown he cares more about his global citizenship than the national sovereignty of the United States and about the Constitution that he is supposed to protect.

Smokin
04-22-2009, 12:20 AM
obama can sign any treaty he wants to.
the problem he will have is he has got to get 2/3's of the senate to go along with it.
they don't, no treaty.

constitution article 2 second paragraph

Dont be so apathetic. Turning a blind eye and saying "It will never happen" is EXACTLY why we are practically socialist here in Commefornia. Its exactly why the current administration has managed to pass 3 TRILLION dollars of spending in 100 days. Its exactly why they shoved socialized medicine down our throats. Cant get this through with legislation, wrap it in the guise of "a treaty" and get congress to pass it. IF PEOPLE EVEN ON THIS FORUM ARE APATHETIC, we are doomed.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-23-2009, 3:43 AM
obama can sign any treaty he wants to.
the problem he will have is he has got to get 2/3's of the senate to go along with it.
they don't, no treaty.

constitution article 2 second paragraph


Bingo! But dont expect that fact to halt speculation. :rolleyes:

Solidmch
04-23-2009, 4:52 AM
all i see is a bunch of "could" in that post. Doesent mean he will.
More anti Obama rhetoric. Enough allready.

There is not going to be a ban on reloading ammo.

How do some of you sleep at night with all that paranoia? Or is it just spite from how the election turned out?

The fact that he is even contemplating this should piss you off. He is a constitutional prof. Does the words "shall not infringe" mean anything to him? He seems to be very reckless in his actions. He needs to stop apoligizing for the US. He will be exposed.

M. Sage
04-23-2009, 5:06 AM
Yes, a properly ratified treaty has the same power as the Constitution. I can look up the pertinent part of the Constitution later...

Good job Tony Stark for pointing out the 2/3 Senate deal. This won't go anywhere, but that's doesn't mean we shouldn't get pissed off and let our disgust be felt.

all i see is a bunch of "could" in that post. Doesent mean he will.
More anti Obama rhetoric. Enough allready.

There is not going to be a ban on reloading ammo.

How do some of you sleep at night with all that paranoia? Or is it just spite from how the election turned out?

Just because he can't doesn't mean he won't try. Just because he can't doesn't mean he doesn't want to, because it's painfully obvious he does.

You know that you can point things out without attacking someone's character, right?

GrayWolf09
04-23-2009, 7:31 AM
The problem is like the boy who cried wolf (no pun intended) once too often. If people keep posting these Obama will; Obama willl; Write your legislators; Write your legislators once too often people will not get excited when the real issue comes along.

There are some very smart people on Calguns who have worked long and hard to protect our 2A rights. I trust them. When they tell me to write, I will write, but not when some blogger on the internet wakes up with a bad hair day and finds a commie under his bed.

:fud:

nobody_special
04-23-2009, 8:15 AM
Yes, a properly ratified treaty has the same power as the Constitution. I can look up the pertinent part of the Constitution later...


A ratified treaty is still subject to the Constitution:

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

-- Supreme Court majority opinion, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1956)

Faust
04-23-2009, 8:39 AM
"A ratified treaty is still subject to the Constitution"
I just do not see that stoping any determined political body from starting and pushing the cart down hill, the constitution does not defend itself. Look arround,"change" hapened, and it went further and faster than anyone would have even dreamed of; so now what? repeat the mistake? give more ground? stay 2 steps behind? yea, that's the attitude.....

Publius
04-23-2009, 9:29 AM
all i see is a bunch of "could" in that post. Doesent mean he will.
More anti Obama rhetoric. Enough allready.

Obama actually supports this treaty. It's not just anti-Obama rhetoric. But...

obama can sign any treaty he wants to.
the problem he will have is he has got to get 2/3's of the senate to go along with it.
they don't, no treaty.


This treaty was actually signed by Clinton back in 1997. But it was never ratified by the Senate. Feinstein and Durbin are making a push for ratification now.

abalone hunter
04-23-2009, 10:43 AM
ai have called slimestien and boxer

MudCamper
04-23-2009, 2:32 PM
Yes, a properly ratified treaty has the same power as the Constitution. I can look up the pertinent part of the Constitution later...

Yes, from Article VI,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

A ratified treaty is still subject to the Constitution:


-- Supreme Court majority opinion, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1956)

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I've known that the Supreme court had authority over treaties from this part of the Constitution, Article III Section 2,

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

but I was not aware that that had already been clarified be a specific ruling. Good to see.

javalos
04-23-2009, 5:43 PM
all i see is a bunch of "could" in that post. Doesent mean he will.
More anti Obama rhetoric. Enough allready.

There is not going to be a ban on reloading ammo.

How do some of you sleep at night with all that paranoia? Or is it just spite from how the election turned out?

Anything is possible with this socialist. Since he's taken office, he's gone on a spending spree and its our children's children that will be still paying for it. Skaken the hands of dictators, taken control of the financial sector, slashed our missile defense and military spending, is bleeding about slapping around terrorists during interrogations. Claimed during his campaign he won't go after guns and then as soon as he became Prez, he lists a number of anti-gun goals on his transition website. He is a dangerous liar and a threat to our freedom and liberty

Seesm
04-23-2009, 5:54 PM
Will not happen. IMHO... Hope not...

Theseus
04-23-2009, 6:10 PM
I have come to realize that Obama is not a socialist, he is an elitist trying to prevent the flow of money from rich to poor.

He is "giving" the money to organizations that are supposed to help us, like Bush did with the "No Child Left Behind" crap. Instead of improving schools with more funding schools spent the money on "testing" and "standardizing".

You think that money is actually going to do anything but make the rich wealthier?

Timberline
04-23-2009, 6:11 PM
Anything is possible with this socialist. Since he's taken office, he's gone on a spending spree and its our children's children that will be still paying for it. Skaken the hands of dictators, taken control of the financial sector, slashed our missile defense and military spending, is bleeding about slapping around terrorists during interrogations. Claimed during his campaign he won't go after guns and then as soon as he became Prez, he lists a number of anti-gun goals on his transition website. He is a dangerous liar and a threat to our freedom and liberty

He's hardly a socialist, unless you consider his handouts to corporations, which put him right up there with other corporate welfare enablers like Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Spending spree? We're in a dramatically bad economic situation, and spending is exactly what's called for right now - if we don't inject cash into the economy, the toll of the liquidity crisis will be all the harder and more severe, and social unrest will become an unpleasant factor of life. Shaking hands with people we don't like is a long and honoured tradition of U.S. Presidents - why are people so uptight when this president does it? As to military spending, last I heard the overall U.S. Military budget is set to increase, not decrease. The whiners are some Senators from states that will lose some spending, as it's shuffled to more efficient uses and programs. His transition website had the same language as his campaign website... and bottom line, he's not going to be able to take away our guns, or our ammoe, or shut down the gun dealers, or walmart, or anything of the sort. The 2A is strongly defended by enough members of Congress that it will not be infringed during Obama's eight years in office. Dangerous Liar? You might be right... I remember him talking about holding Bush Administration officials accountable for their shameful actions, now I hear him finding ways to back away from that admirable stance. If we sanction torture, it definitely has an impact on our freedom and liberty, I agree with you there.

AntiBubba 2.1
04-23-2009, 11:56 PM
I've seen many interpretations of that "treaty". So far, I don't see any of the biggies raising alarms over it. If I'm going to waste ink to Boxer or DiFi, I'll do so for a good reason, and not for possible tinfoil worries.

obeygiant
04-24-2009, 12:27 AM
Link to Barbara Boxer's email web form (http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm)

Form 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 at:

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0901.htm

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.

Sincerely,

ady
04-24-2009, 6:44 AM
Simply un-american,but typical demo-crap feel good nonsense.