TexasCHLforum.com

OK... I'm posting this in federal because we don't yet have an "international" section.

Obama said that he will push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms trafficking treaty designed to curb the flow of guns and ammunition to drug cartels and other armed groups in the hemisphere.

See Article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04 ... ce-mexico/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My radar is going off. There must be more to this than just applying to arms trafficking. I smell registration.

But then a Chronicle article states: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6376969.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama said he still believed that the ban “made sense” but pointedly added: “None of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.” He said he would focus instead on using existing laws to stop the flow of weapons to Mexico from the thousands of U.S. gun stores along the border.

and again:

Obama announced he would ask the Senate to ratify an inter-American weapons treaty meant to take on the bloody drug trade by restricting arms trafficking.

Gee, I woulda thunk arms trafficking was already restricted and illegal arm trafficking, well was maybe already illegal. Go Figure. Why is my radar screaming aleart on this? Something about substituting registration for the AWB, maybe?

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =4&t=24166" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I smell Rebecca Peters and her I.A.N.S.A. yahoos...

Peee UUUU!!!

When the time comes, we know what to do...

It's funny how things get reported in other countries. You'd think two completly different events occured.


http://www.theage.com.au/world/obama-fl ... -aa8v.html

Obama floats ban on weapons
Anne Davies, Washington Correspondent
April 18, 2009
SALES of military-style assault weapons should be banned in the US, President Barack Obama said as he met Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss measures to curb violence among Mexican drug cartels.

and the many times debunked:

"We have a responsibility to act too," Mr Obama said on Thursday. "Some 90 per cent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States." But he also said no one was under the illusion that the ban would be easy.

When I saw Obama's comments in the news I thought, 'What's in this treaty, anyway?' I did a little googling on 'CIFTA' and found a 'model' law proposed by the drafters in 2006. Needless to say, this treaty is really scary...

The intent is to allow a law enforcement agent to get a detailed history on any firearm or ammunition confiscated in a crime so that arms traffickers can be more easily found and prosecuted. The method to do this is to uniquely mark all firearms/ammunition and record every transaction so that the firearm/ammunition can be traced to a country of origin and an owner/manufacturer.

While the goal of the treaty is admirable, it will mean a number of significant changes to US law:

All sales/transfers of firearms and ammunition, and possibly the parts and components to produce them, would have to be traceable to an owner/manufacturer. This is essentally a national firearms and ammunition registry.

It would be illegal to manufacture firearms and ammunition without unique markings to identify country of origin, manufacturer, and lot number in the case of ammunition.

It would also be illegal to tamper with or try to remove the unique markings mentioned above.

I'm really concerned about what this treaty would mean for those of us who handload/reload ammunition--will each handloader/reloader have to register as a manufacturer and put unique headstamps on the ammunition they create? How do we handle the old headstamps on used brass? Will it become illegal to reload used brass?

I seriously hope that the US either doesn't ratify this treaty, or at least ignores the parts that would be unconstitutional or too burdensome to implement, like tracking all firearm and ammunition sales, adding requirements to handloaders/reloaders, and creating a national firearm registry.

I have a .pdf of the 'model' law; let me know if anyone would like a copy or if I should post it on the site somewhere.

No longer valid

I am convinced that part of this treaty will include a requirement to license firearms owners. Also that it will require all transactions to go through a licensed dealer. I have seen another version of the treaty that was to be a framework or recommended legislation that included such requirements.

Locksmith wrote:Obama proposes signing this treaty :(

Just for technical accuracy, Clinton already signed this treaty. It has not yet been ratified by the Senate, so it has no effect yet. Obama is saying he will push for the ratification of the treaty (not just the signing).

There is a major legal theory that will come up. Our Constitution is what makes treaties legal and gives them legal effect. But the Constitution also forbids certain laws. If a treaty violates the Constitution, can it ever have legal effect? My personal opinion is no, but given the wording of the treaty phrase in the Constitution, I know some people who believe it can.

srothstein wrote:

Locksmith wrote:Obama proposes signing this treaty :(

There is a major legal theory that will come up. Our Constitution is what makes treaties legal and gives them legal effect. But the Constitution also forbids certain laws. If a treaty violates the Constitution, can it ever have legal effect? My personal opinion is no, but given the wording of the treaty phrase in the Constitution, I know some people who believe it can.

So basically, a treaty that usurps the legal authority effecting the treaty is self defeating because it would be unconstitutional. Works for me.

Another reason for revolvers. No brass lying about.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o[/youtube]

Don't forget the reloading license.

For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply:

"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.

Wouldn't this violate NAFTA?