Backdoor gun laws

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Minuteman, Apr 18, 2009.


  1. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    In a stunningly clever move, president Barack Obama, speaking from Mexico, announced support for an international firearms treaty that could have far-reaching effects on U.S. gun ownership -- without needing to pass legislation and deal with normal congressional representation. See item #1 in Page Nine below. If ratified by the Senate, the treaty, which is already written, would become law and supercede even the U.S. Constitution, as specified in the Constitution itself (Art. VI).
    I have obtained a copy of the 4,078-word treaty and have begun to study it; it has numerous conditions whose effects are unclear and could depend in large measure on how they are interpreted and applied. It appears that the conditions will require binding regulations to implement, which would be written by faceless bureaucrats and be relatively immune to legislative process or full public review. As soon as possible I will be releasing an analysis of the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Materials, which you can download here: http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html
    This opening requirement could presumably be fulfilled in almost any way, to satisfy an anti-rights interpretation of the treaty: "Art. IV, 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." "Trafficking" is not explicitly limited by "illicit" and could mean almost anything.




    1- Antigunners Bypass House
    The lamestream media told you:
    Sixty-five House Democrats, led by Mike Ross (D-Ark.), have sent a letter to attorney general Eric Holder opposing his stated position of seeking to renew the Bill Clinton ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, parts and magazines. The group said, in part, they would "actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban, or to pass any similar law." Congress let the law expire in 2004. See the letter and signatories: http://tinyurl.com/cbpfsz
    The group denounced the attorney general's proposal to renew the ban, urging him, "to abandon any effort to reinstate the assault-weapons ban and to focus instead on effective law enforcement strategies to enforce the nation's current laws against violent criminals and drug traffickers."
    [Note that every step and person involved in a gun-smuggling process is extremely illegal under current law, but largely unenforced.]

    The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
    Recognizing that open revolt from within his own party could lead to bloody floor battles in Congress over new gun bans, president Barack Obama has chosen to bypass the U.S. House of Representatives and the normal legislative process in his quest for new gun infringements, promised during his campaign and recently promoted by his staff and members of his party, such as Pa. governor Ed Rendell, and House speaker Nancy Pelosi. The first salvo is scheduled to come in the form of an international treaty, cutting 65 rebellious Democrats completely out of the process.
    It should be noted that the so-called assault-weapon ban, actually named the Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, did not actually ban anything. Countless millions of affected firearms, magazines and parts could be bought, sold, owned, traded and used by the public. What was banned by Mr. Clinton was new manufacture of any products on the list for consumers, causing prices to skyrocket, but leaving availability virtually untouched.
    "News" reports never mention this, mainly, because they have no idea that this is the case. They believe what they read in their own reports, instead of getting facts. Reporters exhibit stunned disbelief when told the ban didn't ban anything.
    When the expiration date Mr. Clinton put into the law took effect, police agencies and "news" outlets nationwide noted, with some embarrassment but no corrections to ten years of false scary stories, that no changes in crime rates occurred. The New York Times said the expiration, "has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months," and that the government-assaulted private firearms "were never used in many gun crimes." http://tinyurl.com/bbfupx (See my report on this, item #1 http://www.gunlaws.com/Page9Folder/PageNine-60.htm)
    That has changed recently, as politicians, foreign officials, and "news" people have again begun a false furor over various normal one-shot-at-a-time household firearms the public owns. Especially pointing to the U.S.-led war on some drugs and its effect on black market Mexican drug makers and exporters, they are blaming American gun owners for the government's mess. News reports on this are so distorted its hard to know where to begin in straightening them out.
    All the true military-only combat weaponry and ordnance the drug producers are using is omitted from ban plans, because the public doesn't own any, and those supplies and suppliers will remain unaffected. The scary label used to vilify the public's arms, "assault weapons," is a misnomer and obvious distortion, because assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware.
    If, as officials and their media allies claim, a high percentage of foreign drug-gang firearms are traced to U.S. stores, there should of course be massive arrests of the illegal buyers, straw purchasers, go-betweens, middlemen, cash bag men, smugglers and others repeatedly identified by thousands of NICS checks. No arrests have been announced even after years of claimed abuses, casting doubt on all government drug-related reports, as usual. U.S. cocaine market prices are reportedly stable.

    --------




    11- Pelosi's Gun Backfire
    The lamestream media told you:
    "On Feb. 26, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration," according to The Hill, a leading federal news source. "Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record." News outlets everywhere ran the story. http://tinyurl.com/chfvff
    Less than six weeks later, on April 7, speaking on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi continued, "The ball is in Congress' court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons. We have to find some level of compromise," she said, using 53 murders by suicidal psychopaths in less than a month as a reason. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means." ABC failed to ask her to reconcile this with her previous statements, or what misconceptions she might be referring to.
    The only conditions she mentioned, adding to huge lists of recommendations already made by Democrats, were gun registration and bans on transporting "some" guns across state lines. She also expressed displeasure at the idea that under a bill now in Congress, D.C. residents might regain the civil right to keep and bear arms, at the same time they regain the civil right to vote, calling the right to vote "a civil-rights issue" and dismissing gun rights as an unfair "price to pay." Both rights are included in the pending law.

    The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
    "Everyone who took Pelosi and Reid at their word several weeks ago, when Ag Eric Holder called for new federal gun infringements, were suckers," according to the Uninvited Ombudsman. "Cockeyed optimists and dreamers thought they lucked up. What they really got only rhymes with that."
    In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: "I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon."
    The nation is now enduring a waiting period to see what sorts of violations of the Bill of Rights the unethical lying scoundrels running Congress concoct. Helatious draft legislation has been in place since before Obama's inauguration. http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm
    For perspective, during the month when 53 unarmed people without police protection were horrifically slaughtered by deranged law breakers before police arrived, 3,100 people died brutally without warning in their automobiles before police arrived.
    Critics say that's comparing apples and oranges, and the 3,100 dead people deserve no news attention and no federal action, but the 53 other dead people really do. The dead people, uniformly surprised at their untimely deaths, could not be reached for comment.


    If this report works for you --
    please tell your friends!
    Sign up (or off) for email delivery:
    info@gunlaws.com
     
  2. dragonfly

    dragonfly Monkey+++

    I think I'm going to need a big prescription, for something in an anti-depressant!
    They just don't quit for one moment.....Never let up, and DOG legal gun owners.
    IF I believed in a NWO conspiracy, this would feed the paranoia!
    (I'm not crazy,....and neither am I!) what split personality?
     
  3. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    A long read but thorough analysis of the treaty that zero wants to adopt.

    1. CIFTA Gun Treaty Removes Congressional Oversight

    (Note: How this treaty can overrule U.S. law or the Constitution itself is
    discussed at the end, after the treaty analysis below.)


    I've completed my review of the South America gun-control treaty that Mr.
    Obama wants to get ratified.

    It is known as CIFTA, the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit
    Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And
    Other Related Materials. It can be found here verbatim:
    http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html


    -- EVERY aspect of the treaty introduces major required gun controls, most
    of which will affect average citizens (as well as the targeted criminal
    syndicates, dictators and other bad actors).

    -- The controls go way past anything EVER attempted by gun-control groups
    in the United States.

    -- NONE of the proposed gun controls are likely to pass by themselves
    through Congress. If the treaty is enacted they don't have to -- they
    become law when the treaty is ratified.

    -- Virtually NO PROTECTIONS FOR RKBA are to be found, and the wordings are
    loose enough to allow all sorts of attacks on gun rights American enjoy
    today.

    -- The U.S. government under this treaty GAINS POWER to manage firearms
    almost any way it would like to, without checks and balances.

    -- Once signed, many of the restrictions and government intrusions become
    MANDATORY, and the full Congress, already cut out of ratification (only the
    Senate approves treaties) would be cut out of the implementation process
    entirely.

    -- Top to bottom registration of all firearms, ammunition, ammunition
    components and other related materials is required if they are "in transit"
    and records must be kept indefinitely. This vague language, and the
    requirement to comply are a gun-banner's dream and a rights advocate's
    nightmare.

    -- "Transit licenses or authorizations" for transfers of firearms are
    required for imported firearms, and loose language could include the same
    for all domestic firearms.

    -- Lengthy recordkeeping is required that directly conflicts with U.S.
    law, and would be left up to bureaucrats and arbitrary controls and
    implementation.

    -- Home reloading of ammunition would become illegal and subject to severe
    sanctions, without government licensing that is undefined and could include
    almost any conditions, taxes and limitations, including scrupulous
    inventorying, recordkeeping and unscheduled audit searches of people who
    reload.

    -- Similar licensing and controls will be required on anything made "that
    can be attached to a firearm," known as "other related materials." This
    includes components, parts, replacement parts and such items as wood or
    composite stocks, slings, bayonets, bayonet lugs, sights, scopes, rails,
    lasers, grips, flash hiders, suppressors, muzzle brakes and other
    paraphernalia. Attaching any such parts without a government license would
    be "illicit manufacture," a criminal act with undefined penalties.

    -- Record sharing requirements ensure that any gun-owner data that must be
    destroyed under current U.S. law can be easily stored abroad, and can be
    retrieved at will as required under various international "cooperation"
    clauses.



    If I were advising Mr. Obama IN FAVOR of using this treaty for gun control
    -- here is what I would suggest.

    This creative vantage point helps me to underscore the serious threat the
    treaty presents. I DO NOT approve of any of the anti-rights suggestions,
    easily drawn from the treaty language -- they merely show you what
    Americans face. Everything I outline below comes directly from the treaty
    itself. Be sure you're sitting down.

    Alan Korwin, Author
    Gun Laws of America

    -------------


    To: Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States
    From: (As if written by the anti-gun-rights lobby)
    Re: CIFTA Treaty

    Dear Mr. President,

    We commend your common-sense support of the CIFTA Treaty for reducing
    illicit arms manufacture and gun trafficking. This is a brilliant stratagem
    in the exhausting effort to rid our country of the scourge of gun violence.

    With the treaty in place and ratified by the Senate, you will be obligated
    to take certain steps with regard to private ownership of firearms that we
    have never been able to move through the houses of Congress. Further, you
    will be able to take these actions unilaterally, making swift change
    possible and, under international obligation to act you are insulated from
    direct criticism.

    Our attorneys assure us the steps we outline here are in full compliance
    with international law and the terms of the treaty itself. Article VI of
    the U.S. Constitution unambiguously gives such a treaty a degree of
    supremacy over the nation, its laws, the states and the public (even though
    some in the powerful gun lobby deny this or point to questionable court
    precedents). This is especially useful as we adapt to a global economy,
    world courts, an empowered U.N. and environmental concerns on a planetary
    scale.

    In addition, we know that if a law can be interpreted to either spread or
    curtail the proliferation of arms in the hands of average people, the
    common-sense interpretation must be to curtail arms whenever possible.
    CIFTA provides the perfect platform for this very reasonable approach.

    There will be little disagreement that CIFTA's surface goal of keeping
    arms out of the hands of dictators, tyrants, terrorists, violent criminal
    cartels, syndicates and gangs, insurgents, non-state actors, and genocidal
    regimes is a worthy goal. The value for domestic gun control here and
    abroad is equally worthy, and lies in virtually every measure required to
    track and control arms. We are eager to see your signature on this
    important step forward for the safety of Americans.


    [Language from CIFTA appears in brackets.]
    [Language from CIFTA appears in brackets.]


    Statement of Purpose

    ["...the urgent need to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit
    manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and
    other related materials, due to the harmful effects of these activities on
    the security of each state..."]

    Note that "trafficking" is not explicitly limited by "illicit" and this is
    critical. It is perfectly reasonable to bring all firearms trafficking
    under control to properly manage the portion that is illicit or
    undesirable. This construction is precise and appears throughout the
    treaty.

    ["give priority... because of the links of such activities with drug
    trafficking, terrorism, transnational organized crime, and mercenary and
    other criminal activities"]

    The unconditional inclusion of "other criminal activities" assures a broad
    jurisdiction for every facet of existing and not-yet-defined gun crime,
    even minor and paperwork violations, if so desired.

    ["international cooperation... appropriate measures at the national,
    regional and international levels... pertinent resolutions of the United
    Nations General Assembly on measures to eradicate the illicit transfer of
    conventional weapons and on the need for all states to guarantee their
    security... support mechanisms such as the International Weapons and
    Explosives Tracking System (IWETS) of the International Criminal Police
    Organization (INTERPOL)"]

    The emphasis on globalization dovetails smoothly with current plans.
    Potential exists to wed NICS and IWETS functionality.

    ["a 'know-your-customer' policy for dealers in, and producers, exporters,
    and importers of, firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related
    materials is crucial for combating this scourge"]

    Firearms dealers are specifically included in the web of CITRA.

    ["to eradicate illicit transnational trafficking in firearms is not
    intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational
    activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other
    forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties]

    This is one rare spot where "trafficking" and "illicit" are connected, and
    then only for transnational acts. We do not expect this to inhibit any
    reasonable domestic gun-control activity associated with CIFTA. The sapient
    inclusion here of "acceptable" gun activity is neatly compartmentalized and
    removed from the ability to apply controls.

    ["this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or
    regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a
    wholly domestic character"]

    While the treaty doesn't seem to require Parties to enact domestic gun
    laws, the careful wording does not prevent Parties from enacting domestic
    gun laws either. And it additionally requires that the parties "will apply
    their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this
    Convention," binding future actions into compliance, while giving a
    comfortable appearance of autonomy. Our attorneys were impressed with how
    well this is drafted.


    Article I, Definitions.

    The definitions are suitably robust and need little description here.

    However, "Illicit manufacture" includes any ammunition made, "b. without a
    license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where
    the manufacture or assembly takes place;". This unequivocally places
    dangerous homemade "reloading" operations under any reasonable controls
    deemed necessary. Such controls are not optional. Any so-called hobbyist
    operating outside a yet-to-be designed licensing scheme would be in
    violation. Penalties are to be independently determined by the Parties.

    Also note that "an accessory that can be attached to a firearm" is
    included as "other related materials," and also subject to illicit
    manufacture rules. This provides the broadest controls over anyone making,
    transporting, possessing or transferring such items as wood or composite
    stocks, slings, bayonets or bayonet lugs, sights, scopes, rails, lasers,
    grips, flash hiders, suppressors, muzzle brakes and other paraphernalia.
    The tax dollars from this new revenue source is not determined but believed
    to be potentially large.



    Article II, Purpose.

    Reiterates introductory remarks, promotes exchanges of information.



    Article III, Sovereignty.

    Ensures that territorial jurisdictions and a nonintervention policy are
    maintained.



    Article IV, Legislative measures.

    ["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... 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."]

    Once the treaty is signed, laws (if needed) or "other measures"
    (regulations, memoranda of understanding, policies, operations manuals, Ag
    opinions, basically any legal construct without limitation) are required to
    implement the terms of the treaty. This is excellent for our purposes. We
    believe the legal framework exists to handle most if not all the
    requirements outside cumbersome legislative channels, facilitating easy
    adoption of the treaty's conditions.

    Some objections may be raised by opposition leaders or the gun lobby, but
    the signed treaty puts this game well into the home stretch by the time
    such annoyances arise.



    Article V, Jurisdiction.

    ["Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to
    establish its jurisdiction over the offenses"]

    CIFTA doesn't even contemplate statutes, just "measures" for establishing
    jurisdiction, including rules for extradition.



    Article VI, Marking of Firearms.

    Serial numbers and similar markings already required on firearms by U.S.
    law become an international standard, and now include place of manufacture
    and name and address of importers, plus special marks for arms retained for
    official use. There is no enforcement mechanism for rogue nations that do
    not comply.



    Article VII, Confiscation or Forfeiture.

    ["States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all
    firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized,
    confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or
    trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses
    through auction, sale, or other disposal."]

    The treaty, when signed, will once and for all end the intolerable
    practice of returning guns and accessories back to the public after they
    have fallen into police hands. Our legal opinion is that even recovered
    stolen guns would also be unreturnable, since these have been illegally
    trafficked as defined. State laws allowing gun resales and auctions will
    become null and void, under the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause. This
    may impact some police departments that have come to rely on such revenues,
    but the net gain in public safety and gun control is more than worth the
    small loss, which could perhaps be mitigated through use of bailout funds
    or other government monies.



    Article VIII, Security Measures.

    ["States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake
    to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms,
    ammunition, explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported
    from, or in transit through their respective territories."]

    It seems clear that the only way to effectively meet this common-sense
    security obligation (eliminate loss or diversion of firearms and related
    supplies) is to have universal registration and tracking of all firearms in
    the country. This long-sought elusive goal now within reach. The phrase "in
    transit" effectively touches every firearm, all ammunition and related
    gear.



    Article IX, Export, Import, Transit Licenses

    Port of entry and exit requirements already in place cover this section.



    Article X, Strengthening Controls at Export Points

    Same as above.



    Article XI, Recordkeeping

    ["States Parties shall assure the maintenance for a reasonable time of the
    information necessary to trace and identify illicitly manufactured and
    illicitly trafficked firearms to enable them to comply with their
    obligations under Articles XIII and XVII."]

    This provision provides clear authority to establish large scale
    comprehensive gun-registration databases. The "reasonable time" for
    recordkeeping had been determined by the FBI, under former Ag Reno, as
    permanently.

    We do anticipate some political objections to this provision, since U.S.
    laws place some restrictions on firearm recordkeeping on the public.
    However, as we learned under Attorney General Janet Reno, during the
    original implementation of the NICS background checks, government systems
    can be set up in any manner desired with little effective oversight, and
    only after prolonged and arguable challenges need the systems be changed.
    The true nature of such complex systems remains difficult to ascertain, is
    difficult to monitor on an ongoing basis, can be modified in future
    iterations to more closely reflect desired policy without raising warning
    flags, and system backups maintained by allies do not fall under the same
    controls as domestic versions.



    A review of the remaining 19 Articles of the treaty will be provided
    shortly. These are minor and deal largely with exchange of information
    among the parties, cooperation, training (for which the U.S. can play a
    significant role by financing and controlling programs among the Parties),
    mutual legal assistance (another area where the U.S. can exert significant
    influence), "controlled delivery" or sting operations, extradition of U.S.
    citizens, and structural elements such as a consultative committee,
    periodic meetings, ratifications, withdrawal, effective dates and dispute
    settlements.



    An interesting "Annex" exempts certain items from the definition of
    explosives, including:

    ["compressed gases; flammable liquids; explosive actuated devices, such as
    air bags and fire extinguishers; propellant actuated devices, such as nail
    gun cartridges; consumer fireworks suitable for use by the public and
    designed primarily to produce visible or audible effects by combustion,
    that contain pyrotechnic compositions and that do not project or disperse
    dangerous fragments such as metal, glass, or brittle plastic; toy plastic
    or paper caps for toy pistols; toy propellant devices consisting of small
    paper or composition tubes or containers containing a small charge or slow
    burning propellant powder designed so that they will neither burst nor
    produce external flame except through the nozzle on functioning; and smoke
    candles, smokepots, smoke grenades, smoke signals, signal flares, hand
    signal devices, and Very signal cartridges designed to produce visible
    effects for signal purposes containing smoke compositions and no bursting
    charges."]

    END OF ANALYSIS
     
  4. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Uh...
    No.

    Isn't it already illegal to traffic" internationally" in firearms without complying with existing regulations???

    Biggest issues I see are the banning of "home manufacture of ammunition."
    and the requirements to register the "living hell" out of everything.
     
  5. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

    I would have to think that making an illegal treaty would make the treaty non binding.
     
  6. Cephus

    Cephus Monkey+++ Founding Member

    I'd have to say not in my lifetime !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  7. Rockfish Dave

    Rockfish Dave Monkey+++

    One of the reasons why I have an issue the treaty: It allows MEXICO to decide our rights and freedoms...

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html

    Treaties as Law of the Land
    Treaty commitments of the United States are of two kinds. In the language of Chief Justice Marshall in 1829: ''A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument.

    ''In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract--when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.'' 265 To the same effect, but more accurate, is Justice Miller's language for the Court a half century later, in the Head Money Cases: ''A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties of it. . . . But a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capable of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country.'' 266
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7