1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

We are about to Lose our rights to gun ownership

Discussion in 'Firearms' started by Rockfish Dave, May 3, 2009.

  1. Rockfish Dave

    Rockfish Dave Monkey+++

    I am only posting this because it directly impacts the future of what this forum is focused on. Treaties become the law of the land, surpassing the constitution. Please read the following:

    Link to article:
    Link to contact your representative:
    Article 2 of the Constitution (how treaties are the law of the land):

    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:


    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.


    Article 2 of the Constitution (how treaties are the law of the land):


    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
  2. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Reading thru http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...ticle02/10.html
    gives rise to a couple simplistic points.
    -zero would have to sign the treaty after negotiations, first and foremost.
    -Then, like it or not, the Senate would have to consent. Note that a treaty can, but not necessarily be, self actuating. I have my doubts as to whether or not this one would be self actuating and found superior to any other laws of the land. But, and this is important --
    -Case law clearly states that whatever treaty language exists, it cannot violate the Constitution, meaning it cannot supersede the Constitution in any way.
    -Then also, if the treaty requires expenditure of funds (which this one would) the House Appropriations Committee has to earmark money specifically for the treaty required performance. Thus, if the Senate stupidly consents, the House can, in effect, abrogate the treaty by refusing to let the Executive Branch spend in meeting the treaty obligations.

    In any case, you can see where this is going. Much debate, many suits for clarification both in Federal and International courts. This silly piece of international "legislation" is going nowhere fast. That does not mean we can sit back and relax, not by any means. The best thing to do now is watch it closely, do a bit of research on the status and latest language in the proposal and go letter writing.

    Editorializing a bit, I can readily conclude that gunowners.org, the NRA, the Brady Campaign, and others on both sides of any particular issue, will use sound bites, out of context quotes and other means to make their points, almost with equal facility. The services they provide are really early warnings, attention getters. A good and necessary service, but not to be taken as anything more than alerts to what could, not necessarily will, happen. It is our job, as citizens, to keep our representatives well advised of our thinking at the grass roots. It is our job to pull the reins on the congress critters; if we let that horse wander where it wants, if the horse gets control, there is no knowing where it will carry us.
  3. ikean

    ikean Monkey++

    someone needs to propose that a treaty has to be voted on like an amendment before it becomes a law that affects the citizens of the US.
  4. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    We do not "Loose" rights. Rights are not given nor taken away. There are those that attempt to restrict our rights but they can only be effective if we allow them to do so. Our rights are ours, given by God and protected by our Constitution. If we obey any laws or restrictions to our liberty, then we are as guilty as those that would try to usurp them.
  5. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Adventure Riding Monkey Founding Member

    Exactly right, SC! We can not lose what we do not give up!
    We CAN be made instant felons of a bad and ill-considered 'law', though they will find enforcement to be very difficult.
    There are at present some 80 million or more gun owners in this nation, many of them ex-military and LEO, man more active military and LEO. Most are fairly heavily armed.
    We know where the "Enemy" works and lives......

    And they want to declare war on US......?

    The stupidity of the DC Clown College knows no bounds. [lolol]
  6. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    The author of this is unknown but he sums it up very well.

    Carpe Libertas! (Seize Liberty)

    "So you want to be free? Then become free. All the freedom you want is yours, which you are able to seize. How does one seize freedom? By avoiding, evading, escaping, discouraging, overpowering, destroying, or otherwise frustrating anyone who initiates force or threatened force against you. (Freedom as used here is defined as: the absence OR EFFECTIVE NEUTRALIZATION of initiated force or threat of force.)

    "But the oppressors ignore my pleas for freedom," you complain. Do you expect THEM to SET you free? As you yourself point out, your oppressors have morals which would shame a beast of the forests. So long as you obey all their rules, no matter how onerous, and pay all their taxes, no matter how burdensome -- why SHOULD they?" And the oppressors dupe my neighbors, who are confused, unaware, and apathetic," you protest.Do you expect THEM not to deceive? The herdsman can milk only tame cows; the tyrant can drive only submissive slaves. "We must overturn the oppressors," some of you proclaim, "and rule wisely and justly in their place."

    Then go do it --if you can! But don't be surprised when the oppressors stampede their bewildered subjects against you." We must educate -- teach increasing numbers our values and ideas," others of you shout. "And SOME day evil will be banished from the earth."But as even YOU admit in your more reflective moments, this will take time -- MUCH time. So how shall you live the only life YOU will ever have? And how many followers can you attract AND HOLD if you offer only visions of a paradise for their great grandchildren? "I DO want freedom," you cry. "But there is NO way to get it now -- no chance to elect, no means to revolt, and no place to go."I reply: If you want freedom SEIZE IT.

    "But my oppressors are organized into a powerful state," you object. "They have thousands of agents and millions of police." However, each of the state's minions has only the same two eyes, the same two hands, and usually not so much brains as you or I. They cannot be everywhere; they cannot see everything. "But they will collect a tax on my earnings," you protest. Only if you are so craven as to hand it over. Discover ways to avoid their extortion's: Trade with those who practice freedom. Or be as a gypsy who sells -- and flees.

    <B><BIG>"But they will confiscate my property," you quaver. Only if you are so foolish as to lead them to it. Convert your wealth to forms you can conceal. And rent your shops and homes -- or mortgage them to the hilt." But they will throw me in jail," you whimper. Only if you are so careless as to stumble over them -- they who have trouble apprehending morons and psychopaths. Make yourself hard to find. "But that is too much trouble," you wail. "I would rather follow their rules and pay their taxes, lick their boots and hone their axes, do everything they demand, and maybe, oh maybe, they will leave me alone just a little. "Then tag along with the sheep to slaughter; you who expect freedom on a silver platter. For how long can you appease the tyrant who will demand more and more, until he has YOU? And what do we know of this utopia that some of you dream of? In every land, of which we hear, there are some who covet the lives and creations of others -- predators who rob and enslave the weak, the foolish and the cowardly.</BIG></B>
    <B><BIG>Sometimes the predators are lone -- and slink about as criminals. So the free men go like tigers -- armed and ready for self defense. Sometimes the predators join together -- and stalk about as rulers. So the free men go like foxes -- inconspicuous and ready to hide. Occasionally the free men ally to put down the predators. But somehow their forces tend to become slavers and looters in turn.</BIG></B>
    However, in almost any land, those with the courage to assert their freedom seldom need to fight OR hide, for the predators live off the easy prey. "But this will pass," you say to me" for now, at last, I have the key -- the elixir for liberty--for the first time in history. And once sufficient numbers see..."Well maybe... but in the meantime...All of the freedom is yours which you are able to SEIZE!"
  7. WestPointMAG

    WestPointMAG Monkey++

    In other words power is given not taken.
  8. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    I get so pissed off when someone uses the phrase "driving privileges" as I do not believe that our government has the "right" to grant any of us "privilege" for anything. There is the essence; when they regulate rights, it eventually morphs into a privilege and rights become subjective and no longer have any meaning to anyone except as instructions.
  9. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Adventure Riding Monkey Founding Member

    A wise man once said, "A RIGHT cannot be licensed!" [freedom]
  10. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Agree! "Rights" can't be taken away, a "privelege" is a permission granted ( which can be revoked).
    i.e I have a right to walk my property anytime I wish. If you ask, I can grant you the priviledge of crossing my property for as long as I wish to grant it.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary