GAO Alert!

[Guest oldfella]

Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading

-- Even BB guns could be on the chopping block

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert

8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151

Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

http://www.gunowners.org

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 at

http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm 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,

[Garufa]

Easy now oldfella, this thing has been around since '97...

The Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials

Not sure if the US ever ratified it, like it means anything anyway.

[Guest oldfella]

Easy now oldfella, this thing has been around since '97...QUOTE]

You are correct, but Obama was not in the picture then - he is now, with an Attorney General just as eager to do us harm. Do send your emails - remember, numbers do count!

Pet

[oldogy]

Easy now oldfella, this thing has been around since '97...

The Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials

Not sure if the US ever ratified it, like it means anything anyway.

FWIW, GOA saw fit to send it out as an alert today. Considering the liberal bunch of crap running the country and how fast the one is making things happen I think it is appropriate that it be posted.

I think the appropriate action is for us to act by following the links.

Thanks for posting, oldfella.

JMHO.

oldogy

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Yes, there is a alert also on Are you licensed to reload that ammo?

[Guest Rainmaker]

I'm not going to get any more fricken powder in the next four years, am I?

I mean, seriously. One of the employees at Mahoneys just said they ordered over a thousand pounds of the stuff because it was selling that fast. It boggles my mind to imagine who the **** actually -has- all this powder in their basement. I'd like to see an 8 pound can or so left over for myself.

[USMCJG]

I'm not going to get any more fricken powder in the next four years, am I?

I mean, seriously. One of the employees at Mahoneys just said they ordered over a thousand pounds of the stuff because it was selling that fast. It boggles my mind to imagine who the **** actually -has- all this powder in their basement. I'd like to see an 8 pound can or so left over for myself.

I don't know what kind of powder you're looking for, but The Gun Rack had a pretty decent selection when I was in there a week or so ago. Picked up some Ramshot TAC and some W231 for myself. They had quite a bit of Unique in larger quantities too.

Cliff

[9teeneleven]

It seems like more stirring the pot to me. I am skeptical, though this is worth watching. What needs to be defined is what illicit means within the context of manufacturing. It could quite possible mean with the intent to sell and distribute, but that is unclear and only a guess at this point. The document does clearly define its role as controlling "trafficking." You are not trafficking ammunition if you are simply reloading for your own use. If you are currently selling without a license ammo that you made or reloaded, then are you not already in violation of the law?

On the other hand, I have never really understood the argument that limiting or pricing out of reach the ammo supply is effective at doing anything other than making a nation of bad shooters. It only takes one bullet to kill someone. Even at the extreme, when was the last time you heard (if ever) of a rampage that used more than 100-200 rounds? Stopping people having access to a lot of ammo only means that those who want to become proficient with their arms are deprived of the ability to, since practice ammo becomes too expensive.

Edited April 23, 2009 by 9teeneleven

[Guest oldfella]

"Illicit"... to be illicit it has to be illegal, unlawful, forbidden... anything can be made illicit with the stroke of the pen. Now, will the current "group" make anything illicit if it is unconstitutional to do so? ... you bet!

[9teeneleven]

"Illicit"... to be illicit it has to be illegal, unlawful, forbidden... anything can be made illicit with the stroke of the pen. Now, will the current "group" make anything illicit if it is unconstitutional to do so? ... you bet!

Yes, however, if you are not selling ammo that you make or reload with the intent to distribute (i.e. traffic), then its manufacture is not illicit. I agree, this could not be the case, but at this point, it is unclear.

"The Organization of American States (OAS) on November 14, 1997, adopted the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (CIFTA by its Spanish acronym)."

It depends how that "and" is interpreted. However, the following sentence seems to indicate that it should not be interpreted as an "or":

"This is the first multilateral treaty designed to prevent, combat, and eradicate illegal transnational trafficking in firearms, ammunition, and explosives."

"trafficking" by definition involves a sale. If you are not selling, you are not trafficking. Heck, if you are not transferring at all, you are not trafficking. Again, I have difficulty seeing how this would be upheld by any court as a restriction on your ability to reload ammo for your own use.

Edited April 23, 2009 by 9teeneleven

[9teeneleven]

Here, straight from the actual CIFTA document:

"First meeting of national authorities directly responsible for

granting the export, import and international transit licenses

or authorizations for transfers of firearms, ammunition,

explosives, and other related materials"

[Guest oldfella]

I personally am not comfortable at all with this treaty - your/our interpretation of its wording can differ significantly from "their's", and "they" can add and/or change the meaning at-will - that's my take on it.

Pete

[texfrazer]

What needs to be defined is what illicit means within the context of manufacturing. It could quite possible mean with the intent to sell and distribute, but that is unclear and only a guess at this point. The document does clearly define its role as controlling "trafficking." You are not trafficking ammunition if you are simply reloading for your own use.QUOTE]

Not to argue the point, but as a thought, I think you are mistaken in your assumption that you would not be seen as trafficking if you are reloading for your own use.

Look at the way the drug laws are enforced. If you have over a certain amount, then you are assumed to be possessing with the intent of selling. Therefore, the legal interpretation could have a set amount of ammunition that would then qualify as an intent to sell.

My guess would be more than 10 rounds = intent to sell = trafficking.

[Guest oldfella]

I think you've just nailed it, Texfrazer, they can/will twist it and turn it to suit their intent.

Pete