Inter-America arms treaty with Mexico may ban reloading

[Lennyjoe]

Dunno if this article was posted before or if Word Net Daily is a credible source but it does point out that us reloaders may be in a world of hurt if its true.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95733

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Are you licensed to reload that ammo?
Alarm raised over treaty provision to ban activity

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 21, 2009
10:00 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


President Obama, who supported the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., before it was tossed by the Supreme Court, since his election has watched various proposals to ban "assault" weapons, require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations, and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases that caused some retailers to name him their salesman of the year. Now he apparently is going after those to reload their ammunition.

It was during an official visit earlier this month to Mexico that he affirmed his support for a proposed international treaty that addresses "firearms trafficking."

According to a blogger who follows such issues, the treaty was adopted by President Clinton years ago, but never ratified by the U.S. Senate, a goal Obama now has adopted.

The answer is finally here to the real reason why guns and church must mix!

The writer, B.A. Lawson, says, "If you reload your own ammo you may find yourself engaged in 'Illicit Manufacturing' of ammunition under an arms control treaty that President Obama started pushing last week in Mexico."

"Virtually everyone who supports the 2nd Amendment or has an interest in firearms has heard the numerous recent reports of ammunition shortages. The shortages have extended to reloading supplies that many folks rely on to keep their shooting costs down or to assemble exotic or hard to find ammunition. Many shooters have considered reloading their own ammo as insurance against limited supplies should legislation be enacted that would make ammo more scarce or dramatically more expensive," the blogger continued.

"Those thoughts may be in vain if the current administration is successful in getting the 'INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS' treaty passed."

The treaty defines "Illicit manufacturing" as "the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials."

It then gives authority for that activity only with "a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place."

"The section … clearly identifies ammo reloaders that are not licensed by the government as 'Illicit Manufacturers' of ammunition. Now that we have reloaders properly labeled, lets move down to Article IV to see what we should do with them," the commentary said.

He then quotes Article IV, which states, "State 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."

"This is pretty straightforward. If you reload ammunition without a license after the treaty is signed you will be a criminal," Lawson wrote.

The National Rifle Association said the treaty "does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict 'lawful ownership and use' of firearms. Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S."

Even accessories "which can be attached to a firearm" are targeted.

"It would presumably also ban home manufacture of these items without a government license. Do you own trigger jobs? Reload your own ammunition? Not any more, not without a government license!"

The Examiner.com said such international gun restrictions are unacceptable.

John Velleco, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, notes the benefits for Obama of having such rules in treaties, not legislation.

"If ratified and the U.S. is found not to be in compliance with any provisions of the treaty – such as a provision that would outlaw reloading ammunition without a government license – President Obama would be empowered to implement regulations without congressional approval," he wrote.

"If the kind of 'change' that Obama wants is for the United States to take its marching orders from third world countries regarding our gun rights, we're in big trouble!"

[RevDisk]

Dunno if this article was posted before or if Word Net Daily is a credible source but it does point out that us reloaders may be in a world of hurt if its true.

Let me put it this way.  If WND says the sky is blue, you'd had double check that.  And then triple check just to make sure. 

Even by media standards, their accuracy is pretty dismal. 

[MechAg94]

I have heard this discussed as a potential bad thing elsewhere, but it was discussed as a backdoor assault weapons ban.  I have no doubt this is on someone's table somewhere, but until they talk about signing it, it probably isn't something to worry about.

[Gewehr98]

I got the same OMG, OHNOES email today, from an acquaintance who subscribes to my (non) favorite Wisconsin Gun Owner's organization. 

Blech.

It appears they're just parroting GOA.

http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/News_April212009_ObamaTreaty.cfm

[Lennyjoe]

Well, if Obama plans on trying to reintroduce the Inter American Arms Treaty of 1997 that Bill Clinton attempted to then we may be in a bit of a fight.  Good thing the Senate failed to Ratify the treaty back then.

One would assume that the "State" is defined as the countries that sign on to the treaty.  I could only imagine how the lefties would spin the wording in their favor though.

Here's a link to the treaty;

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/49907.htm

This section covers reloading;

ARTICLE I
Definitions



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

1. "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.

2. "Illicit trafficking": the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it.

[Matthew Carberry]

It also covers home assembly of firearms AND manufacturing of parts not considered a firearm if read literally.  So no more making parts, even, say, scopes, or assembling a parts gun in your garage without a formal license.

And per the text of the treaty the cross-border issue is completely separate from the licensing requirements, those apply within any signatory regardless of whether the weapon or ammo is intended for export.  It's like the Commerce Clause misread on steroids.

WND isn't a great source but this treaty is bad juju.  They aren't exaggerating one iota.

As with most treaties we haven't ratified, we as a nation already meet or exceed the actual relevent parts as far as controlling export activity in small arms and ammunition goes.  It was not ratified specifically because of the effect it would have on law-abiding activities within the nation.

[Leatherneck]

Oh, I think the threat this treaty would pose is real enough for us to be concerned.

Thankfully, primers, brass, powder and lead last virtually forever if cared for.

But the possession=felony is pretty draconian.

TC

[Waitone]

Propaganda is most effective when an assertion is "consistent" with past "proven or documented" facts.  Yeah, WND is suspect.  But a crackdown on reloading is perfectly consistent with past anti-second amendment initiatives.

So are we looking at reality or propaganda?  I vote reality.  A good indicator of reality will be if other outlets pick up the story and go with it.

[Leatherneck]

Waity, look around. The story of this treaty is viral on the 'net and a real potential threat.

I don't believe Congress would ratify, even if the Administration was stupid enough to let the president sign it. But it bears watching for sure.

TC

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So are we looking at reality or propaganda?  I vote reality.  A good indicator of reality will be if other outlets pick up the story and go with it.

Err on the side of caution.  Treat it as reality until there's a good reason not to.

[coppertales]

I guess going on that once in a lifetime pheasant hunt in Nebraska or duck hunt in North Dakota, or deer hunt in the UP of MI will soon be no go.  I wonder how the duck and deer hunting crowd is going to handle that one........chris3