Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Waitone on April 26, 2009, 04:52:09 PM
-
http://pagenine.typepad.com/
Alan Korwin has analyzed the treaty and has a few observations
Permission to circulate this report granted.
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
I'm not the least bit surprise it is more comprehensive than anything coming out of the legislative process.
-
No matter what the light-bringer wants, this treaty will not get ratified, even with the current Senate. Even they are smart enough (or have smart enough staffers) to realize this would crash on the rocks of recent RKBA decisions at SCOTUS (Heller).
TC
-
Actually, I think that depends on how daring they want to be. If it's decided that the World Court has standing of the USSC, then they might try for it.
-
Actually, I think that depends on how daring they want to be.
It takes a great deal of daring to be a socialist parasite: after all, we have a historical record nearly 200 years long that clearly demonstrates socialism is a failure in every way, shape, and form.
-
We should have realized long ago that "globalism" means cutting the Founding Fathers down to size. Well, the choice looms ahead.
-
Methinks someone needs to go make nice to the chinaman.
Y'all know the chinese curse, right? "May you live in interesting times"?
-
Leatherneck
No matter what the light-bringer wants, this treaty will not get ratified, even with the current Senate. Even they are smart enough (or have smart enough staffers) to realize this would crash on the rocks of recent RKBA decisions at SCOTUS (Heller).
If you examine how such "treaties" become "law" in multinational political unions, you will see that even the highest domestic courts are removed from the equation. The EU is a prime example.
-
Anyone who thinks this is about "legality" has failed to recognize that we are dealing with insane zealots. You can't reason with them.