Posted on 04/25/2009 7:51:00 AM PDT by AuntB
On April 16, 2009, President Obama emerged from a meeting with Mexico’s President Calderón to announce his support for the “Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms” treaty (CIFTA): an international gun control treaty signed by President Bill Clinton in 1997 but never ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Unlike Clinton, Obama has no plans to let the treaty languish without ratification. Thus he promised to push the treaty through the Senate quickly as a means of curtailing the border violence and arms trafficking in Mexico’s current drug wars. Yet the text of CIFTA indicates that the treaty would do very little to curtail violence in Mexico, unless creating a national gun registry in the United States is something that will cut crime south of the border.
For example, the preamble of the treaty describes “the urgent need for all states, and especially those states that produce, export, and import arms, to take the necessary measures to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms.” To accomplish this, the preamble calls for the “exchange of information” and “effective control of firearms [and] ammunition” between nations that sign treaty.
The “exchange of information” implies that our government would not simply have a gun registry that is nationally accessible, but internationally accessible as well.
When I contacted Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, about this aspect of the treaty, he said, “It would clear the way for imposing a national gun registry [and] would overturn the current prohibition on keeping centralized firearms records by the federal government.”
But this isn’t even the scariest part of the CIFTA. Once you get past the preamble, you see that another goal of the treaty is to ensure a special “marking" on “firearms…at the time of manufacturing.” Article VI of the treaty explicitly states that the purpose behind “marking” the weapon is to make “tracing the firearms” back to the store or firearm dealer who first sold the weapon easier (even if the dealer sold the weapon legally to someone who passed the NICS background check in the United States).
Lest we underestimate the danger of this aspect of treaty, note that Article XIII of the treaty calls for signatories to make available to other signatories the names of “authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.” In other words, even though your local gun-store owner sells his weapons legally by following all federal guidelines, any gun he sells that is taken across a border illegally could result in a knock on his door by international investigators. Making matters even worse, Article XIX of the treaty provides for “extradition” of those in violation of CIFTA.
Pratt was especially leery of this aspect of the treaty, saying: “Our government has [already] been doing all it can to reduce the number of firearms dealers [in this country]. CIFTA would make dealers vulnerable to extradition to such paradigms of due process as [exist in] Mexico.”
When HUMAN EVENTS contacted U.S Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) to get their views on the treaty, they were both emphatic on their commitment to defend the Second Amendment and U.S. sovereignty in matters relating to guns and gun ownership.
Cornyn said he was “concerned that the inter-American arms trafficking treaty may lead to infringement of our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms [without providing any] solution to…the problems occurring along the U.S.-Mexico border.” He said he “will vigorously oppose the ratification of any treaty that impinges on the constitutional rights of the American people affirmed by the Supreme Court last year.”
While Inhofe believes “violence in Mexico is no doubt expanding and must be firmly addressed,” he rejected the idea of addressing it though “a treaty that may be used to impose further restrictions on law-abiding citizens of the United States.” Inhofe also shared Pratt’s concern over what this treaty would mean for lawful firearms dealers in the United States. According to Inhofe: “CIFTA…is not aimed at the criminals. It is aimed at U.S. manufacturers who sell firearms legally to American citizens.”
Like Cornyn, Inhofe made it clear that he could “not support the ratification of CIFTA or any international treaty that places limitations on our constitutional rights.” He believes “our national sovereignty must be respected and…will not allow another country or international body to dictate our gun polices.”
So what does all this mean for freedom loving Americans? It means we need to be grateful for the work Cornyn and Inhofe (and others) are doing. But it also means we need to do our duty as informed citizens and act.
When President Obama asks the Senate to ratify CIFTA, we must call our Senators and implore them to oppose it.
Thank you Sen. Inhofe!
We better watch this one. If people pay attention, Obama and the Democrats are pushing many different programs through as fast as they can in the hopes the people will be overwhelmed and can’t react to all of them. You throw enough crap on the wall and some of it is bound to stick.
Thanks for the heads up AuntB. This is getting so out of hand. It seems to me that I read a thread the other night from a soldier, stationed here state side that said he was asked to fill out paperwork on his firearms.
So, it looks like they are already moving on it.
Thanks again!
NOTE: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
I agree whole heartedly here...they are moving very fast, because once 2010 comes, O knows he may not get the same backing he’s getting now.
These people are dispicable!
Why should we worry about Mexican violence, when they are the attack vehicle, even if unwitting, for terrorist-concocted avian/swine flu?
Hmm. Beginning with hillary, there was a whole string of politicians who said that the gun violence in Mexico was all our fault. It quickly spread to CNN, and although Fox News corrected the lies, the propaganda has continued.
My first thought was that this was some sort of self-blame game like all the others, and perhaps was intended to take the blame of violence off Mexico to improve chances of amnesty.
But it could also, as this suggests, be a roundabout attack on the Second Amendment. When our own laws won’t do the trick, these people often turn to international laws and treaties to do it for them instead.
I think this explains what that obviously orchestrated propaganda campaign was about.
We saw this again and again during the clinton years, what we called “talking points faxed from the White House basement.” A few media moguls would meet, the DCC or the clintons would fax out the talking points (now I imagine they use email or Blackberrires), and first thing you knew a freshly orchestrated propaganda campaign would burst out on the front pages and the evening news.
The media are continuing to weaken, but they still reach a lot more people than we do.
Obama is an Enemy of the Republic.
Sadly, using treaties as a back door around the Consitution has worked in the past.
You will need to watch the Bush family, on this one!!!
Clinton already put 70% of American gun dealers out of business. Now Herr Hussein will finish off the rest!
More here on gun making by hand tool. They copy anything, mark nothing. But this is probably not what the UN and ZERO mean, this is directed at ignorants in the USA.
Trans-nationalism, remember that word.
Always has been always will be.
**Obama is an Enemy of the Republic.**
could not have said it better!!!!
“Sadly, using treaties as a back door around the Consitution has worked in the past.”
It certainly has, BenLurkin.
The left is never able to take an issue head on. It must make end runs and indirect assaults on our rights and freedom. So by making ludicrous threats against sellers of firearms, leftists will further diminish our ability to purchase a gun, all the while claiming no intervention in our actual RIGHT to do so. It is dishonest and shameful, as are most avenues employed by criminals to overwhelm their prey. The time is coming when actual Americans will either take up arms and reclaim our freedom, or lose our rights forever to a tyrannical state.
excellent point
Here is what I sent via their Web Mail:
"PLEASE VOTE AGAINST:
“Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms” treaty (CIFTA): an international gun control treaty signed by President Bill Clinton in 1997 but never ratified by the U.S. Senate.
It has a great title for a treaty that would impinge upon the 2 nd Amendment.
Thanks"
Yes, this is their tactic for doing their end-runs around the Constitution. They don't support it, but they know WE do, so they put up all these APPARENT safety bills that are nothing but stabs to the heart of the Constitution, disguising their anti-Constitutional move under the guise of treaties and taxes, etc. I believe there is a reason why the Framers put Free Speech, Free Assembly, and Gun Rights at the TOP of the Bill of Rights.
If his weapons are registered, don't they already have the information? And if they are NOT, then it is NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT HIS whether he even has any.
BMFL
“BMFL”
I’m sorry, I don’t know what that means. Am I in trouble again?
It means “Book Mark For Later” - I am posting to the thread to be able to find it easily later. :D
Thanks!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.