Month: April 2009

CIFTA might be good ground for a fight with the Obama Adminsitration.   There’s enough crap in this treaty to scare the bejezes out of gun owners, but it is not self-executing.  This means if it’s ratified by the Senate, it will not change any current US gun laws.  Ratification would obligate Congress to pass implementing legislation, which are basically a body of laws that brings us into compliance with the treaty.  Now, most of this treaty requires actions we already do, and it leaves it up to the State Party to decide a lot of things.  But the treaty can be read as requiring a host of new restrictions we do not already have, as I outline in the link above.

I think it is incumbent on us to oppose this treaty’s ratification, because I think this is a can of worms we’d rather not open.  Keep in mind the courts have generally read the treaty power as being quite substinative, and might be more willing to defer to Congress on implementing legislation, should we challenge it in court under the Second Amendment.  But there’s a lot going for us in fighting a treaty too.  For one, it takes a vote of 2/3rds of the Senate, meaning Obama would have to get 67 senators to vote for the treaty.  That’s a tall order.  Second, it lets us get Senators who are up for election in 2010 further establish a record with gun owners.  And even if Obama does somehow manage to get 67 Senators to go along with this nonsense, we still haven’t lost yet.  We can set up a fight over all the implementing legislation too.

The other side of the coin is, much of the treaty’s substance reflects existing United States law, so a lot of Senators might feel it’s no big deal to vote for it, figuring a lot of our fears about how far this treaty could be taken in terms of implementation would be unfounded.  What we definitely don’t want, is for this treaty to be a rallying cry for the United States to change its gun laws.  This treaty could be a lot worse, but I see no reason to roll over for the Administration.  Let’s fight this one.

From NRA’s Office in Fairfax:

You can find the text of the treaty here.  Let’s take a look at the point of this treaty and see just how bad what Obama is advocating is.  This treaty is definitely a problem, especially for home manufactures, hand loaders, and accessory makers.  Let’s take a look at some of the provisions that should worry us.

The treaty bans “illicit”manufacturing” of firearms, defined as:

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.

This would seem to require a government license for home building, assembling from parts, and quite likely many types of repairs and customizations.  And here’s the really scary part, it defines “other related materials” this way: “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.”  This would make all people who make accessories that attach to a firearm to have a license.  It would presumably also ban home manufacture of these items without a government license.  Do you own trigger jobs?  Reload your own ammunition?   Not anymore, not without a government license!

It defines illegal trafficking as “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.”  This would not seem to affect any of these things happening exclusively within the domestic market.

It requires states to destroy seized firearms. “States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.”

It would seem to require some vague requirement for transport: “States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported from, or in transit through their respective territories.”

Here are the licensing requirements:

1. States Parties shall establish or maintain an effective system of export, import, and international transit licenses or authorizations for transfers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.
2. States Parties shall not permit the transit of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials until the receiving State Party issues the corresponding license or authorization.
3. States Parties, before releasing shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials for export, shall ensure that the importing and in-transit countries have issued the necessary licenses or authorizations.
4. The importing State Party shall inform the exporting State Party, upon request, of the receipt of dispatched shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

It’s hard to say how they expect this to be implemented.  It could, if interpreted strictly, make traveling internationally with a firearm impossible or next to impossible without expensive licenses.  We already have licenses required for commercial import or export, but personal import, export, or international transit has always been considered a separate matter.

It would seem to regulate carriage of weapons:

1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on matters such as:

a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;

This could mean your concealed carry records would be subject to being shared with foreign nations.  It doesn’t specify whether they mean carrier in the sense of guns, or common carrier, in the sense of shippers.  Do you trust the Mexican government with information about you?  I don’t.  I’d give the list about 10 minutes before someone bribes a Mexican official for the lists of American licensees.

I think this treaty fits in the framework of “very bad news.”  We have to fight this.

Obama has announced he will support the Inter-American Arms Treaty:

The treaty requires countries to take a number of steps to reduce the illegal manufacture and trade in guns, ammunition and explosives.

In addition to making illegal the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms, the treaty calls for countries to adopt strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a cooperative process for sharing information between national law-enforcement agencies investigating arms smuggling.

Licensing requirements?  Unauthorized manufacture?  The answer to this, from the Senate, better not be no.  It needs to be “HELL NO!”  If Harry Reid even peeps that he’ll back this, I can guarantee he will be target numero uno in 2010.  He’s already facing a tough race.