Lou Dobbs had a segment that re-aired yesterday which should scare the crap out of those of you who believe, as I do, that the 2nd Amendment is not a right that can be brushed away so easily…..it’s about CIFTA. A little known treaty that Obama wants ratified that is major….MAJOR gun control:
Alan Corwin has done a great job of detailing the specifics of the treaty:
- 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.
All this under the guise that guns from our country make up a huge percentage of the weapons used by drug cartels in Mexico…..lies, as Rep. Tancredo pointed out:
The ambassador says Americans are to blame for the violence wrecked on his country by the Mexican drug cartels because “most of the guns confiscated by Mexican police can be traced back to the United States.” That is not true, but the way that claim has been accepted by American politicians and the mainstream media raises suspicions about a hidden agenda.
We can almost forgive the Mexican ambassador for being confused when the United States agency responsible for enforcing our gun laws, the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, has made so many contradictory statements on the matter. ATFE Assistant Director William Hoover told Congress last year that 90% of the weapons seized in Mexico crime scenes can be traced to gun sales in the US.
The problem is that 90% number isn’t true. Yet, that hasn’t kept it from being picked up and used by members of Congress, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and, of course, Mexican officials like Ambassador Sarukhan who are eager to blame the US for Mexico’s problems.
The 90% number reported by Hoover came from a small group of weapons turned over to the U.S. for tracing, but they were by no means all of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities. A spokesman for the ATFE, Matt Allen, has now “clarified” the number and admitted that only 17% of the weapons found at crime scenes in Mexico have been traced to the U.S. Ironically, while Mexican officials have freely used the 90% number from the ATFE, they have not themselves made such a charge based on their own numbers. The truth is, they know better.
Another shredding of our Constitution moment from our President. But wait a minute? A treaty cannot supersede our Constitution right?
Your right……but the way our courts are headed, do you want to trust this will never change? Alan tackles this issue:
Numerous attorneys and others wrote to challenge my position in Page Nine #63 that Mr. Obama’s run-around gun treaty could conveniently bypass the legislative process and the Constitution, like John M. says here:
“While your item in “Page 9″ about Congress and the Obamanation Administration using an Inter-American Treaty on ‘arms trafficking’ to do an end-run around the Second Amendment is certainly scary, I’m not ready to concede (as you appear to do) that a treaty supersedes the Constitution under Article VI.”
He goes on to describe why Art. VI and other safeguards will protect us.
Many people went into greater detail. Cases were cited (Reid v. Covert; Missouri v. Holland; Whitney v. Robinson; Cherokee Tobacco). One high-placed lobbyist felt fairly safe because:
“While an international treaty bypasses House consideration, it requires two-thirds of the Senate for ratification – a tall order even in ObamaNation.”
Other people were less sure, like Chuck G. here:
“I’m still up in the air about it as I’ve heard all my life exactly what you stated.”
I too always heard what he had heard — treaties supersede the Constitution — and always thought it odd. Go read Article VI, cl. 2 yourself. The language is crystalline. One attorney at a high-profile think tank believes:
“The federal government will have arguable legal authority to seize our guns and ammunition if this treaty is signed.”
So…
1. Opinions on the supremacy issue are inconsistent (though often adamant).
2. People who say the treaty won’t be a problem point to a number of SCOTUS decisions, and perhaps stare decisis. Maybe that makes those folks fully comfortable with where Mr. Obama is heading on this. Less so for me.
3. SCOTUS precedents are increasingly ignored by those in power, with groovy rationalizations each time. And SCOTUS decisions have so eviscerated key elements of the Constitution, my faith there is shaken, not stirred.
4. The courts, which should provide more balance, a) don’t, b) are run by the very people they’re supposed to balance, and c) all too often use the completely worthless rational-basis test, knowing it’s worthless, to allow every short-of-insane law to stand.
5. Given a choice of support for gun-rights or outright gun bans, we know which way this administration will go.
6. Four of the current SCOTUS Justices have expressed interest in defining U.S. law from foreign sources, leaving us one vote away from a new understanding of the supremacy clause.
7. Perhaps the biggest issue, though, making all else moot, is that new regs you can easily forecast coming from this treaty will be portrayed as a) required by international law so we’re only doing what’s right, b) required by Article VI however you like to read it, c) consistent with precedent, and most of all, d) not violative of the Second Amendment so no big deal.
After all, if, for instance, every home reloading enthusiast simply has to get a government license, pay an annual tax called a “fee,” pass a test, accept “routine” BATFE searches without notice like FFLs must, and keep detailed records so government can fulfill its obligation to track all guns and ammo, backed up with threats of prison time for paperwork errors or a miscount of a single round, what’s wrong with that?
Besides, you have an attorney general to protect you who’s on record saying a ban on any working firearm in your own home is acceptable under 2A, so, what me worry?
You have a choice: assume the treaty won’t be a problem, the supremacy clause will void any abuse and just let Mr. Obama enact the treaty, or remain a bit more skeptical of this man’s motives. Choose wisely.
Scary scary stuff.
See author page