Next battle for the 2nd Amendment Obama wants senate to ratify CIFTA

[jody]

CIFTA (Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials)

US: Obama Supports an Inter-American Arms Treaty

Obama said during a late-afternoon press conference in Mexico City April 16 that he will seek U.S. Senate ratification of an inter-American arms trafficking treaty that is designed to curb the flow of illegal firearms and ammunition to drug cartels and other armed groups operating in the Western Hemisphere.

* * * * * * * * * * *

The Organization of American States (OAS) adopted the international convention on November 14, 1997, and the Clinton administration signed the treaty after that. The treaty is formally known as the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials — it is known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA. The White House submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate on June 9, 1998, but it has not yet been ratified by the Senate.

U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, have asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to take up and pass the pact as a way to help stem a recent escalation in violence from Mexican drug cartels. In addition, Feinstein also sent a letter to the president, urging him to support ratification.

The convention helps members of the Organization of American States combat the illicit trade in firearms that fuels drug violence, terrorism and organized crime, the senators said in a prepared statement. It requires signatories to criminalize the illegal manufacture and sale of weapons and establishes a marking and licensing system for the export and import of firearms.

If it affects the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and Dianne Feinstein supports it, it has to be an attempt to infringe upon a right protected by our Constitution.

Feinstein is known for her statement, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." (U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, CBS-TV's "60 Minutes, 2/5/95)

This is another opportunity for Obama to promise voters “I will veto any bill that renews the Assault Weapons Ban” and add to it “I oppose ratification of CIFTA because it would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

[sinkingfeeling]

1. And that threatens the second amendment how?

[gcomeau]

2. It says something about guns..

...and it involves a law of some kind... therfore Red Alert!!!!!

At least that's what the reasoning appears to be. Myself, I have absolutely no freaking clue how the hell requiring a licensing system to try to help curb the already illegal imports and exports of guns has the vaguest damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.

[Lasher]

3. Treaties

The backdoor legislative process.

[Jackson1999]

4. Why the opposition?

Jody,

Please give me a reason not to support this. I mean, we already license the import and export of arms, don't we? I am a hardcore 2A liberal Dem as there is, but on the surface I don't see anything wrong with this (then again, maybe I am missing something). If it doesn't infringe on my rights, and gives Obama some political cover, then I say go for it.

Again, there might be something in the treaty I am missing.

[jody]

5. Treaty requires "marking and licensing system for the export and import of firearms" that is a cover

for a gun registry that is nationally and internationally accessible.

I did a google search and found the following quotes informative.

{Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America in an interview}
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.

* * * * * * * * * *

{Senator} 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 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 {Senator} 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.”

[X_Digger]

7. "marking and licensing system for the export and import of firearms"

..for import and export. We are already required to have serial numbers on new weapons, and anyone manufacturing weapons to sell are required to register.

[aikoaiko]

13. the treaty calls for signatories to make available to other signatories the names of ..

....carriers of firearms. Does that mean someone like myself who is permitted to carry a firearm or is this language specific to some other meaning?

[Jackson1999]

15. Naw-the more i look at this, the more I like it.

Look, I know everyone get's nervous when O even says the word "gun", but put this in some perspective. If anything it would help the US. I have a tiny bit of familiarization with these things. This is how I see this being used, if ever. These are a few examples of how this will likely be used.

1. Mexico LEO asks to be trained by the ATF in the identification of firearms under the terms of the treaty.
2. ATF says (behind closed doors) "look Mexico, if you are going to say 90% all the time, you've got to give us access to all the weapons you've confiscated. See, you said you would in the treaty."
3. It is used as leverage against countries like Venezuela. If they want to get cozy with the US, it could be one of the pre-requisites.
4. It gives political cover to countries like Columbia when the ATF says they want to come in to lend their expertise to identifying where the guns are coming from. (many in LA, are, of course wary when US LEO sets foot in their country).

[aikoaiko]

17. I'm not opposed to those aspects of the treaty, but some of that language in that article is scary

like the part I quoted about providing the names of carriers of firearms. I want to know if that means me.

I really need to read the damn thing in its entirety before commenting.

[X_Digger]

16. Not sure 'carriers' means end users..

The text in the original was 'transportistas autorizados de armas de fuego', or authorized carriers of firearms. 'carriers' could be shippers.

Of course, in the section before that..

Article XIII (‘‘Exchange of Information’’) requires, in paragraph 1,
that the States Parties exchange among themselves, in conformity
with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant
information on matters such as authorized producers, dealers,
importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers, of firearms,
ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

We don't give out that information by law, so not too worried.

[aikoaiko]

18. yes, that would make sense.

I need to read the thing.

[X_Digger]

6. Looks like a tempest in a teapot..

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:td049.pdf

The Convention will not require implementing legislation for the United States. As further discussed below, the existing body of federal laws in the United States is adequate to satisfy the Convention’s provisions regarding requirements for legislation, and the other provisions contained in the Convention are self-executing and will not require new legislation.

The Convention includes a Preamble, thirty articles and an Annex. The Preamble makes clear that the Convention is intended to address the problem of transnational trafficking in firearms, and is not meant to regulate the internal firearms trade of the States Parties. The Preamble expressly recognizes, for example, that the Convention ‘‘does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession or trade of a wholly domestic character. . . .’’

The above link is the treat with additional information.

[jeepnstein]

9. Usually is.

The political environment is just so charged right now that neither side is really in a mood for taking prisoners.

What I want to know is "what does the United States get out of all of this?" Seriously, what's in it for us? I understand we need to express concern over the violence in Mexico. Will this treaty do a single thing to change the facts on the ground or is it just something to create an illusion of progress?

[X_Digger]

12. For us, just looks like more 'feel good' measures. n/t

[FudaFuda]

8. People who reload their own ammunition are very freaked out by this

All 'manufacturing' of guns and ammo would fall under the aegis of the treaty - I don't currently reload my own ammunition, but I'm a target shooter so it is something I plan to get into, because handloaded ammo is more accurate than commercial. But I'm registered at a couple gun boards, and I've seen the latest butt-pucker panic posts over this. Reloading hobbyists read this treaty as requiring a 'manufacturer's license' in order to legally reload ammunition. And that's assuming the treaty and the government would allow licenses to individuals that do their own reloading.

The reloading issue is real political poison, because it is a step off the beaten path of the usual attack on the assault weapon fans and instead moves into a branch of the firearms hobby populated by old geezers with bolt-action rifles who reload for greater accuracy, to save some money over the cost of commerical ammo, and for target competitions.

I don't know if the reloading hobbyists who are riled up about this are correct about the effect the treaty would have - I'm just relaying what I've seen on a couple gun boards, mostly to respond to the poster above who asked "how does this affect the 2nd am??"

Gun owners do sometimes get a little too panicky over every little piece of anti-gun legislation that comes along, but they probably wouldn't be so panicky if there weren't so damned many attempts at whittling away at gun ownership.

[Jackson1999]

10. No reason to freak

I am just having a hard time getting all riled up over this one. This is really targeted at countries like Venezuela.

[aikoaiko]

11. I was under the impression that all commericial guns made or sold in the US had to have a serial #?

If we are already meeting this standard, why would we need to sign this treaty?

[Jackson1999]

14. To show people we are "doing something"

I think it's not a bad move by Obama. He gets to show action on the issue and I still don't see how it affects anyone here. It doesnt have the force of law, and it specifically says that nothing in the treaty can override a countries' current laws. If you are reloading for personal use, then don't worry about it. If you are buying powder by the ton to reload as a commercial enterprise, then the ATF would already have you in their sites.

GOA is going to make a big deal out of this purely because the NRA is not. NRA has been riding high lately (thanks to the gun control folks). So they are just trying to whip something up to say that the NRA is soft on guns.

deep breath.

[Jackson1999]

19. The final reason all DU Gunners should like this treaty....

Because all the paranoid "Obama is the Anti-Christ" wing-nuts on the other gun blogs are flipping out thinking that black helicopters are going to swoop down on them because they are reloading shotgun shells. As a liberal Democrat gun owning Obama supporter, I at times feel a little "dirty" because I agree with so much on gun rights.

Refreshing to have a little differentiation ;-)

[jeepnstein]

20. I haven't...

had the tinfoil hat on since the passing of the so-called "Patriot" act and the run up to the Iraq War. Those were two times I really felt my Country slipping away. Still, I don't trust the government when they start messing with any of my Civil Liberties.

[one-eyed fat man]

22. I think you are right

The last administration and its acolytes in most of the mainstream media beat the drum concerning "Saddam and weapons of mass destruction"

Now there is a media blitz about "Mexican cartels and weapons of US construction."

What changed?

[Howzit]

21. Would this be the first of a series of UN treaties to regulate US gun ownership?

http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

MINDFUL of the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on measures to eradicate the illicit transfer of conventional weapons and on the need for all states to guarantee their security, and of the efforts carried out in the framework of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD);

[Taitertots]

23. Obama to my knowledge has never seen

a gun control program he didn't like. I would really like someone to find a clip of him being against some level of gun control. Not the generic "I won't take your guns", but "DC gun ban was unconstitutional" or "The second amendment protects an individuals right to bear arms and I will do nothing to infringe it."

Chicago, DC, and California are all fine by him.

[Hoopla Phil]

24. Is this the treaty that could affectively ban the home re-loading of ammo?

[X_Digger]

25. So some claim..

..the jury's still out from more level-headed commentators.