Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Chatting and General Stuff > General Discussion

General Discussion Must wear red or OD green socks to participate. I can't see your socks, please be honest.


Reply

Please Read

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-22-2009, 08:58 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 24
Please Read

I found this today and may be behind on this but I read alot on here but I have not seen it anywhere I may have overlooked it if so sorry. Need to look at Gunowners.org and see what it says about obama trying to ban reloading.Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading
-- Even BB guns could be on the chopping block

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who “wasn’t going to take away our guns”?

Well, guess what?

Less than 100 days into his administration, he’s never met a gun he didn’t hate.

A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn’t have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn’t keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners.

It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?

1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition ... without a license....”

Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit -- is clearly “illicit manufacturing.”

Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing.” And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of “illicit manufacturing.”

2. “Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition.

“[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty -- and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined.

So, is a BB gun a “firearm”? Probably.

A toy gun? Possibly.

A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.

If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning gun clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US gun dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances.

We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico to define offenses “committed in its territory” in a very broad way. And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.

Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through “other means of peaceful settlement.”

Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision in a pro-gun manner?

* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.

ACTION: Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I am urging you, in the strongest terms, to oppose the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

This anti-gun treaty was written by international bureaucrats who are either stupid or virulently anti-gun -- or both.

This treaty could very well ban the ability to reload ammunition, to put new stocks on rifles lawfully owned by American citizens, and, possibly, even ban BB guns!

There are too many problems with this treaty to mention them all in this letter. The rest can be read on the website of Gun Owners of America at:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0901.htm
Please do not tell me the treaty has not yet been abused in this way by the bevy of Third World countries which have signed it. We do not expect the real ramifications of the treaty to become clear until the big prize -- the U.S. -- has stepped into the trap.

For all of these reasons, I must insist that you oppose ratification of the treaty.

Sincerely,

Last edited by barkley; 04-24-2009 at 10:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-23-2009, 05:16 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Great Falls, MT
Posts: 3,956
Re: Please Read

Quote:
Originally Posted by barkley View Post
I found this today and may be behind on this but I read alot on here but I have not seen it anywhere I may have overlooked it if so sorry. Need to look at Gunowners.org and see what it says
???
__________________

I voted for my "FREEDOM", "GUNS", and "MONEY" - keep the change - UNK.



"I am always proud of my country!"

"Leadership Rule #2: Don't be an @zzhole." - Maj Gen Burton Field.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: Please Read
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Every one should read ourway77 Politics Of Hunting And Guns (NOT General Politics) 5 07-03-2010 07:49 AM
Bad Read philny1 Humor 1 12-11-2007 03:13 PM
Don't believe everything you read Geezer Reloading 10 01-22-2007 10:37 AM
this one every one should read col48 General Discussion 0 12-23-2006 02:05 PM

Current Poll
Are you on Facebook?
Yes - 46.64%
1,000 Vote
No - 18.89%
405 Votes
No, but I may join - 1.87%
40 Votes
No way, are you kidding? - 36.57%
784 Votes
Total Votes: 2,144
You may not vote on this poll.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC