"Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials."
(not enough space in a message subject field for all that... d* )
I have not heard a whisper of this in the mainstream. But according to Gun Owner's of America this would be a nasty thing if our Senate ever went along with it.
http://gunowners.org/a042109.htm (http://gunowners.org/a042109.htm)
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."
Thoughts? ???
from another source...
The treaty itself is not new. It was written back in the 90's and signed by President Clinton, but never ratified by the U.S. senate. According to an AP article from Mexico City last week "Administration officials say President Barack Obama will push for Senate ratification of a Latin American arms trafficking treaty."
The second amendment was made to put the fear into the politicians if they became criminals. Looks like it is working.
It is criminal for them to even suggest such a thing. Tons of bullets are on backorder for months and months at suppliers such as Sportsman's guide.. Bass Pro was half to 2/3 empty.
Outrageous things like this are the reason. The people have about had it.
just purchased(today) 1,000 rds of 223 ammo from midway for under for $516 inc. shipping for my new bushmaster. also bought a rem 870 home defender, 12 ga. been building up on food, ammo and other supplies just in case. i am sending photos to glen to post of new house and interior work plus other things.
i don't trust these bastards in office(as opposed to the other bastards in office).
no one listens to there constiuancy(sp?) anymore.
ernest t. bass, any land deals up where you live?
I think the really detrimental issue here is if a treaty is made with any Latin American country that would trump the constitution. And it's this that has me looking at Obama who isn't pushing for a law, but rather a treaty. Am I right on this?
Any treaty signed by a president requires a 2/3 majority vote of the senate to become ratified.
But a treaty still trumps the constitution, correct?
Yes it does, once ratified. At least that's what I've understood.
In practice I'd say it can't trump the constitution be cause the second amendment reads " shall not be infringed". Therefore any action the government might take that would infringe on the right to keep and bare arms would be unconstitutional. In reality though they could care less about the constitution and will do what they want.
Gotta go to work; have to dig deeper on that. ???
US Constitution
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
... no amendments to change that...
There it is, all treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land."
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=6870.0