The Obama Administration’s Offensive Against 2nd Amendment
Welcome to the United Nations.
It's your world!
Strengthening Peace And Security Through
Disarmament
For when they shall
say, Peace and safety (Peace
And Security Through Disarmament); then
sudden destruction cometh upon them and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of
the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall
be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth
distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's
hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are
coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken... So
likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom
of God is nigh at hand
(Luke 21:24-32).
UNODA
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
...Strengthening Peace And Security Through
Disarmament
Aug. 09, 2009
Welcome to the United Nations. It's your world!
Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking
In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Materials
UNODA: United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
...stengthening peace and security through disarmament
http://disarmament.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf
Reaffirming the
principles of sovereignty, nonintervention, and the juridical equality of
States,
HAVE DECIDED TO ADOPT THIS INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION
AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS,
AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS:
Article I
Definitions
For the purposes of this
Convention, the following definitions shall apply:
1. "Illicit manufacturing": 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.
2. "Illicit trafficking": 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.
3. "Firearms":
a. any barreled weapon which
will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a bullet or
projectile by the action of an explosive, except antique firearms
manufactured before the 20th Century or their replicas; or
b. any other weapon or
destructive device such as any explosive, incendiary or gas bomb, grenade,
rocket, rocket launcher, missile, missile system, or mine.
4. "Ammunition": the complete
round or its components, including cartridge cases, primers, propellant
powder, bullets, or projectiles that are used in any firearm.
5. "Explosives": any substance
or article that is made, manufactured, or used to produce an explosion,
detonation, or propulsive or pyrotechnic effect, except:
a. substances and articles that
are not in and of themselves explosive; or
b. substances and articles
listed in the Annex to this Convention.
6. "Other related materials":
any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which
can be attached to a firearm.
7. "Controlled delivery": the
technique of allowing illicit or suspect consignments of firearms,
ammunition, explosives, and other related materials to pass out of, through,
or into the territory of one or more states, with the knowledge and under
the supervision of their competent authorities, with a view to identifying
persons involved in the commission of offenses referred to in Article IV of
this Convention.
THE OAS TREATY
—BLUEPRIINT FOR DISMANTLING THE SECOND AMENDMENT
"Administration support for a dangerous international treaty shows its disdain for the Constitution and America’s law-abiding gun owners."
Aug, 9 2009
By Dave Kopel
America's 1st Freedom
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/oas-treaty.htm
The Obama administration’s offensive against the Second Amendment has begun (see Why Would The Second Amendment Need To Be Redefined?). As was predicted, the strategy uses international law to create a foundation for repressive and extreme gun control. The mechanism is an international treaty, the “Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials.” If the plan succeeds, police sales of confiscated firearms would be prohibited, and anyone who reloads ammunition at home would need a federal license. In addition, the treaty would create an international law requirement that almost every American firearm owner be licensed as if he were a manufacturer.
Founded in 1948, the Organization of American States (OAS) includes all of the independent nations of the Western Hemisphere (Cuba’s participation has been suspended since 1962). In 1997, President Clinton signed a gun control treaty, which had been negotiated by OAS. Subsequently, neither he nor President George W. Bush sent the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. The treaty is commonly known as “CIFTA,” for its Spanish acronym, Convención Interamericana Contra La Fabricación Y El Tráfico Ilícitos De Armas De Fuego, Municiones, Explosivos Y Otros Materiales Relacionados. The document is called a “convention” rather than a “treaty” because “convention” is a term of art for a multilateral treaty created by a multinational organization.
At the OAS meeting in April 2009, President Obama said that he would send CIFTA to the U.S. Senate and urge ratification. The White House claimed that the convention was merely an expression of international goodwill, and that it had been negotiated with the participation of the National Rifle Association. Both statements were false. In the United States, it is common for police and sheriffs’ departments to sell confiscated firearms to federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs). The FFLs then resell the guns to lawful consumers. Of course, when any FFL sells a gun to a customer, the sale must be approved by the National Instant Check System, or its state equivalent. Police and sheriff sales of confiscated guns would be outlawed by CIFTA which mandates: “State 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.”
Another target of CIFTA is reloading. The millions of Americans who reload include competitive target shooters, hunters, trainers who want to craft milder ammunition for beginners and many other hobbyists who enjoy making things themselves and saving money. Due to the present shortage of ammunition, more and more people are taking up reloading—so many that reloading equipment manufacturers are having difficulty keeping their products in stock. Reloading is entirely lawful in every state, and no state requires a specific permit for those reloading ammunition. CIFTA, however, declares that “illicit manufacturing” is the “manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials” that takes place without “a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place.”
Thus, either the federal government or all 50 state governments would have to enact legislation to impose reloading licenses, and to define unlicensed reloading as crime. According to Article IV of CIFTA, “State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) charges $10 per year for a license to manufacture most ammunition. Also under existing law, the premises of firearms and ammunition manufacturers may be inspected without notice once per year by the BATFE, and an unlimited number of times in cases involving a criminal investigation. Thus, anyone who reloads ammunition would be taxed and subject to home inspection by the federal government.
Reloaders are not the only ones who would be required to have a manufacturing license. So would every company or individual that makes any part of a firearm or an accessory. In fact, so would almost every firearm owner in the nation. CIFTA Article I requires licensing for the manufacture of “other related materials.” These are defined as “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.” That definition straightforwardly includes all spare firearm parts. It also includes accessories that are attached to firearms, such as scopes, ammunition magazines, sights, recoil pads, bipods and slings. Current U.S. law requires a license to manufacture a firearm, with a “firearm” being defined as the receiver—no federal license is needed to make other parts of a firearm, such as barrels or stocks.
But CIFTA’s plain language requires federal licensing of the manufacturers and sellers of barrels, stocks, screws, springs and everything else that is used to make firearms. Likewise, the manufacture of all accessories—such as scopes, sights, lasers, slings, bipods and so on—would have to be licensed. In the United States, the manufacture of a firearm or ammunition for one’s personal use does not require a license, since the licensing requirements apply to persons who “engage in the business” by engaging in repeated transactions for profit. (18 U.S. Code sect. 923(a).) Yet CIFTA would require licensing for everyone. Many, perhaps most, firearm owners occasionally tinker with their guns. They might replace a worn-out spring, or install a better barrel. Or they might add accessories such as a scope, a laser aiming device, a recoil pad or a sling. All of these simple activities would require a government license. The CIFTA definition of “Illicit manufacturing” is “the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.”
Even if putting an attachment on a firearm were not considered in itself to be “assembly,” the addition of most components necessarily requires some assembly; for example, scope rings consist of several pieces that must be assembled. Replacing one grip with another requires, at the least, the use of screws. Because the definition of “manufacturing” is so broad, nearly all gun owners would eventually be required to obtain a manufacturing license. CIFTA mandates that “State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials …the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses.”
Yet the preamble of CIFTA says: “this Convention does not commit State Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character.” Does the preamble negate the comprehensive licensing system that CIFTA demands? Not really. The exemptions are for “ownership, possession, or trade.” There is no exemption for “manufacturing.” As detailed above, “manufacturing” is defined broadly enough as to include the home manufacture of ammunition, as well as repair of one’s own firearm, or assembling an accessory for attachment to one’s firearm. Notably, even if CIFTA were read so that the “does not commit” language also pertained to manufacturing, there is nothing that prevents a state party from choosing to enact manufacturing regulations.
The
nations that have ratified CIFTA so far have not necessarily fully
implemented the literal requirements of language regarding firearms and
related material manufacturing. It is hardly unusual for nations to make a
show of ratifying a treaty, but then do little to carry out the treaty’s
requirements. However, in a culture such as the United States, with a strong
commitment to the rule of law, CIFTA might have greater practical effect. If
ratified by the Senate, CIFTA would become the law of the land. Would the
BATFE then be empowered to write regulations implementing the
convention—without waiting for Congress to pass a new statute? If a treaty
is “self-executing,” then it is an independent source of authority for
domestic regulations. By traditional views of international law, CIFTA is
not self-executing, since its language anticipates that ratifying
governments will have to enact future laws to comply with CIFTA.
On the other hand, CIFTA does not explicitly declare itself to be non-self-executing. Harold Koh, who has been nominated as legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State, has challenged the doctrine of “so-called self-executing treaties” and argues that the Supreme Court decisions creating the doctrine are incorrect. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2360-61, 2383-84; see also 35 University of California at Davis Law Review, page 1111 n. 114; 35 Houston Law Review, page 666.) Rather, Koh writes, legislatures “should ratify treaties with a presumption that they are self-executing.” Further, domestic courts should “construe domestic statutes consistently with international law” and “should employ international human rights norms to guide interpretation of domestic constitutional norms.” (106 Yale Law Journal, page 2658 n. 297.) As detailed in last month’s issue of America’s 1st Freedom, Koh considers stringent gun control to be a very important international human right (July 2009, p. 32).
In Koh’s view, even when Congress has not created a statute to implement a treaty, courts should recognize a right of private plaintiffs to bring lawsuits under the treaty. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2383-84.) Thus, Koh and his allies could argue that Senate ratification of CIFTA trumps the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which outlaws abusive lawsuits against gun manufacturers and stores. Suppose that the Senate, when ratifying CIFTA, added specific reservations declaring that CIFTA is not self-executing, that CIFTA authorizes no additional regulations and that CIFTA does not authorize any new lawsuits. The United States executive branch, under Koh’s guidance, might ignore the reservations. When the Senate added a reservation to another treaty, Koh wrote, “Many scholars question persuasively whether the United States declaration has either domestic or international legal effect.” (111 Harvard Law Review, pages 1828-29 n. 24.)
Ultimately, the question of whether BATFE can promulgate regulations under CIFTA might be decided in court cases. One way for a court to resolve the issue would be to acknowledge that federal statutes already authorized regulation of manufacturing, and that CIFTA, as the latter-enacted law, simply expanded the definition of manufacturing so that the licensing requirement now applies to persons who are not engaged in the firearm business, and to manufacture or assembly of firearms attachments and spare parts. It is not hard to foresee Obama-appointed federal judges upholding massive new BATFE gun control regulations, especially when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the State Department’s top legal adviser (Harold Koh) insist to the courts that the expanded federal regulations are necessary for the United States to comply with its international law obligations.
CIFTA does not specifically require gun registration. But once you impose manufacturing licenses, registration comes along for the ride. Existing federal regulations for manufacturers of firearms and ammunition require that manufacturers keep records of all products they produce, and these records must be available for government inspection. Thus, those who reload ammunition would have to keep records of every round they made, and gun owners would have to keep a record of everything they “assembled” (e.g., putting a scope on a rifle). These records would then be open to BATFE inspection.
Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., (formerly a gun criminal for the terrorist group The Black Panthers), introduced H.R. 45, to set up a national licensing and registration system for handguns and for self-loading long guns. As implemented under the direction of President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and State Department legal adviser Koh, CIFTA could go even further—it also covers ammunition reloading as well as long guns that are not semi-automatic. Further, CIFTA could be used to impose national licensing, registration and taxation of gun owners without members of Congress having to cast a vote that explicitly creates such laws. Indeed, because treaties need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate (but this is termed a convention), yet need no approval from the House of Representatives, the House could be cut out of the law-making process altogether.
CONCLUSION:
In order for the Anti-Christ to govern his global government, a few conditions need to be in place. Among such conditions: Individuals cannot be able to protect themselves. The world must be at an advanced stage of globalization and one world currency. Society must be conditioned to accept genocide of people who do not conform to the new global order of the Anti-Christ. Hence, major blocks of sovereign states are federalizing and forming common currency. The EU uses the Euro, the African Union is planning for the Golden Mandela currency, the South American Union is in the formulation stages and merging their markets for the next step to a common currency. Asia is in the planning stages for a common market. The US, Canada, and Mexico are using the NAFTA agreement to form a federalized union with a common currency based on the EU model.
Why should the US Supreme Court debate the meaning of the Second Amendment, when it is not debatable, and clear as English? The outcome is criminalization of gun ownership. The next step in the march toward the Anti-Christ’s global government and Armageddon. A repressive government cannot have citizens saying no to their evil laws and having the ability to back up their decision to not follow an evil regime. When America loses her Second Amendment freedom, the Anti-Christ has one giant hurdle taken out of his way. Once America loses the right to keep and bear arms, the last of the gun bearing nations of the earth will follow in quick succession. The last of the 10 Union Federations of common states with their common currency will form quickly. Government genocide (whether secretive or open) will be accepted by the decreasing masses as needful for the greater common global good. The justification will state mother earth is out of balance and global warming is causing all sorts of diseases, natural phenomenon, and starvation.
...he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits (Dan. 11:30-32).
_____________________________________
Are you saved? Are you ready for the tribulation to come? Are you headed to hell without hope and God?
Click here to go to our salvation page and learn how you can become born-again and live eternally.