Obama using treaties with foreign powers to enact domestic ‘gun control’

April 17, 2010

David Codrea

On Wednesday, I included mention of a New York Times piece by Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, where he was stumping for the UN Firearms Protocol. You’ll note the link is hosted by IANSA, the International Action Network on Small Arms.

Per FrontPage Magazine:

“IANSA is the official coordinator of non-governmental organizations’ involvement in the UN small arms process. Its sources of funding include the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute.”

It’s director, Rebecca Peters, isn’t satisfied with just regulating guns:

She also raised the gun prohibition specter explicitly, recommending the outright prohibition of semi-automatic and automatic rifles and declaring that “(M)any States already prohibit the civilian possession of light weapons, and this should be recognised in the paragraph devoted to light weapons control.”

Peters, you must understand, said this in response to concerns about “Britons who had lost their right to compete with modern rifles and handguns”:

That’s just too bad, Peters said. “So get another hobby,” she advised.

Further, IANSA is backed by The Parliamentary Forum on Small Arms and Light Weapons which, “strongly recommend[ed] that governments prohibit the civilian possession and use of all light weapons and automatic and semi-automatic rifles and machine guns.”

“ALL light weapons…”

This is not the place to dissect the UN Firearms Protocol except to call your attention to provisions such as Article 3(d)(ii), which would appear to make the very popular and economical practice of reloading ammunition without a government license illegal:

“Illicit manufacturing” shall mean the manufacturing or assembly of firearms, their parts and components or ammunition…Without a licence or authorization from a competent authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place…

As for other impacts, I’m hoping this column will spur some dialog with those conversant in legalese and in defending our right to keep and bear arms. For instance, if ratified, how would the protocol impact our currently legal practice of a “non-licensee” being able to make a personal firearm that is not for sale?

One thing’s for sure: We know what IANSA’s end game is. Why would we allow them to establish an invasive beachhead from which they can conduct their next assault on our freedoms?

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again…

So far, it looks like the UN Protocol has stalled. For now. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the gun grabbers, it’s they’re like salivating weasels trying to get into a chicken coop. If one entry is blocked, they’ll try to nose out another.

Which is why Barack Obama’s pledge on Thursday during his Mexican trip to…well here. I’ll let The Washington Post tell you:

Obama announced that he will push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms-trafficking treaty.

Which treaty?

This one.

The same concerns I expressed about the UN Protocol apply to the regional agreement. I wrote about it yesterday on my WarOnGuns blog, and see Kurt Hofmann features it today in his St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. If you’re interested in protecting your rights, you’d do well to explore these links and see what those who would abridge them are conspiring to do.

And there’s something else about the WaPo story I just have to point out: The political left is making great noise about Obama backing away from a new “assault weapons” ban–obviously so they can ridicule and dismiss people who warn against it as paranoids. Keeping yesterday’s observations about “imminence” in mind, we can’t let that distract us from his clear and oft-stated intent:

But Obama indicated that while he favors reinstating the U.S. ban on assault weapons, which Congress allowed to expire five years ago, the move would face too much political opposition to happen soon.

Like Dianne Feinstein admitted, they’re just waiting for the right time, the right circumstances…

And you’ll note in order to do that, he’s still promoting the 90% lie…?

OK, are we done yet? Treaties bore me…

Sorry, not quite. From Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association:

In your own defense, you need to learn the acronym for another dangerous government entity in Washington, the “DDTC.”

I have received permission to distribute a spooky article that will be published in the upcoming issue of Front Sight Magazine, written by Front Sight staff writer Robin Taylor.

The article is here:
http://www.progunleaders.org/DDTC/

You should REALLY read this article, since the DDTC is about to make all guns, shooting supplies and accessories more expensive or unavailable. Under the guise of implementing an international arms control treaty, the DDTC is fixing to make life VERY difficult for everyone in the U.S. gun culture, beginning with manufacturers of any shooting-related products.

By mid-week next week we will have mapped out an action plan for you, and for your intervention in this federal SNAFU. In the meantime, study up on this issue and recirculate this email to whomever you like.

They just won’t stop.

And remember–per Article. VI:

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.

——–This story is found here: http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d17-Obama-using-treaties-with-foreign-powers-to-enact-domestic-gun-control

The Treatie is found here: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-63.html