CIFTA could ban reloading without a federal license.

[jody]

Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms (CIFTA)

Below are IMO relevant portions of CIFTA that require our federal government to ban or seriously infringe on reloading ammunition and complement other actions by those who threaten RKBA by restricting ammunition.

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.

ARTICLE II
Purpose

The purpose of this Convention is:
to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;

ARTICLE IV
Legislative Measures

1. States 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.
2. Subject to the respective constitutional principles and basic concepts of the legal systems of the States Parties, 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.

ARTICLE V
Jurisdiction
1. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the offense in question is committed in its territory.
2. Each State Party may adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the offense is committed by one of its nationals or by a person who habitually resides in its territory.
3. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the alleged criminal is present in its territory and it does not extradite such person to another country on the ground of the nationality of the alleged criminal.
4. This Convention does not preclude the application of any other rule of criminal jurisdiction established by a State Party under its domestic law.

ARTICLE VII
Confiscation or Forfeiture

1. States Parties undertake to confiscate or forfeit firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials that have been illicitly manufactured or trafficked.
2. States 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.

[HillbillyBob]

1. Since I am just joe six pack, we need to start

writing our laws so the man on the street can fucking understand them!
This is not clear as to whether reloading shells or other ammo is to be unlawful or not.

[jody]

3. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of . . . ammunition, . . . without a license".

[virginia mountainman]

2. Just more "proof" that....

Democrats want to take away guns.....

This is disgusting, and infuriating at the same time.

They can F.O.

[damntexdem]

13. Tough!

Stew all you want. I will laugh.

[razors edge]

17. We'll just load all we want.

Just like last week, and the week before...

Stew yourself. Laugh all you like.

[safeinOhio]

4. This is very old 1997

I don't think it was ever ratified. It was not ratified by the US
THis is brought up to scare people and is not really relevant to today or the Democratic party. While I'm sure some, a small minority, agree with it, it is not part of the Democratic platform. Hey guys, we are not stupid, so stop listening to the NRA



Sovereignty


1. States Parties shall carry out the obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of states and that of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states.
2. A State Party shall not undertake in the territory of another State Party the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions which are exclusively reserved to the authorities of that other State Party by its domestic law.

[jody]

5. Wrong, see "US: Obama Supports an Inter-American Arms Treaty", DU thread below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x218548

[safeinOhio]

6. All so read read the part I posted

Sovereignty




1. States Parties shall carry out the obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of states and that of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states.
2. A State Party shall not undertake in the territory of another State Party the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions which are exclusively reserved to the authorities of that other State Party by its domestic law.


In other words there would be no enforcement by others on any sovereign state and it would not change anything. It would not change domestic laws


I could be wrong, but that is what it says..

[safeinOhio]

7. All I think it would mean

Is that you may not be able to purchase powder and brass from Mexico. Like wise they couldn't by material to manufacture arms or ammo from us,

[jody]

8. If "It would not change domestic laws" then Obama is wasting his time trying to get the Senate to

ratify the treaty.

[safeinOhio]

9. No because it would

stop illegal trade between countries. The only enforcement allowed is for trade not domestic use or manufacturing. I can see it being used against drug cartels as a tool.
It could also be used politically to stop any new American gun control measure, as the excuse of illegal gun exports to central and south America would already be covered.


anyway, I'd suggest you read the whole thing, not just what the NRA puts out.

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/49907.htm

[jody]

10. ROFL, you didn't read the OP because I linked to the site you give and quoted from the treaty. You

then make an ad hominem attack with "not just what the NRA puts out."

Such attacks are a sure sign of defeat against facts.

[safeinOhio]

11. No a sure sign of defeat against facts is when

:You post articles l,ll,lV and leave out article lll.
Look I'm not making any attack, I could give a shit about YOUR interpretation of a propose treaty, that would need the consent of congress to pass. I just get tired of hearing all these twisted anti-gun rants. If you can show me where some one is going to take away my guns, I listen. I dropped out of the NRA 25 years ago because I had to put up with their bullshit about how them Democrats and liberals are coming for my guns. 25 years, 8 years with a Democratic President and many with a Democratic Congress, still have all of my guns and many new ones. Just stop trying to scare every one into voting Republican. Instead, defend Democrats that support our Constitution, like Obama. You lost your 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment rights under a Republican President. Worry about that.
Ok, ad hominem attack? Where did you get the link? Show me the email or article and where it came from. Some how, I'm betting it goes back to some NRA source, if not freerepublic. I support the Second Amendment, but I'm more worried about getting back the rights I lost in the last 8 years. I'm more worried about a fucked up economy that Bush left us and I more worried about the 2 wars he left us. I don't have enough in me to worry my ass off about shit that ain't gonna happen. As I've stated in my other post, the only way we will lose any of our 2nd Amendment rights is if some one shoots our leader. Now I'm all for any law that will help stop that with out the lose of my self-defense weapons. I own guns to hunt with and protect myself with. I really don't care if they ban the shit out of 50 cal sniper rifles,because I can not defend myself against them. If you want to protect the 2nd Amendment do every thing in your power to protect our President, because harm to him will be the greatest destroyer of your rights.

[jody]

12. You can't walk away from your post "I'd suggest you read the whole thing, not just what the NRA puts

out."

I'm interested in thoughtful opinions so explain why you believe a rogue president, unitary executive, will not decide to license and tax reloading ammunition?

Given a treaty, couldn't such a president issue an executive order to do precisely that?

Bush got away with similar things. :shrug:

[safeinOhio]

14. why, yes he could

treaty or no treaty. That's why we elected an intelligent man as President. Now worry about what dumb shit did destroying your other rights over the last 8 years. I could sit here and shit my pants all day worrying about what might happen. I don't have time, I'm too busy working on correcting the crap that HAS happened.
So, what has all this worrying about what might happen done. Raise the price of ammo thru the roof and got 3 cops killed because some asshat believed all this crap and thought they were coming for his guns and some people are trying to get people to vote Republican on this board because they are sure Obama is coming for their guns. Well, wake me up when you see someone coming down your sidewalk to take away your guns.

[jody]

15. Summary: you "This is very old 1997", me "Obama Supports CIFTA". Have a nice day.

:hi:

[safeinOhio]

16. Yep Me "Obama Supports.......

You, use Republican talking point by leaving out Article lll of your quote.

see ya