When President Obama was in Mexico in mid-April, he falsely admitted to a “shared responsibility” for the Mexican drug wars and all the horrible violence which he said, but which we now know to be untrue, is committed with American-manufactured weapons. He suggested at the time, however, that he would not press lawmakers to pass tighter controls on so-called assault weapons.

That’s because he already had something else in mind.

That something else is an Inter-American treaty through the Organization of American States. The treaty was initially signed by President Clinton in 1998, but hit a brick wall in the Senate. Obama would have the Senate ratify it as soon as possible.

The ramifications of the treaty could be lethal for the Second Amendment. The devil is truly in the details in this case, as the treaty defines “illicit manufacturing,” as “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 manufacture.”

Easily then, with a broad enough interpretation, reloading ammo, or assembling a firearm on one’s own would be a violation.

“Illicit Trafficking” is any importation, exportation, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammo, explosives and “other related materials” across the territory of one State Party to another.

A “firearm” for inter-American purposes is:

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 any other weapon or destructive device such as any explosive, incendiary or gas bomb, grenade, rocket, rocket launcher, missile, missile system, or mine.

“Explosives” are “any substance or article that is made, manufactured, or used to produce an explosion, detonation, or propulsive or pyrotechnic effect. To add insult to injury, this does include fireworks — without “proper governmental authority” one would be in violation of an international treaty if one shot them off on one’s own property.

“Other related materials” are “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.” Is a scope an accessory?

None of this can “pass out of, through, or into the territory of one or more states,” of the treaty signatories without the knowledge of and under the supervision of “competent authorities.”

Now, the State Parties who agree to this Convention must adopt through legislative measures all the terms set forth. They can even adopt stricter measures, but they cannot adopt less strict measures. And, extradition is a simple matter of cooperation between agreeing State Parties, so conceivably an American could be extradited to a foreign country for a violation, which is now a criminal office, under the dictates of the Convention.

If one doesn’t have the proper permission via a transit license or other official authorization, one could also have one's firearms, ammo, and “other related materials” confiscated if they have been deemed “illicitly manufactured” or “trafficked.” And remember that “any barreled weapon” could be considered illicitly manufactured if the markings are missing.

The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) has, unsurprisingly, already weighed in on this using odd verbiage with the director of the Latin American program saying: “For the last 30 years the United States has come down with the big sticks of eradication and helicopters, and the elephant in the room of our own consumption, and the tough proliferation of arms, were just never addressed.”

The is rather like something out of the Circumlocution Office created by Charles Dickens in one of his novels:

The Circumlocution Office was (as everybody knows without being told) the most important Department under Government. No public business of any kind could possibly be done at any time without the acquiescence of the Circumlocution Office. Its finger was in the largest public pie, and in the smallest public tart. It was equally impossible to do the plainest right and to undo the plainest wrong without the express authority of the Circumlocution Office.

The usual players are pushing for ratification including Madame Secretary Clinton and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico. Harry Reid is being tapped by the White House to help move the ratification process forward.

This is an international ploy to override the Constitution, plain and simple. Obama knows he would have a tough fight on his hands if a similar bill was debated in Congress.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	When????? Is it going to be time to fight? Be sure to count me in.
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 28, 2009
Votes: +1

Stophel said:

	... Another reason why I'm not even a constitutionalist. I'm a "Confederationist". Treaties: the constitution's built-in self-destruct mechanism. One treaty and it's ALL thrown out the window.
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 29, 2009
Votes: +0