How does a prison term sound to you? Well, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that, contrary to the Bush administration, the Obama administration will work hand-in-glove with the U.N. to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.” You’re looking at nothing short of a global gun-control scheme that would be in absolute violation of America’s second amendment rights. Look for a U.N. treaty to be much like the Western Hemisphere gun control treaty (known as CIFTA). President Barack Obama has proposed that the U.S. ratify CIFTA.
In the October issue of America’s First Freedom, the editors wrote about The Organization of American States’ suggestion that the unauthorized acquisition of firearms or ammunition be criminalized. The editors continue that for a person SUSPECTED of having “illicit” firearms, a court shall issue, at any time without prior notification or hearing, a freeze or seize order. Finally, it is suggested that the recommended prison term for violation is from one to ten years. Sound OK to you?
The proposed “Small Arms Treaty” is nothing short of a GLOBAL gun-control scheme. You could expect an international gun registry, a ban on semi-automatic weapons, severe licensing requirements, and confiscation and destruction of all “unauthorized civilian firearms.” I would expect that such a treaty would include wording to mandate microstamping. Microstamping’s patent holder has been lobbying for such wording. With microstamping, the firing pin is laser-engraved with identification intel. Upon firing, the firing pin hits the case and, bingo, the case is laser stamped with identification info. The pitch here is that shell casings, recovered by police at a crime scene, could be then analyzed, leading police to the perpetrators. How truly silly!
As I write, anyone who ever intends to even maybe use a gun to commit a crime will be preparing to gather up as many different spent shooting range casings as possible to spread around at any crime scene, sending police on many the wild goose chase. And what about filing the firing pin head down? There’s a good and simple idea. And haven’t there been a number of research studies conducted debunking the concept of microstamping? Check with the National Academies of Science for starters. There is zero information that allows the conclusion that some silly treaty would decrease the illicit flow of small arms. Look, the World Bank maintains that there are more than 500 million firearms worldwide (probably 100 million of which are various forms of the AK-47). And a little treaty is going to prevent illicit gun movement around the world? To even present such a case is criminal, not to mention idiotic.
Many countries do not concern themselves with gun serial numbers. But a treaty would stop the movement of these non-serial numbered guns? Come on, no one in her right mind would propose such foolishness. Many left wing groups in America have been promoting the notion that America is the source for illicit guns in Mexico. And to some degree, there is substance to the charges, but more of the guns that are found are not traced to the U.S than are traced, and over 60% of the guns in Mexico have not been traced at all. Moreover, Interpol reports ongoing gun/drug trading between Russia and the drug cartels. Bet the Russians will be hard-line treaty supporters, don’t you? According to National Center for Policy Analysis, “In the past six years, more than 150,000 [sounds like a lot, doesn’t it?] Mexican soldiers have deserted, many taking with them the M-16 assault rifles supplied to them by the U.S. Military.”
OK then, a Small Arms Treaty has little to do with preventing the illicit movement of small arms and a whole lot to do with compromising America’s sovereignty rights, which has been a President Obama goal all along. All existing guns would most likely be judged noncompliant, subjecting owners to criminal prosecution and possibly some federal-pen time. As America’s First Freedom notes, if there is any thought of grandfathering the possession of current guns, the OAS model statute makes no mention of it. Fanatical anti-gun-rights-President Bill Clinton knew all the preceding well, yet signed the onerous CIFTA anyway. The Senate, which is the sole ratifier of treaties, did not ratify. It takes a two-thirds vote (66 Senators) in the Senate to ratify a treaty. President Barack Obama and, I think, a frightening four of the nine members of the Supreme Court are in the ratification camp. Check out this disturbing Justice Breyer clip.
Americans cannot allow, the strongly anti-constitution-oriented President Barack Obama to bull rush another of his progressive Supreme Court nominees through the Senate. And he most certainly has no constitutional ground to sign the proposed Small Arms Treaty. To sign such a treaty would put the final nail (of many) in the coffin for President Obama’s 2012 reelection. American’s can now strike in force by bombarding Senators with emails and letters, as well as by clogging up Washington phone lines with calls. And well-orchestrated Senate office visits and mass protests will also be helpful in delivering the “do not sign the treaty or else” message.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- House Vote Set. Freedom Caucus Not Budging. What Happens Next? - March 24, 2017
- This Is What Is Better About a Flat Tax - March 23, 2017
- Obamacare and the Heroin of Government Dependency - March 22, 2017