Senate must reject Inter-American Arms Treaty

April 17, 4:36 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

8 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

   Presidents Barack Obama and Felipe Calderón
   AP Photo/Gregory Bull

Having backed off--for now--from the politically difficult push for a ban of so-called "assault weapons," President Obama hopes to assuage Mexican President Felipe Calderón's disappointment with a promise to push the Senate to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Materials, a treaty signed in 1997, but never ratified in the U.S.

President Obama announced in a visit here today that he will push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms trafficking treaty designed to curb the flow of guns and ammunition to drug cartels and other armed groups in the hemisphere.

Obama no doubt believes that ratification of this treaty is much more feasible than passage of a renewed AWB, and in that assessment he is almost certainly correct.  There is, for example, no indication to this point of any organized resistance to ratification of the treaty.  Although the NRA contests the Washington Post article's contention that it participated in the meeting at which the treaty was drafted, the NRA has not made clear that it has determined the treaty to be a threat to gun rights in the U.S., and thus something to be forcefully opposed.

Even a cursory glance at the text should convince any gun rights advocacy group (or individual) that this agreement is indeed dangerous to the rights of American gun owners.  This section stands out (emphasis added):

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.

I can only assume that this would mandate that anyone who reloads ammunition to save money (and rather a lot of it, given today's ammo prices) acquire a government issued license to do so.  What about people who purchase incomplete firearms frames, treated under current U.S. law as inert hunks of metal, and complete the firearm themselves?  Would that now require licensing?  It certainly seems so.  Unacceptable.

The larger issue, of course, is that suddenly that which shall not be infringed would become subject to international regulation, and as restrictive as gun laws in the U.S. have become, they're still not draconian enough for the tastes of much of the rest of the world. 

That's their problem, and it needs to remain their problem.

-----------

Austin Gun Rights Examiner Howard Nemerov will be on NRA's Daily News show at 3 PM EDT today (moved from 9:20 PM EDT tonight), discussing his article Gun control and saving Captain Phillips

Howard's interview will air again on NRA News' flagship program "Cam & Company" tonight at 10:40pm Eastern.

Visit www.NRANews.com to listen live to the broadcast! If you miss the show, you can listen to an archived edition until the the next live edition of "Cam & Company" airs.

NRA News is a daily internet and satellite radio (Sirius Patriot 144) news program sponsored by the NRA. Listen weekdays from 9:00 PM to 12:00 AM EDT for the latest in Second Amendment related news and politics.