search
top

CIFTA Might Be Good Ground for a Fight

CIFTA might be good ground for a fight with the Obama Adminsitration.   There’s enough crap in this treaty to scare the bejezes out of gun owners, but it is not self-executing.  This means if it’s ratified by the Senate, it will not change any current US gun laws.  Ratification would obligate Congress to pass implementing legislation, which are basically a body of laws that brings us into compliance with the treaty.  Now, most of this treaty requires actions we already do, and it leaves it up to the State Party to decide a lot of things.  But the treaty can be read as requiring a host of new restrictions we do not already have, as I outline in the link above.

I think it is incumbent on us to oppose this treaty’s ratification, because I think this is a can of worms we’d rather not open.  Keep in mind the courts have generally read the treaty power as being quite substinative, and might be more willing to defer to Congress on implementing legislation, should we challenge it in court under the Second Amendment.  But there’s a lot going for us in fighting a treaty too.  For one, it takes a vote of 2/3rds of the Senate, meaning Obama would have to get 67 senators to vote for the treaty.  That’s a tall order.  Second, it lets us get Senators who are up for election in 2010 further establish a record with gun owners.  And even if Obama does somehow manage to get 67 Senators to go along with this nonsense, we still haven’t lost yet.  We can set up a fight over all the implementing legislation too.

The other side of the coin is, much of the treaty’s substance reflects existing United States law, so a lot of Senators might feel it’s no big deal to vote for it, figuring a lot of our fears about how far this treaty could be taken in terms of implementation would be unfounded.  What we definitely don’t want, is for this treaty to be a rallying cry for the United States to change its gun laws.  This treaty could be a lot worse, but I see no reason to roll over for the Administration.  Let’s fight this one.

13 Responses to “CIFTA Might Be Good Ground for a Fight”

  1. Tom says:

    You actually think 67 nanny-type votes are hard to get? … if we have laws ALREADY doing most of these things why NOT go along with it to be seen as “enforcing existing laws”?

  2. kaveman308 says:

    I’ll be calling my congress critters.

  3. jones says:

    Nice to see Instapundit on this story.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/76829/

  4. countertop says:

    BRILLIANT political move for Obama

    He gets to take decicive action on the international stage, shoring up support and allegiances with Mexico and other latin american countries, setting stage for how to renegotiate Kyoto and deal with UN desires AND throwing bone to Joyce/Brady crowd at the same time knowing the senate will soundly reject AND shore up NRA support for pro gun red state dems who might otherwise be VERY vulnerable in mid term election and further strengthening and extending his political power.

    These guys are smart. Very smart.

  5. illspirit says:

    What countertop said. ^

    Then after the mid-terms, they’ll be able to shuffle around House seats and electoral votes by rigging the census, and pass an immigration amnesty bill to generate millions of new voters who are currently being fed a steady diet of “assault weapon” propaganda in Spanish-language media with little to no opposing viewpoints. By 2012, a new ban might help them pick up or keep Senate seats in, say, Texas, Arizona, and Virginia.

    I know that may sound tin-foil-y, but why else would they be campaigning so heavily in Mexico for a ban which they know they don’t have the votes for now?

  6. Ken Dwelley says:

    Carefully read the new definition of “Arms” in the Heller Decision. @ pg 18 in the PDF, the relevant section begins:”Then, as now…”

    This appears to remove any firearm manufactured for, or any based on a military design, OF ANY AGE, from 2nd amendment protection. No exemptions for flintlocks, or pre-1899, either. This conforms to the UN Light weapons treaty, which is contained the the Obama Global Poverty Act, co-sponsored by Snowe of Maine, among others..

  7. Sebastian says:

    What do you mean by military firearm? We’re not talking about military firearms here, which can fire full auto.

  8. countertop says:

    What illspirit said ^

  9. Sebastian says:

    Yeah, I don’t think it’s tin foily at all. It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

  10. Rick says:

    My Congress critters will hear fron me on this.

  11. Alaskagunguy says:

    there are more than 4 million NRA members as well as numerous other pro gun groups. we will prevail but everyone needs to get involved. stay up on gun related issues & write & call your congressmen often.

  12. DCDC says:

    I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the big deal over this. If you are buying powder by the ton, then you are already going to have an okay from Uncle Sam. There is not a snowflakes chance that ANY president would use this to go after reloaders for the simple reason that individual reloaders

    It’s good for Obama. Meaningless to gun owners but it lets him get the gun grabber crowd off his back. No biggie.

  13. Sebastian says:

    Simple reason that individual reloaders what?

top