http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/wo...litics&emc=rss
Quote:
But on Thursday the president went a step further, announcing that he would press the Senate to ratify the long-stalled inter-American arms treaty, which the United States had a major hand in negotiating through the Organization of American States.
The treaty, signed by President Clinton, stalled in the Senate, but went into effect in 1998 after two dozen other nations ratified it. The treaty seeks to crack down on illicit firearms by, among other things, establishing a system for the import, export and transfer of firearms, and by fostering cooperation among law enforcement agencies investigating illegal trafficking.
|
This is a concern for gun owners. For one, I am wary of any treaty on firearms that the Clinton Administration signed but the Senate would not ratify. Second, this is an excellent avenue to push backdoor gun control since it only requires ratification in the Senate and does not expose House Democrats to an anti-gun vote that might hurt their reelection chances.
The text of the treaty (Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Materials) is located here:
http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html
So far, I have found only this Editorial in the St. Louis Examiner opposing the treaty on RKBA issues:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Lo...an-Arms-Treaty
The main concern of the author is a provision in the treaty requiring anyone who manufactures ammunition or firearms to have a license from the government. Under our current laws, this would make such activities as reloading, assembling an AR15 from an upper and lower, building a 1911 on a frame, and similar home gunsmithing projects require an FFL or similar license - along with the regulatory burdens that might entail.
Be sure to contact your Senators and let them know how you feel about this:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm