Archive for category: Federal ammunition legislation
obama violates federal law again as far as the cdc doing guns and ammo research, violating a law passed by congress decades ago
For a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been forbidden by Congress from doing research on gun-control issues. Such piddling hurdles as federal law don’t matter to the Obama administration.
With a wave of a hand, the CDC has simply redefined gun-control research so the ban no longer applies. They’re not researching guns; they’re researching alcohol sales and their impact on gun violence, or researching how teens carrying guns affect the rates of non-gun injuries. “These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances,” wrote National Institutes of Health (NIH) spokesman Don Ralbovsky.
Gun-control advocates claim that banning the CDC from examining gun control amounts to a gag order on science. After all, what can be wrong with further scientific inquiry? But the issue isn’t about scientific inquiry. It is whether government resources should be used to promote an ideological agenda.
Take the Obama administration’s justification for its new gun research. “Gun-related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH,” wrote the agency spokesman in an e-mail responding to questions from Republican members of Congress about new grants the CDC is giving out. The statement assumes the conclusion of the research before the first study is done.
The research on right-to-carry laws illustrates the problem with the CDC. Dozens of refereed academic studies by economists and criminologists using national data have been published in journals. While the vast majority of those studies find that right-to-carry laws save lives and reduce harm to victims, some studies claim that the laws have no statistically significant effect. But most tellingly, there is not a single published refereed academic study by a criminologist or economist showing a bad effect from these laws.
Look at the refereed academic research on laws that require people to lock up their guns in their homes. The number of accidental gun deaths and suicides of children remain unchanged, but the number of murders and other crimes rises. This is not too surprising as the locks make it more difficult for potential victims to quickly obtain a gun for protection, hence criminals are less likely to be deterred. Accidental gun deaths aren’t affected because most involve guns fired by adults with criminal records.
The research on guns that the CDC conducted before the ban – and that “public health” advocates continue to produce – is a joke. The statistical methods to research people’s behavior, such as criminal activity, are different from methods used to evaluate drug efficacy, where controlled experiments can be done.
In drug studies, patients don’t determine who gets the real drug and who gets the placebo. In real life, gun ownership isn’t assigned randomly. People who are more likely to be victims are more likely to own guns. They may still be more likely to be victims even after getting a gun, but are much less likely to be a victim than they would have been if they had never gotten one.
The CDC’s brazen end run around restrictions on gun-control research is hardly surprising given that when President Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, it was the largest private funder of gun-ban research in the country. Now he has the resources of the whole federal government.
First we’ll get the half-baked studies followed by fawning press coverage. Then Democratic politicians and activists will pretend the gun restrictions they’ve always wanted were spurred by the new government research.
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Tennessee is urging 49 other states to come together and create a “joint working group between the states” to combat unconstitutional federal legislation and assert state rights.
Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed HJR 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution on June 23. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the resolution created a committee to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and seek repeal of imposed mandates.
State Rep. Susan Lynn recently wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, inviting them to join the group and warning that the role of the federal government has been “blurred, bent and breached.”
“The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay,” Lynn wrote. “Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.”
She continued, “Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.”
Lynn said that the people created the federal government to be their agent only for certain enumerated purposes.
“The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States,” she wrote. “The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.”
She noted that the Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws, nor does it give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. Attempts to include such provisions in the Constitution were rejected by the Founding Fathers.
“With this in mind,” she wrote, “any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.”
(Story continues below)
In one example of Tennessee’s battle against federal government policies, federal gun regulators wrote to gun dealers around Tennessee in July, dropping the hammer on a state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.
The letter was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.
In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, “purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations.”
The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.
More recently, the state of Montana filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana’s management
of its own firearms.
As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3.
The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.
The idea is spreading quickly. Similar plans have been introduced in many other states.
Montana’s plan is called “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”
The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.
“The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889,” the law states.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.
“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.
“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”
A new report from a national coalition of mayors urges President Obama to adopt dozens of reforms to help curb gun violence, including steps to crack down on problems at gun shows and the creation of a federal interstate firearms trafficking unit.
The “Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns,” a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, presents 40 recommendations that “would dramatically improve law enforcement’s ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals — and, in doing so, save innocent lives.”
The strategies outlined by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group of about 450 mayors nationwide, focus on the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The agency, which has been sent a copy of the report, declined to comment.
“Implementing these recommendations would achieve a goal that all participants in the gun debate support: enforcing laws already on the books,” says an accompanying letter signed by the coalition’s co-chairmen, Mayors Thomas M. Menino (D) of Boston and Michael R. Bloomberg (I) of New York.
According to the report, hard work by ATF field agents has “been undermined by congressional restrictions, inadequate resources, and a lack of leadership from federal officials in Washington.”
The proposed changes could be accomplished within existing laws through agency reforms, regulatory moves and better funding, the report said. The strategies grew out of academic and government research, an analysis of firearms prosecutions and talks with government and law enforcement officials.
The mayor’s coalition created this document for policy discussion,” said Jason Post, a spokesman for Bloomberg’s office. There are no plans for public release of the document, which is being distributed to key members of Obama’s administration and agencies affected by the recommendations.
The 51-page document suggests a handful of strategies that would tighten ATF oversight of thousands of gun shows held annually. The study noted that a 2007 inspector general’s probe concluded the “ATF does not have a formal gun show enforcement program.”
ATF agents should have greater discretion to conduct criminal investigations at gun shows identified as sources of firearms later seized in crimes, the report states, noting that “criminal activity endemic to some gun shows goes unchecked.”
Agents at gun shows should “develop undercover integrity tests” to determine whether felons or out-of-state residents are making illegal purchases.
The report also calls for a better approach to crime gun tracing, the process that tracks a seized weapon back to its first retail sale. The ATF lacks the structure or resources to “fully realize its power,” the report says, and information is not regularly shared with field offices, and state and local law enforcement.
To this end, the study wants ATF to be funded to create a new “Office of Tactical Trace Analysis,” which would replace the current crime gun analysis branch.
We will GUARANTEE this WILL raise the cost of ammunition.
During his presidential campaign, Barack Hussein Obama said that he did not support gun control? However, it seems that the new President’s minions and allies in the anti-gun world — including ACORN – have no problem with taking control of ammunition sales.
Bills being pushed in Washington, DC and several states (including Tennessee, Illinois and Indiana ) require all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacturer and a data base of all ammunition sales be created, so they will know how much and what calibers a gunowner buys
“Gun control fanatics, frustrated in their attempts to impose severely restrictive regulations on the gun rights of law-abiding American citizens, apparently think that if they push severe restrictions on ammunition acquisition and possession, they’ll come closer to their objective of restricting if not eliminating the individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms,” says John M. Snyder, named Washington’s senior gun rights activist.
With a liberal Democrat now sitting in the Oval Office and both houses of the US Congress boasting Democrat majorities, lawmakers in Washington, DC and around the country are displaying renewed interest in gun control legislation, according to sources within both law enforcement and gun owner rights communities.
“Ever since the so-called ‘Beltway Sniper’ case in 2001, there’s been talk about not just gun registration, but ammo registration. This will make it mandatory for manufacturers of firearms ammunition to number every cartridge they make and to keep records of those cartridges,” said Lt. Steven Rodgers, a cop in New Jersey. “Can’t control guns? Well, they’ll control the ammunition,” he added during an interview with NewswithViews.com.
While a federal law is being considered by proponents of such laws, gun owners in individual states are witnessing what’s referred to as Ammunition Accountability Acts being pushed through they’re state legislatures by impatient lawmakers. Ammunition Accountability, a liberal gun control organization, has developed sample legislation to achieve its purposes and reports that versions of it have been introduced in the legislatures of Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington, according to John Snyder. While state legislatures differ in the wording of their proposed laws, basically they all require that any and all ammunition be encoded by the manufacturer and they will maintain a mandatory data base of all ammunition sales. “We of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms oppose this backdoor approach to gun control,” stated Snyder, an official with that gun rights group. The sample legislation would stipulate that, “each year in the United States, more than 30 percent of all homicides that involve a gun go unsolved; handgun ammunition accounts for 80 percent of all ammunition sold in the United States; current technology for matching a bullet used in a crime to the gun that fired it has worked moderately well for years, but presupposes that the weapon was recovered by law enforcement;” and “bullet coding is a new and effective way for law enforcement to quickly identify persons of interest in gun crime investigations.” It would provide that, after a specific date, all handgun and “assault weapon” ammunition manufactured or sold in the state shall be coded by the manufacturer, and would include a list of all calibers covered by the coding requirement. It would mandate the disposal by a certain date of all non-coded ammunition listed, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets. “If this new proposed Ammo Accountability Act legislation is only another attempt to chip away at the 2nd Amendment, it is just plain wrong. Since the 2nd Amendment defines a citizens ”right” to defend themselves, with a gun, it clearly does not address ammunition. What a novel way to “back door” the issue” said Josephine County, Oregon’s Sheriff Gil Gilbertson.
“It is clearly no secret, many in our government would like to see America disarmed. Our government has authored books mapping out a strategy on how to do just that. Simply look back in history to see what happened after people lost their arms and ability to defend themselves,” he told NewswithViews.com.
“Our government leaders slash funding in support of law enforcement throughout America, leaving our citizens more vulnerable – but on the other hand feel compelled to send hundreds of millions of dollars, each year, to enhance police in foreign Countries. Weaker law enforcement coupled with escalating crime is a receipt for disaster,” said the career lawman.
Ammunition coding technology works by laser etching the back of each bullet with an alpha-numeric serial number. Then when a customer purchases a box of, for example, 9mm cartridges, the box of ammunition and the bullets’ coding numbers would be connected to the purchaser in a statewide or national database. The code on the bullet can be read with a simple magnifying glass and then be run through a statewide or national database to determine who purchased the ammunition and where. The rationale being used by proponents of such laws is that cartridges can be used to trace a gun owner who committed a crime such as murder or assault with a deadly weapon, according to the National Association for Gun Rights’ Executive Director Dudley Brown. But opponents of ammo registration laws counter that this will only increase the incidents of criminals collecting spent cartridges and depriving police of other evidence such as fingerprints on a cartridge left at the crime scene. “NAGR’s strategy is simple: make the enemies of our firearms freedoms pay for every inch. While many so-called “gun rights groups” work to curry favor with politicians and the media, NAGR is working aggressively to hold politicians accountable and to put a stop to gun control,” said Brown. At the federal level, H.R. 408 introduced by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) a new law would require firearms manufacturers to provide ballistics information on all new firearms to BATF, which would retain the information in a National Firearms Ballistics Database. Critics claim part of this bill will be used to mandate encoding ammunition, which is part and parcel of “ballistics” information. “[Lawmakers] should ignore the media hype on the firearms issue and pay attention to what the public – their constituents – are saying on the matter,” gun rights expert John M. Snyder stated.
“According to an August poll conducted by Zogby International for Associated Television News, the American public rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed by a two-to-one margin,” Snyder continued.
“Maybe the House of Representatives should have taken a reading of public opinion on this issue before rushing headlong without a roll call vote to pass a bill before the recess,” said Snyder, who is a firearms advisor for the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
On this the Eighth anniversary off the attacks on the world trade centers and pentagon (9/11) just some thoughts
No matter how you feel about the government, current and past president’s, or the war in total, there are a few things you MUST do. Always respect and show reference for the USA troops who are overseas in the war zone. We have an ALL volunteer military. Those men and women are doing what they are ordered to do. (Trust me my brother is in the Army. For I know where I speak.)
We should also remember those who lost their lives in New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania. Including the pilots, crew, and all of those poor people in the plains. This is a day of remembrance. Please keep all those mentioned above and everyone who has lost their lives fighting on OUR behalf in the middle east, in your thoughts and prayers on this day.
obama administration is fighting back in a fight over states’ rights and firearm owner’s right’s as well!
The Obama administration is raising the stakes in a fight over states’ rights and firearm ownership by arguing that new pro-gun laws in Montana and Tennessee are invalid.
In the last few months, a grass-roots, federalist revolt against Washington, D.C. has begun to spread through states that are home to politically active gun owners. Montana and Tennessee have enacted state laws saying that federal rules do not apply to firearms manufactured entirely within the state, and similar bills are pending in Texas, Alaska, Minnesota, and South Carolina.
Yet the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives now claims that that not only is such a state law invalid, but “because the act conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes the act.”
EVER HEARD OF THE 10th TENTH AMENDMENT
Tennessee’s law already has taken effect. The BATF’s letter on July 16 to firearms manufacturers and dealers in the state says “federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain within the same state.”
A similar letter was sent to manufacturers and dealers in Montana, where the made-in-the-state law takes effect on October 1, 2009. Neither law permits certain large caliber weapons or machine guns, and both would bypass federal regulations including background checks for buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers.
While this federalism-inspired revolt has coalesced around gun rights, the broader goal is to dust off a section of the Bill of Rights that most Americans probably have paid scant attention to: the Tenth Amendment. It says that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Read literally, the Tenth Amendment seems to suggest that the federal government’s powers are limited only to what it has been “delegated,” and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 confirmed that the amendment “carefully reserved” some authority “to the states.” That view is echoed by statements made at the time the Constitution was adopted; New Hampshire explicitly said that states kept “all powers not expressly and particularly delegated” to the federal government.
More recently, federal courts have interpreted the Tenth Amendment narrowly, in a way that justifies almost any law on grounds that it intends to regulate interstate commerce. In the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing marijuana for her own medicinal use could have a “substantial effect on interstate commerce.”
(In an impassioned dissent at the time, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything — and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”) That is exactly what is happening now!
Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said in an interview on Monday that he expects to be facing off against the Obama administration in court soon. “We will find the right test cases to get us in court,” he said.
Marbut believes that the letters weren’t that meaningful because they were addressed to gun manufacturers and dealers who already are licensed by the federal government. “Those people already are under the thumb of the Feds,” he said. “We’ve assumed they wouldn’t want to put their circumstances at risk in dabbling in the state-made guns business. The people who the letters are addressed to are pretty irrelevant to the whole discussion.”
Translation: If you’re a gunsmith talented enough to build a made-in-Montana gun under the state’s forthcoming law, give Marbut a ring. Just don’t be surprised if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives is not entirely pleased.
Well, it looks like President obama plans to make good on some of his campaign threats – such as gun control. It would seem our esteemed leader *please note the sarcasm in my tone* would like to participate in CIFTA.
What is CIFTA you ask?
CIFTA is a treaty that has been signed by 33 countries in our hemisphere. (to use a momily – if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it just to belong?) The United States is one of four nations that have yet to ratify the convention, although Obama administration officials say the U.S. government has sought to abide by its spirit for years. The treaty was sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1998, but no action has been taken since then. The treaty requires countries to take steps to reduce the illegal manufacture and trade in guns, ammunition and explosives. It also calls for countries to adopt strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a process for sharing information between national law enforcement agencies investigating smuggling.
On the surface, you’re thinking, ok, what’s the big deal? Well, let me just outline a few things for you. And, let me clarify things by saying I am not a bigtime gun person. I hated guns for years and thought James Brady was right about everything. Then, Uzz and I were threatened by his criminally insane former brother-in-law. The psycho threatened to kill our entire family at Pickle’s baptism. Uzz – probably for the first time – borrowed a gun from a friend. Self-defense made sense to us.
A few years later after my divorce, I met Army of Dad. Through him, I have learned many reasons why guns aren’t the evil devices I always thought they were. I felt they were dangerous and I believed the whole guns kill people mantra. Now, I know the truth. People kill people. There are many reasons to have weapons: self-defense, sport and as family heirlooms. Even children can be taught the safe handling of firearms.
I was surfing around to favorite blogs after not doing that for a while and Army Wife Toddler Mom had a CNN news clip about CIFTA that almost knocked me off of my seat.
Good old Barry wants to get all of us law-abiding citizens to register our firearms AND then he wants to share our names with the world. Oh good. So my husband with the Concealed Handgun License will now have a price on his head by whomever the Mexican government decides to sell our list to. If you trust ANY government that much, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Even if you don’t like guns, you have to admit the idea of telling our foreign neighbors our business is insane.
Seriously, the idea of me registering my private self-defense weapon is offensive as it is. But, the concept of sharing that information with foreign countries is downright stupid. Mr. XYZ Country – here is a list of American potential freedom fighters should your country decide to bomb the hell out of us and then invade. You’ll know who to knock off first. Geebus H. Christmas. What the hell is he thinking?
Please contact your U.S. representative and senators and tell them that CIFTA cannot be enacted in the USA. I have already contacted my elected officials.
Please reprint, re-post, or otherwise get this to your lawmaker’s.
I am a logical man, and as such I ask you to use some logic in regards to those silly laws you attempt to pass in regards to guns and ammunition. I’ve opined in this blog before about similar subjects. You claim to want to stop criminals from acquiring guns and ammo as one of the main reason’s for your silly little law’s. here is where the logic comes in. those criminals you are so afraid of, if they have a felony on their record, they already legally prevented from getting said firearm’s legally. And without legal firearms ammunition does them absolutely no good. However I do know that they do get guns illegally, I’m not stupid.
As a life member of the NRA, a firearm owner, and hunter, I have no real big issue with gun store’s keeping track of which ammunition I purchase. I hate to break it to everyone, gun owner and lawmaker alike. They already do keep track of what ammo id bought at their store. It’s called keeping track of inventory. The store owners and managers do this so they know what they need to buy and when. Some of you silly lawmakers in local states (like in New York) and even on the federal level want to pass law’s forcing said owner’s to actually keep track of ammunition sale down to the customer. Assumingly so you or someone else in your office’s know which citizen has which ammo. Again this is not really logical, unless all you want to do is raise the price of ammunition to put it out of reac of the average shooter. There is no real logical reason I can think of. Now there is another theory out there, that I can understand, the theory goes something like this. You (the government) want to keep track of all the ammunition the firearm owner buy’s so you can keep track of what firearm each of us owns, as sort of a back door way of gun control of some sort. The problem with this theory is if the firearm owner bought their firearm legally there is all ready a record of what was bought. Back to the ammunition issue. I know for a fact there are people out there who think no one should own or have a gun. There are even a small even sillier group then you the lawmaker’s that think the military shout not have firearm’s also. Like I said very silly. So if some lawmaker who believes this silliness about keeping track of ammunition read this, please contact me and explain your reason’s through the blog where I originally posted this http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com.
Fraud, false arrest, and tracking down legal firearm owner’s is soon to come.
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between this country’s Police Service and the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was on Tuesday signed at the Ministry of National Security headquarters.
The MOU seeks to provide eTrace, which is an electronic system used to trace illicit firearms.
Signing on behalf of the ATF was John Ries, the Charge D’Affaires, of the US Embassy, in Port of Spain, while acting Commissioner of Police James Philbert signed on behalf of the Police Service.
Speaking shortly after the signing, Philbert said with the introduction of eTrace great rewards can be expected and the Police Service is “thankful to engage in such an exercise which is not only historic but also important.”
Stating that T&T does not manufacture firearms, Philbert said this latest initiative will seek to gather information about where the illegal firearms are coming from.
Noting the Organised Crime, Narcotics and Firearms Bureau is just one of the agencies within the service which will have access to eTrace, Philbert said such an initiative comes on the heels of a firearm being stolen from a pawn shop in North Carolina and ended up being used to commit a crime in Trinidad.
Stating his officers have recovered more than 130 illegal firearms and 700 rounds of ammunition for the year thus far, Philbert said it will only be a matter of time before the initiative gets off the ground.
Ries, who also addressed the media, congratulated Philbert on partnering with the US and noted such a step is a move forward.
The eTrace is a system which involves a paperless firearm trace submission system that is accessible through a secure connection to the World Wide Web.
This internet application provides the necessary utilities for submitting, retrieving, storing and querying firearms trace-related information allowing for the systematic tracing of firearms recovered from crime scenes.
Analysis of firearms and the trace data can assist in the identification of firearms trafficking patterns and geographic profiling for criminal hot spots and possible sources of illicit firearms.
Guyana, St Lucia, Australia, Britain, Bahamas, Jamaica, Japan and Mexico are just some of the countries which have enlisted eTrace and form part of the December 2007 joint Caribbean Community (Caricom) – US Initiative on Combating the Illicit Trafficking in Small Arms and Light Weapons and Ammunition.
On his recent trip to Central America, President Barack Obama did more than cozy up to Marxist dictators; he also signed onto an international treaty that could, in effect, be used as backdoor gun control. It appears that Obama wants to use international treaties to do what congressional legislation is not able to do: further restrict the right of the American people to keep and bear arms.
Obama is using the oft-disproved contention that “90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States” as the stated basis of his support for the international treaty he is promoting. The treaty is formally known as the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA) treaty. The Bill Clinton administration signed the treaty back in 1997, but the U.S. Senate has never ratified the treaty. Obama intends to change that.
To date, 33 nations in the western hemisphere have signed the treaty. The U.S. is one of four nations that have yet to ratify it. According to one senior Obama administration official, passing the treaty is a “high priority” for the President.
If ratified, the treaty would require the United States to adopt “strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a process for sharing information between national law enforcement agencies investigating [gun] smuggling.”
Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee promises to “work for its [the CIFTA treaty's] approval by the Senate.”
Should the Senate ratify CIFTA, Americans who reload ammunition would be required to get a license from the government, and factory guns and ammunition would be priced almost out of existence due to governmental requirements to “mark” each one manufactured. Even the simple act of adding an after-market piece of equipment to a firearm, such as a scope or bipod, or reassembling a gun after cleaning it could fall into the category of “illicit manufacturing” of firearms and require government license and oversight.
In addition, CIFTA would authorize the U.S. federal government (and open the door to international entities) to supervise and regulate virtually the entire American firearms industry. Making matters worse is the fact that, as a treaty, this Act does not have to be passed by both houses of Congress, nor is it subject to judicial oversight. All Obama needs to do in order to enact this unconstitutional and egregious form of gun control is convince a Democratic-controlled Senate to pass it.