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.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Chuck Baldwin On CIFTA: Back Door Move To Control Guns
Read about it here. Here's an excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Um, if someone were to challenge the law once it was ratified by Congress, it could be judged unconstitutional. Again, they are lying to you, Josh. They are fear-mongering idiots and no one is listening..
But it would need to be challenged, meanwhile, they'd have the treaty in place for at least a year.
That's up to the people. If they are lazy, or elect politicians who appoint anti-freedom Justices, then it won't be struck down, duh. The point is that the person who wrote that quote doesn't know what he is talking about. He's either ignorant or a liar.
I'm sorry, which part of the quote is not true?
"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."
In general, treaties are not subject to judicial oversight. If Obama pushes it through, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Regardless, it will take a year or so before a ruling is even made by the Supreme Court, meanwhile...
That doesn't make it unconstitutional, Josh. That's how the system works. It takes time for laws to be struck down.
Again, the writer is either a liar or an ignorant fool.
So you'd defend this treaty as constitutional if it passes the Senate?
I'm confused as to your point.
For those who wish to protect the 2nd amendment, is perfectly reasonable for them to identify the possibility of such a treaty to be passed that would infringe upon that amendment.
There's nothing sinister about Baldwin's article.
Balwin doesn't seem to understand that the Constitution is a process written on paper. Just because a law is passed does not make it unconstitutional. It is the act of opposing it in court that takes it to the SC to be judged that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional. In short, it is the judgment of the judges that makes a piece of legislation unconstitutional, not popular opinion. THAT WAS WORKED INTO THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION IS A PROCESS ON PAPER
Post a Comment