The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Arms Treaties and Second Amendment Problems

USAFNoDak · June 1, 2010, 09:23 AM

Mandated Creation of a Domestic License System. The convention’s preamble states that it does not apply to “firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character.”[4] This provision is obviously subject to interpretation of what is “wholly domestic.” As President Clinton implied upon signing the convention on November 14, 1997—“in [this] era…our borders are all more open to the flow of legitimate commerce”—the concept of globalization is often held to imply that nothing is a wholly domestic concern.[5] Thus, the convention’s preamble offers no meaningful protection to domestic firearms ownership or trade.

We've seen the way our own federal government has twisted, distorted, and completely misdirected what the "commerce clause" was meant to be. The federal government can now dictate to us which lightbulbs will be available for us to buy for our own homes, because lightbulbs move in interstate commerce. Thus, the feds have taken the position that they can ban certain types of lightbulbs for sale within the several states.

Who out there thinks that the phrase "Wholly Domestic", contained in CIFTA, won't be abused in a similar manner to regulate which types of firearms, what type of ammo, and what accessories (detachable magazines for example), civilians may possess? They'll have us limited to shotguns with low power target loads (for trap shooting) and .22 rifles (no handguns allowed) before we know it. We know the underlying ideologies of the governments and their reps who are pushing and supporting this dangerous treaty. They don't like an armed populace because that endangers their plans for one world government and control of "the people". Our founders tried to protect us from this coagulation of power, even within our own nation. Can anyone imagine them agreeing that such an international treaty as CIFTA would protect our freedoms and guarantee our safety as individuals? I think not. This is backdoor gun control. It's being supported by the Obama administration. Didn't he tell us gunowners that we had nothing to fear from his administration?

June 1, 2010, 09:23 AM	#4
USAFNoDak Senior Member Join Date: August 21, 2000 Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities Posts: 1,076	"Wholly Domestic" vs. "Commerce Clause" Mandated Creation of a Domestic License System. The convention’s preamble states that it does not apply to “firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character.”[4] This provision is obviously subject to interpretation of what is “wholly domestic.” As President Clinton implied upon signing the convention on November 14, 1997—“in [this] era…our borders are all more open to the flow of legitimate commerce”—the concept of globalization is often held to imply that nothing is a wholly domestic concern.[5] Thus, the convention’s preamble offers no meaningful protection to domestic firearms ownership or trade. We've seen the way our own federal government has twisted, distorted, and completely misdirected what the "commerce clause" was meant to be. The federal government can now dictate to us which lightbulbs will be available for us to buy for our own homes, because lightbulbs move in interstate commerce. Thus, the feds have taken the position that they can ban certain types of lightbulbs for sale within the several states. Who out there thinks that the phrase "Wholly Domestic", contained in CIFTA, won't be abused in a similar manner to regulate which types of firearms, what type of ammo, and what accessories (detachable magazines for example), civilians may possess? They'll have us limited to shotguns with low power target loads (for trap shooting) and .22 rifles (no handguns allowed) before we know it. We know the underlying ideologies of the governments and their reps who are pushing and supporting this dangerous treaty. They don't like an armed populace because that endangers their plans for one world government and control of "the people". Our founders tried to protect us from this coagulation of power, even within our own nation. Can anyone imagine them agreeing that such an international treaty as CIFTA would protect our freedoms and guarantee our safety as individuals? I think not. This is backdoor gun control. It's being supported by the Obama administration. Didn't he tell us gunowners that we had nothing to fear from his administration? __________________ "If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.