Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Second Amendment Foundation worker in my Database class

  1. #1
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    I was talking to someone else about Open Carry and this guy who I could have sworn was an anti-gun hippie came up to us and said he worked for the Second Amendment Foundation helping to educate people about why we have the Second Amendment. At first, I was a little wary thinking it was a trap.... silly paranoia I know, but I've been rope-a-doped before by a liberal wanting to make a point. Anyway, after we sat down in class, he pulled out some documentation on the Latin American Treaty and stated that there was some parts of the treaty that would allow for American gun dealers to be extradited to Mexico to be tried for selling weapons to people who then turn around and sell them to drug lords.

    I was shocked that this mousy hippie was very serious about gun rights and felt that the Federal government had no business make any law or treaty that would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. His position is that it is up to the States to regulate sales, and it is up to the Fed to keep the border sealed so none of those guns get into Mexico.

    I instantly liked this guy as he was well spoken and knew his stuff. All in all, an interesting experience.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  2. #2
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    He should be invited to the next OCDO get together. People like him are everywhere, but they are keeping their heads down. We need to find them and help them stand up and be counted.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Shows that you should never judge a book by its cover I am guilty of this a few times...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    jchen012 wrote:
    Shows that you should never judge a book by its cover I am guilty of this a few times...
    It's hard not to here in the Seattle area as I've been verbally attackeb by people like him when OCing calling me a warmonger, calling me a redneck, calling me an ignorant hick etc etc... and the people who attacked me in this way looked very much like this guy...:P

    But yeah, we never should judge a book by it's cover.


    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Anyway, after we sat down in class, he pulled out some documentation on the Latin American Treaty and stated that there was some parts of the treaty that would allow for American gun dealers to be extradited to Mexico to be tried for selling weapons to people who then turn around and sell them to drug lords.
    Any idea where we can find this treaty? It isn't posted on thomas.loc.gov and a google search finds nothing but news stories about the treaty instead of the actual text.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    I was talking to someone else about Open Carry and this guy who I could have sworn was an anti-gun hippie came up to us and said he worked for the Second Amendment Foundation helping to educate people about why we have the Second Amendment. At first, I was a little wary thinking it was a trap.... silly paranoia I know, but I've been rope-a-doped before by a liberal wanting to make a point. Anyway, after we sat down in class, he pulled out some documentation on the Latin American Treaty and stated that there was some parts of the treaty that would allow for American gun dealers to be extradited to Mexico to be tried for selling weapons to people who then turn around and sell them to drug lords.
    Thats wrong on so may levels, can they really do that.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Something else of interest. The treaty, officially known as the "INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS" defines illicit manufacturing of ammunition as

    "
    Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:
    b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or
    "


    How many of you who reload have a license from the government to assemble ammunition? How many of you would like to have to get a license from the government in order to reload?

    How many of you have ever purchased firearms parts for the purpose of building a firearm? For example, an AR15 receiver and parts kit?

    Might want to contact your Senators and tell them your opinion of this treaty.

    Also, as a historical note, this treaty was originally sent to the Senate in 1998 and has apparently been languishing in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations ever since. It would appear that President Obama will be asking the Senate leadership to take action on this treaty.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Anyway, after we sat down in class, he pulled out some documentation on the Latin American Treaty and stated that there was some parts of the treaty that would allow for American gun dealers to be extradited to Mexico to be tried for selling weapons to people who then turn around and sell them to drug lords.
    I just finished reading the treaty and I don't find this anywhere. Extradition is possible for any of the offenses in the treaty, but participating in straw purchases would be a violation of the treaty within the United States and therefore would be prosecuted by the US government. The only way you would be extradited would be to travel to Mexico, commit a violation of the laws contained in the treaty, and then flee back to the US. Mexico would then request your extradition in order to prosecute you for acts committed in Mexico.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Is this a 'real' treaty, or is this one of those thousands of scare documents they come out with for apparently no reason?
    It's just there's a lot of proposed legislation that scares the crap out of people but doesn't go anywhere because it's freakin' ridiculous.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    Is this a 'real' treaty, or is this one of those thousands of scare documents they come out with for apparently no reason?
    It's just there's a lot of proposed legislation that scares the crap out of people but doesn't go anywhere because it's freakin' ridiculous.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/wo...ss&emc=rss
    "The Obama administration had already pledged to send more agents to patrol the border with Mexico and more helicopters to Mexico. 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.

    “It makes good policy sense,” said Peter DeShazo, a former senior State Department official who has advocated ratifying the pact. “It’s very hard for the United States to call on other countries to cooperate on controlling the flow of illegal arms if we haven’t ratified a major inter-American convention.”"

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    The dems don't have a 2/3rds majority in the Senate so I don't know how likely this is to pass. This is from Senator Inhofe:

    http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/public/...5-f56d94c72669

    ...“I am strongly opposed to placing more stringent requirements on U.S. gun manufacturers, especially when the evidence shows that they are not the problem. This is an instance of the Obama Administration using alternative means to place greater regulations on the manufacture and sale of legal firearms in the United States. I believe that my colleagues in the United States Senate understand this to be the case and will do as they have for the last 10 years and not ratify this treaty.”

    and from Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification
    "In the U.S.A., treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate. The Senate does not actually ratify treaties. Once the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification, the President ratifies the treaty by signing an instrument of ratification. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •