Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading

[Lou McGopher]

It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.

We should make signs, march on Washington, and chant in unison, "No IACAIMOATIFAEAORM! No IACAIMOATIFAEAORM!"

 

[ServiceSoon]

We should make signs, march on Washington, and chant in unison, "No IACAIMOATIFAEAORM! No IACAIMOATIFAEAORM!"

That'll give us credibility or more likely make us sound like crazy people.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The following definitions are from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

infringe

transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2: obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon<infringe on our rights>

encroach

intransitive verb
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits <the gradually encroaching sea>

To answer your question (which, yes, I'm sure was rhetorical)...

They've already gone well beyond that point.

...and it will only get worse.

The definition of "infringe" was more succinct when the Constitution was written.

From Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language: 1755:

To INFRINGE. v. a.

1. To Violate; to break laws or contracts.

2.To Destroy; to hinder.​

Note that the latter definition - to destroy or to hinder - wasn't obsolete back then.

Johnson gave a rather pertinent example of the first definition in his dictionary:

"Those many had not dar'd(dared) to do that evil,
If the first man that did th'(the) edict infringe,
Had answer'd for his deed." {From Shakespeare, Measure for Measure}​

Had the first Congress or state legislature suffered from the first law infringing upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, we'd not be having these discussions, we'd be freely armed and carrying wherever we went no matter how we got there.

As for this treaty, no treaty can be made that would infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Only treaties made, or that shall be made, under the authority of the United States have the force of law(Article VI, Clause 2). The United States is prohibited to infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms by the Second Amendment, therefore, has no authority to enter into any treaty that would infringe that right.

Woody

 

[Sigman 59]

reloading resrictions are against the 2nd

Qoute
"Is reloading protected by the constitution? Even if it was protected, that doesn't mean congress couldn't pass a law regulating it."

I thing doing anything to make your guns unusable,or too expensive to use,it is an infringement.Big sales tax on ammo,banning receivers,taxing reloading stuff,stupid expensive insurance policies,banning "illicit"firearms,does that mean one you assemble yourself really?that would be a big infringement.if someone in power wants not to be able to shoot,they cant just erase the 2nd,but they will,i think try to make it only a rich mans right,it going there quick now just because of some greedy dealers and the ammo rush. when the feds get in there the greed will hurt us, and a lot of jobs in the industry.:banghead:

 

[cliffy]

STOP passing new laws!

We cannot even enforce old laws! The immediate problem is the Mexican/American border! What will effectively stop this dilemma? Mexico must not be able to obtain more advanced firearms than Americans can obtain! cliffy

 

[Davionmaximus]

Bump

 

[Art Eatman]

Duplicative as well as political...