Back Door CIFTA Threatens Firearm Freedom

“If you can’t beat ‘em, hide from them.”


The Obama Administration has unabashedly announced in several instances that they intend to bring in more gun control, even going so far as to taking away our firearms of self-defense.  However, the likelihood of our 2nd Amendment being taken away from us is highly unlikely.  So what does Obama do?  He uses our apathy in international relations to try to accomplish the same end. 


Stage Left: Enter CIFTA  (read text here


CIFTA appears to remove ownership of any firearm manufactured for, or any based on a military design, OF ANY AGE, from 2nd amendment protection.  No exemptions for flintlocks, or pre-1899, either.

The treaty bans ‘“illicit” manufacturing’ of firearms, defined as:

the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.

This would seem to require a government license for home building, assembling from parts, and quite likely many types of repairs and customizations.  And here’s the really scary part, it defines “other related materials” this way: “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.”  This would make all people who make accessories that attach to a firearm to have a license.  It would presumably also ban home manufacture of these items without a government license.  Do you own trigger jobs?  Reload your own ammunition?  Not anymore, not without a government license!

It defines illegal trafficking as “the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it.”  This would not seem to affect any of these things happening exclusively within the domestic market.

It requires states to destroy seized firearms.  “States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.”

It would seem to require some vague requirement for transport: “States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported from, or in transit through their respective territories.”

Here are the licensing requirements:

  1. States Parties shall establish or maintain an effective system of export, import, and international transit licenses or authorizations for transfers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.
  2. States Parties shall not permit the transit of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials until the receiving State Party issues the corresponding license or authorization.
  3. States Parties, before releasing shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials for export, shall ensure that the importing and in-transit countries have issued the necessary licenses or authorizations.
  4. The importing State Party shall inform the exporting State Party, upon request, of the receipt of dispatched shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

It’s hard to say how they expect this to be implemented.  It could, if interpreted strictly, make traveling internationally with a firearm impossible or next to impossible without expensive licenses.  We already have licenses required for commercial import or export, but personal import, export, or international transit has always been considered a separate matter.

It would seem to regulate carriage of weapons:

1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on matters such as:

a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;

This means your concealed carry records would be subject to being shared with foreign nations.  “Carriage” in this CIFTA sentence seems to imply carry permit information.  “To the extent possible” means that if the records exist, it must be delivered.  Registration leads to confiscation — in this case, confiscation by foreign criminals breaking into your house to steal the guns that they know you have.  Could this bring about gun-control through crime?  Do you trust the Mexican government with information about you?  I believe that that “list” would have about a 30 second life before some international enemy successfully bribed a Mexican official for it…”  hmmm… let’s see which Americans we take out first.”  And once it’s out, it’s out everywhere, so the threat of security doesn’t just lie in “official circles.”  It can easily make its way into the hands of our own neighbors.  

This treaty will clearly result in establishing national gun registration.  The treaty requires signatories to establish and maintain records of all firearms manufactured and transferred to allow participating nations to trace back a weapon found in their nation to its manufacturer and owners (Article XI).  This also addresses issues of extradition to other nations for “offenders” (think gun makers and dealers), and establishment of international oversight committees. 

The Washington Post article today clearly points out that Obama wants to push CIFTA through the Senate ASAP!  This is an end-run around our rights associated with the Second Amendment!  Entering into this treaty will make illegal the acts of hand loading your own ammunition, adding attachments to your own firearms, etc!  This is clearly a back door attempt all the way, to get serious gun control implemented in our nation.  Obama pushes the treaty like he’s fighting a wildfire.  The Senate then ratifies it based on the Democrat agenda.  The Dems then use treaty as an excuse to pass a variety of legislation to register and track arms.  All of which aids Heller et al…


This is the WP article about Obama’s discussion of CIFTA with Calderon while in Mexico.


We absolutely MUST make sure that our US Senate does not ratify and enter us into this treaty.


Silence is Concession, folks.


Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.  

4 Responses

  1. […] bookmarks tagged beat happening Back Door CIFTA Threatens Firearm Freedom saved by 4 others     Leviticus321 bookmarked on 04/18/09 | […]

  2. I’ve said it elsewhere, I’ll say it again. Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, and all the others can bite me. I’ve complied with all the rules, regulations and hoops passed before my birth, and up until recent years. I am obeying all the firearms rules I ever will, at this very moment. I consider any more that are passed to be null and void. I am tired of being pissed on, and told it’s for the children. NO MORE. I WILL NOT COMPLY. Other countries have no bearing on our rules.

    The gun grabbers keep pushing, pushing, pushing. Sooner or later, someone is gonna push back. It won’t be someone like me, either, it’s gonna be someone who’s served this country, and knows how to play the game. The politicos are going to be responsible for blood being spilled, and it’s going to include their own, mark my words. I’ve seen the anger from Vets at this latest DHS report, and it isn’t pretty. The US is a powder keg, and Obama is a little boy lighting matches.

  3. Holy crap! This is unbelievable. They’re smart enough to know that they can’t ban guns, so they just make it nearly impossible to legally own one.

    Same result. Now why would anyone think that the Obama adminstration is coming after our guns? Didn’t that DHS report paint such people as the lunatic fringe?

    Suddenly, the timing of that report doesn’t seem like such a coincidence. First, marginalize the dissenters, then propose the policy. Hmmm…

  4. […] importation of semi-automatic weapons not suitable for “sporting purposes,” ratifying CIFTA, an international treaty that imposes restrictions on law abiding citizens in the U.S.,  and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: