Previous administrations have been caught, at times, in lying or decieving the public once in a while, . . But, . . THIS ADMINISTRATION and THIS CONGRESS CAN’T BE TRUSTED EVEN FOR A MINUTE. . . THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE NATION OR THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS. . . NONE !!!

I am 65 years old and I’ve NEVER seen so much rampant dishonesty and trickery in the U.S. Government. . . This is the most polarizing President and Congress to ever have held office in my lifetime. . . They are driving wedges between groups of people, . not only in America, . but all around the world !!! . . . They are an embarrassing HAZARD looking for someplace to EXPLODE !!! . . . And they will, . . Sooner or later, they will make mistakes which cannot be smoothed over with mere WORDS !!! . . . They’re like a bunch of Keystone Cops running round and round and all over each other. . .
WHAT A REVOLTING DEVELOPMENT THIS IS, ANDY !!!
WHAT A MESS YOU’VE GOTTEN US INTO !!!

“1. States Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.”

All gun owners should IMHO oppose this immediately and start writing well-written letters to their Senators explaining why this Treaty is not needed and is being used to leverage Obama’s anti-gun agenda – quite obviously as reported in the press –

No reason to let Barry do indirectly through Treaties what we don’t want him (and Feinstein/Pelosi) to do directly through legislation and enforcement.

“What the OAS Convention studiously avoids is the question of civilian ownership and possession of firearms. Some attribute this omission to the participation of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the convention drafting process. Critics charge that the NRA’s main objective was to ensure that the text would contain no recommendations for modifying existing domestic gun laws. The result is a treaty which uses the bilateral programs the U.S. conducts in Latin America as a model for regional cooperative efforts as OAS states try to improve and harmonize their arms control measures. The OAS Convention would not require the United States to make significant changes to domestic laws, so when ratification finally moves forward there is little doubt that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will ratify the OAS Convention expeditiously.”

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=685&programID=23&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm

The CDI, Center for Defense Information, claims to be founded and staffed by retired military officers, but there are charges it’s got a leftist or even Marxist bent. So, their assertion the NRA watered it down may have been tactical.

Here’s something, though. A Federation of American Scientists (another anti-gun, pro-ratification group) report also asserts the NRA had some influence. On page 41:

“Statements made by US gun rights groups confirm that at least some of their views and concerns were addressed during the drafting of the Convention. Shortly after the conclusion of the drafting process, an analyst from the British American Security Information Council interviewed Tom Mason, a representative for the National Rifle Association, who reportedly expressed satisfaction with the influence his organization was able to exert over the process.”

http://fas.org/asmp/library/OAS/FullReport.pdf

So, alright, google BASIC. From their 1999 report:

“While support from Washington was critical to the agreeing of the OAS Convention, the US gun lobby and its interpretation of the constitutional “right to bear arms” had a negative impact on the negotiations. In particular, the gun lobby’s influence is reflected in the fact that the OAS Convention explicitly states that the agreement is purely a law enforcement measure and is not intended to infringe on domestic legislation or to require any legislative changes “pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade wholly of a domestic character.”36

…

Tom Mason, a lobbyist for the NRA, said that the gun lobby was pleased with the influence it had on the process. In particular, he pointed to the inclusion of a paragraph in the preamble to the convention referencing the “different cultural and historical uses for firearms” and stating that the convention “is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities.”38″

This one seems to be the original source. 38 footnotes to: “Geraldine O’Callaghan interview with Tom Mason, National Rifle Association, 22 October 1997,” which I can’t find online, but Geraldine O’Callaghan is one of the authors of the paper, so it’s either unpublished or she’s bluffing.

I should have said “influenced” instead of “involved in,” but there’s a credible claim there. And again, it may well have been for the best, but it’s a strategy I think can backfire. In any case, when I first posted LaPierre’s statement wasn’t out yet, and part of my concern was that they’d be backed into a compromise in some way. So the LaPierre statement goes a long way with me.