Posted on 01/23/2010 6:28:49 AM PST by marktwain
U.N. Gun BanDuring his presidential campaign, Barack Obama assured gun owners that he was no threat to gun rights. And so far, his administration has publicly steered clear of the issue. After all, Obama knows that a direct assault on the Second Amendment would be political suicide.
However, behind the scenes, he and his staff have shown support for the U.N. Gun Ban, an international treaty on small arms sales that could sidestep established American gun rights and pose a serious threat to the Second Amendment.
But how could a U.N. Gun Ban affect the rights of Americans?
The United Nations is a favorite weapon used by left-leaning activists to launch stealth attacks on American interests. Over the years, leftist ideologues have tried to empower the U.N. to govern our right to fight just wars and the right to control our own pollution standards. And now this steadily advancing treaty seeks to govern our right to bear arms.
President George W. Bush refused to involve America in any aspect of the U.N. Gun Ban treaty. But the government's position changed when Obama gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the green light to begin the negotiation process.
The risk to American foreign policy interests are unacceptable if the Obama administration decides to make us a party to the treaty. It would destroy our ability to provide arms to non-governmental groups or other nations as we see fit. American businesses would also have their ability to do businesses in overseas markets destroyed.
The bigger issue for gun rights activist is the treaty's threat to the the right of Americans to buy guns for self-defense and sport. Foreign companies that offer great firearms at a lower cost could lose their ability to sell in America, and the flow of gun parts or accessories from overseas could be shut off.
One phrase in the treaty is key to how all this could happen. Being a party to the treaty requires all signatory states to have the "highest possible standards" in place to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals.
You can bet anti-gun forces armed with such a legal provision would find a way to use it as a reason to further regulate gun purchases. Under those circumstances, any statistical lie, no matter how far fetched, could be used as an excuse. For example, the unfounded claim that 90% of guns seized from violent Mexican drug cartels originate in America would provide support for harsh gun restrictions on U.S. citizens.
Under the guise of international cooperation, President Obama could try to use the legally binding provisions to shift blame to the U.N. for new anti-gun regulations. He could argue that he has no choice but to follow the legally binding provisions of the treaty.
Worse, the Heritage Foundation's assessment of the small arms treaty brings up a horrifying proposition that the theory of "international norms" means the U.S. might be bound by the treaty even if we never sign on.
Basically, once the small arms treaty is accepted by enough nations, the argument can be made that the provisions become accepted practice and binding on all nations. Based on that logic, America is hurt by the U.N. treaty whether we are a party to it or not.
Such a vague and ill-defined set of circumstances is exactly the type of Trojan horse President Obama needs as cover to inflict his dream of an anti-gun utopia on America.
It is therefore incumbent upon liberty minded people everywhere not only to oppose American involvement in the treaty, but also oppose the mere existence of such a treaty.
Barack Obama is the most anti gun president in history and his anti-gun views are a threat to gun rights. If he can destroy the right to bear arms while cozying up to the U.N., without paying a political price, he will surely do so.
Salivating at the thought !
Any gun owner who believed Obama wouldnt go after guns should theirs taken away because they are too stupid to own one.
This man is a communist surrounded by communists.
All I can say is I see a UN blue helmet, I kill the man wearing it.
LLS
let them try to enforce it and they will be blood spilt
I would love to hear from some UN troops about their desire to come to America and disarm Americans.
Perhaps they will study Operation Downfall, Olympic and Coronet and look at the projected Allied casualty figures against folks who were willing to fight to the death with farm implements.
We would resist with much more than pitchforks and sickles.
All physical evidence indicates they have already done so, massively, for which there may be good reason. Let's take a look at the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution:
The obvious saving caveat would seem to be the phrase, "under the Authority of the United States." Most people believe that phrase renders any treaty that involves powers not enumerated in the Constitution void. In other words, the government of the United States does not have the authority EITHER to enact laws or agree to terms of a treaty with any other nation the enforcement of which would require powers that exceed its Constitutionally enumerated powers. So in theory at least, a citizen whose rights have been violated by an unconstitutional treaty should be able to sue and have the treaty thrown out.
It's never happened.
The other way to read it is to place the Constitutions and treaties at parity and that both are subject to "the Authority of the United States," with whatever that might be left unspecified.
Go ahead and try reading it that way. It works linguistically.
In response to Patrick Henry's objections to the clause at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Madison argued that said "Authority" was subject to the Constitution's enumerated powers and so did Randolph. Unfortunately there may be more to this.
It is my opinion that the protestations of Madison, Governor Randolph, et al., at the Virginia Ratifying Convention might have been cover for a hidden agenda to federalize the law of the land. Hamilton did lie through his teeth arguing in Federalist 75 that the text of the Supremacy Clause as applied to treaties was a thoroughly debated point at the Federal Convention. The problem is, it was in fact never a point of debate at the Federal Convention. I've read the whole thing and it is not there.
I really don't like that comma before that key phrase. Does it mean that "the Authority of the United States" is the final determinant or is it the powers enumerated in the Constitution? The two are different. Most folks hold a subconscious hierarchy in our laws, with the Constitution at the top, followed by treaties, and then Congressional statutes and finally administrative rules and regulations. It may not be that way in legal fact. Note that the beginning phrase of the clause places Statutes "in Pursuance thereof," but DOES NOT qualify treaties similarly. Instead, treaties are joined to the Constitution with the conjunction "and." Then it completes the list of items with the comma prior to the phrase "under the Authority of the United States." You and I see that authority as limited by the Constitution. It may not be.
There was an element among the founders that may well have secretly intended Federal usurpations of power against the liberties of the people by federalizing legislative and regulatory powers then to be subordinated to the very internationalist agenda we see today. To see “originalism” otherwise may well be a case of willfully selective blindness as to the founders’ original REAL legal intent hidden in plain sight in The Federalist #75.
Good point. After all, Mao said "political power flows from the barrel of a gun."
Mark, I know you are already aware of this but I’m posting to you for the others.
There are only four million gunowners who are currently members of the NRA. That means there are probably only about five million people in the United States willing to take a stand for their Rights.
No one of those others are going to do a thing for Liberty when it gets serious. If someone couldn’t take advantage of the free membership last year, they are certainly not going to watch your back.
Gun grabbers are power hungry dictators. Gunowners sitting on the sidelines aprove of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.