Arms Trade Treaty and the 2nd Amendment: Answering the American Bar Association

Ammo Land ^ | Mar. 21, 2013 | Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.

[EXCH54FE]

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- On February 26 2013, the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights issued a white paper on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which concludes that “the proposed ATT is consistent with the Second Amendment.” This conclusion neglects important facts about the treaty and the processes surrounding it, which we will explore in this four-part blog series.

The white paper asserts that the Second Amendment does not apply to most weapons within the scope of the ATT (which covers, among other things, combat aircraft), and that the Second Amendment is “generally inapplicable to arms exports.” These contentions are sound, but the more important issue is how the ATT might affect the importation of firearms under the Second Amendment.

The white paper argues that “import restrictions are constitutionally valid,” and we agree: The federal government does have the power to control the entry of goods into the United States. But the draft ATT, in Article 7(2), requires nations signed on to the treaty to “adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use.” The Treaty therefore goes beyond import restrictions by requiring signatories to prevent the domestic diversion of imports.

[EXCH54FE]

By ignoring this, the white paper also ignores a broad point about the U.S. Unlike most nations, the U.S. has both the Second Amendment and a federal system. The latter fact means that, in some policy areas, it is difficult to draft multilateral treaties that the U.S. can accept, because most nations do not have a federal system.

For example, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child covers matters that in the U.S. are the responsibility of the states, localities, and families—not the national government, which is one reason no administration has transmitted it to the Senate.

[bunkerhill7]

My drone is a combat airplane.

[Pontiac]

For example, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child covers matters that in the U.S. are the responsibility of the states, localities, and families—not the national government, which is one reason no administration has transmitted it to the Senate.

Absolutely correct.

Unfortunately Congress and the President more and more pass laws those Federalize crimes that should be strictly under the purview of the state.

So don’t expect this Congress and President or future Congresses and Presidents to respect the limits on the Federal government when it come to the Rights of the Child or the 2nd Amendment.

Government will respect the rights of the states or the people only so long as they forced to by the states or the people. For proof of this I will give you Obama Care.

[Standing Wolf]

Trust the American Bar Association anywhere near the nation's civil rights?

No, thank you!

[EXCH54FE]

“Government will respect the rights of the states or the people only so long as they forced to by the states or the people. For proof of this I will give you Obama Care”

Remember good old Patrick Henry, this is our Government if we are willing to fight for our rights.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry.

MOLON LABE

[GenXteacher]

American Bar Association

Gee, what a patriotic, trustworthy organization../sarc

[familyop]

"“This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty” (Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17).

Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
Justia.com
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

Excerpt:
“As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.”

TREATIES DO NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/Treaties.htm

[familyop]

Treaties

Curtis W. Caine, MD
Hacienda Publishing

[Excerpt:]

Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)

In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end. Some even boast of having made an end run around the Constitution.

[familyop]

Why Obama-Backed UN Treaties Can’t Trample Constitution
By Doug Book
The Western Center for Journalism
"Informing and Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom"

[familyop]

The bar associations of various states lobbied in favor of the ongoing divorce/cohabitation regime (and bad laws in other areas) and are not to be trusted.

[EXCH54FE]

Thanks for the great information and support(post 7,8,9). I hope they can not but I do not trust them not to try. The law and the constitution mean nothing to the Dem’s.

“some people doggedly insist that “treaties supersede the Constitution” because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution!”

That is what keeps me up at night with concern and worry.

[familyop]

Agreed, and you’re welcome.