International Treaty Could Erode 2nd Amendment Rights

urge the U.S. Senate to ratify this treaty, giving the United Nations the right to dictate the terms under which you may own a gun – or not.

Whether you like guns or hate them… it doesn’t matter. That is not the relevant point here. Regardless of any of that, you might want to hold onto your rights. Those rights are not given to you by the constitution, but are instead recognized in the constitution as being unalienable and something we are born with. We have a patten here, this would take a separate article, but watch the press closely. We hear stories of guns and drugs in Mexico… now this. We have the financial crisis and have porkulus thrown at us. We have declared CO2 a pollutant and now face a repressive carbon tax. We have swine flu and who knows where that is going. But don’t lose the pattern… the pattern is quite transparent. First create a crisis, then cram down your agenda before anybody notices. Repeat as necessary. There is more here than guns.

there shouldn’t be an international anything unless all of the participating countries have a free, civilized society. Corrupt governments like Mexico, Irad and Cuba-OUT.

I’m inclined to believe that most of the time laws like this help no one but criminals. And we all know how tough we are on criminals in court and jail.

Great post. Nothing less than the very sovereignty of our nation is at stake.

Easton–if this is passed, do you think some people could buy guns (legally) from, lets say, hundreds of gun shows, distribute them to countries of their choice, and let those foreign governments extradite the gun sellers from the US? Does it also apply to guns sold in the past?

If so, this is way beyond fairness and reason.

A couple things come to mind. Firstly, what in the world would possess Bill Clinton to sign something like this? Second, thank goodness we had Newt and Co. there for us. We probably owe Newt and Co. for extending our sovereignty for the last twelve years. I remember at the time, people like Gordon Liddy going nuts on the Clintons. Maybe there was some there, there.

Great. The country with the most freedom on the planet will now have to kowtow to South American countries where the cartels have all the weapons and the governments are just fronts for drug money or socialist morons. Next, they’ll be limiting free speech so as not to offend any of the other signatories.

They can shove that treaty and any other that would limit our freedom up their collective arses.

Might need a lawyer to understand this. I asked around and it seems that para 3 under Article V says something to the extent that if we don’t have laws on our books to satisfy the other “state” then .. Well, read it. There is more, but this whole article smells bad.

3. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the alleged criminal is present in its territory and it does not extradite such person to another country on the ground of the nationality of the alleged criminal.

I do not own guns and used to be an anti gun liberal, when young and stupid. Some years back, I changed my mind. I do not want a gun (well, that may change), but I believe it’s a dangerous step for the Government to take away the rights of Americans to have them. period. Do not take away our rights. I really despise our Government right now. They seem to think they can do whatever they want.

I think you’re right, Dolceder. This is all about sleight of hand. And I can’t help but think of the Shock Doctrine thesis. Very scary stuff. And yes, we need to look for patterns because even though the press is unwilling to do their job, we can still start stitching the evidence together, see the repeating waves of information and seriously consider the currents running just beneath the surface.

I’m a gun owner, and right now ammunition supply is a serious problem in my area. I asked a store owner and was told Winchester and Remington have “huge” contracts with the government and are sucking the supplies up, particularly for the popular handguns: .45, .38 and 9 mm. There’s also an ammunition responsibility tax that was imposed in my state in January. Right now it’s nominal. But what better way to impede gun sales and use than hiking the ammunition tax to prohibitive levels? Guess you can make your own bullets but most folks don’t.

Makes me wonder what’s up with that. And now we have international treaties.

Thanks for the article and information, Eastan. Strange times we’re living in!

Btw, I am “not” a conservative kook or a Ron Paul supporter [although the man is making more sense as time goes on].

Do not take away our rights. I really despise our Government right now. They seem to think they can do whatever they want.

Unfortunately, this has been going on for years. The citizenry needs to collectively stand up and tell the government, “enough”. From Bush to That One, we have allowed the Constitution to be systematically dismantled for one spun-up and hyped-up reason or another. The citizens of this country must make a stand and soon. And if our elected officials won’t listen, then we should kick them to the curb.

hmm….very vague. And smelly, most definitely.

We should be pushing for what our Constitution says–more power in the hands of state government (and local)–not giving it up to international organizations.

We have been exposed to an education lately on International Law and the Rule of Law. Everyone has been following the torture memos and some of us have a quaint understanding of how the U.S. signing the treaty at the Geneva Convention forcibly influenced laws that we were required, by the treaty, to add to our books. That treaty suits us and most of us don’t argue with the fact that we signed and ratified it.
*********
International law has nothing to do with torture. In 1996, the Republican congress drafted and passed the War Crimes Act of 1996.US Code title 18..2441. War crimes, torture and the penalties are specified by US criminal law and not by some vague crap at the Hague. That is one reason by Pelosi is lying her ass of about what she knew and when she knew it. Under US law she is just as guilty as the person who does the torture. If indicted, tried and convicted she could receive the DEATH sentence. Under US law there is no statute of limitations.

Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)

In case anyone is wondering how all-powerful a treaty is, this is the case that set that status in stone.

In an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the Supreme Court held that the law was in fact constitutional, noting that the treaties clause of the Constitution (Article VI, clause 2), sometimes known as the “supremacy clause,” makes treaties the “supreme law of the land,” co-equal in status to the Constitution itself, a finding that trumps any state concern with regard to the provisions of any treaty, and further implying that treaty provisions were not subject to questioning by the states under the process of judicial review.

Perhaps if Sen Feinstein is indicted for War Crimes, she will have other thing things to worry about than taking away my Mil Spec firearms.

I will not argue with you on that.

Yes, ammunition will disappear before mandatory registration and then confiscation of the guns. I said this before and somebody else extrapolated from there that the Internet and the freedom of speech imparted by it is really the ammunition by which we defend the first amendment. Right now, it’s about all we have got to do that with. That is why I think we are seeing the Chinese hacking the electrical grid and jet fighter subcontractor hack stories. This is all so transparent, and since the media is moving in coordinated lockstep with this administration… you just have to watch the news and which stories are hyped to see where we are headed. The actions are telegraphed by the media. These folks love a crisis and the power that comes with crisis management. They are grossly overusing this strategy. Maybe enough will wake up. Maybe.

Do you mean you’re worried that another country might resort to something silly like “rendition” in order to “get you”?
It certainly sounds like it to me.

After reading through the Treaty for myself, I don’t see what you NRA propagandists are worried about. The treaty describes ILLICIT (that means “illegal”, for those who don’t have a dictionary or are afraid of learning something new) trafficking and manufacturing. You know–the stuff that THIS country already prohibits.
I am so fucking tired of the NRA and its worrywarts who defend some asinine belief that if they can’t own a military-grade weapon in their own arsenal that the next thing you know they won’t be able to own a standard rifle or handgun. That is bullshit.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO OWN AN OPERATIONAL UZI OR A WORKING AK-47 OR A FUNCTIONAL M-16.
The treaty’s wording doesn’t prohibit any American or any Venezuelan or any Argentine or any Bahamian from owning LEGAL weapons, as provided by the laws of their home countries. Nor does it, for that matter, prohibit hunters from entering another country with a weapon provided they do so in FULL compliance with the host country’s own weapons laws (most travel guides provide ample basic information on hunting laws for visitors but always recommend that a vacationing hunter check with the country’s consulate or embassy for up-to-date information, especially in regards to LEGAL transport of firearms).
As far as I could tell, the treaty is working to prevent things like the narco-terrorists in Colombia from obtaining weapons with the apparent ease they’ve been doing. And, there is NOTHING that I read to even suggest that the 2nd Amendment would be overruled or overturned. The ONLY context that this treaty considers is the ILLICIT manufacture and trafficking–things that the US government already prohibits, even under the 2nd Amendment.
To put this in terms that some of the more neoconnish here might understand, “If you’re not engaged in illegal firearms manufacture or transport, then why are you worried?” (That’s a paraphrase from the far-right against people who opposed the Bush Administration’s less-than-legal wiretapping and coercion of the telecom industry in the “war on terror”.)
Once upon a time, the NRA dealt strictly with educating people in the safe handling of firearms. Now, it’s its own industry to put M-16s into the hands of anyone able to hold one and decrying any reasonable efforts to make sure that military-grade weapons are only available to the military and law enforcement (instead of street gangs and unstable teenagers).

So, I read the thing and it also says this…

Approximately 90 percent of weapons seized by the Mexican Government from Mexican drug cartels came into the country illegally from the United States.

I also remember seeing that 90% was the traceable guns and not a percentage of all guns. Ours are traceable because we already have serial numbers on guns in this country. We already have laws about removing these marks. Guns are cheap in Eastern Europe, and Korea. What, does nobody think Mexico can’t get cargo directly into their ports from these countries? Of course they do. Do we think Mexico can keep guns from importing through their ports? They have a corrupt system. Criminals have the edge in corrupt governments. This is all just candy coated farce.

Good Article Eastan. Thanks.

NRA propagandists?

You may not have been paying attention to the comments here. Attorneys have, over the past 12 years, found this treaty to be too vague. “Illicit” can be defined differently by each state in the treaty. That is just one.

If you read the second link at the bottom of the Treaty you will see the “published” examples. Argentina has “reservations” about exempting replicas of old guns. Uruguay put this treaty under the command of their military.

If you like the idea of an International Treaty dancing on your rights, then pick one of the countries that have ratified this thing and find a nice hopey village there to park a soap box for change. Why not start by going down and publicly challenging Chavez on his beloved socialism? There you go. That’s the ticket.

This just proves that the United States has no government because those heading the government are not governing by the the Constitution they promised to protect and defend. None of this is legal under our Constitution. The Declaration of Independence gives us a remedy

for a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism …[and] it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security…

Thus, those who do not follow the Constitution and try to write laws that are against our Constitution without following the rules for Amendments are those creating a revolution and We the People, who give our consent to those governing us, also has the Right to alter or to abolish it when it strays from its Constitutional mandate. This government leader, that a political party selected for us, refuses to honor our laws, castigates our Country in enemy countries, and bows to foreign potentate, does not represent the United States of America and has lost the privilege of representing our Constitution and Our People. All that needs to be done is to “provide new guards for our future security.”

Thank you, Eastan. The equivocation on the part of bots is dumbfounding. It all hinges on the definition of illicit and judging from the way they create fissures in our language, that could come to mean a cap gun.

ditto

Thank you both. It only takes 34 Senators to stop a treaty ratification. But we should never sleep on important issues.

I agree with you regarding your interpretation, except that I would state it without the harsh insults, because usually it isn’t helpful, but I understand from where you are coming with your point of view.

The Lou Dobbs video specifically says the treaty requires guns exported or imported be clearly marked with the name and place of manufacture and a system to trace those imported or exported firearms. American citizens can still buy legal guns, there is no restriction, and can still buy legal ammunition, to their heart’s content.

Sometimes I don’t understand the outrage when if you buy a car, a computer, a camera, etc., all have means to trace back to a manufacturer, to place sold and to a purchaser, confiscated or not. Plus we must obtain a license to drive, and no one confuses those with restrictions of rights or “control” on our rights.

I find it more outrageous that our government is routinely and indiscriminately reading our emails, listening to our phone conversations, prying into our personal records, etc., without due cause.

I do believe the Constitution states that Congress may not pass laws that contravene the rights of Americans laid out in the Constitution. I am assuming they also meant that other countries couldn’t do so either. Mr. Constitutional Lecturer should know that. S

I do believe the Constitution states that Congress may not pass laws that contravene the rights of Americans laid out in the Constitution. I am assuming they also meant that other countries may not do so either. Mr. Constitutional Lecturer should know that. So should the Supreme Court.

A basic legal perspective, for your information:

CIFTA is what’s called, in the parlance of international law, a “non-self-executing” treaty. That means that even if the Senate ratifies it, it does not become domestic law enforceable in courts unless and until Congress passes some separate legislation enacting the treaty’s provisions.

What this means is that you have very little to worry about. To mean anything whatsoever to any of us, Congress would have to pass a law (not just ratify the treaty). Any law running afoul of the 2nd Amd. would be struck down in courts. You can’t do an end run around the Constitution with a treaty like this (or any treaty, really). So, no worries. Hugo Chavez is not coming for your guns.

I know a fair bit about the legal stuff at issue here, FWIW, so I can do my best to answer any questions you might have.

Your understanding of the law is outdated. That’s a 1920 case, and it’s been significantly restricted since. Go look at Reid v. Covert. And then Medellin, if you’re feeling masochistic. Anyway: the Constitution trumps treaties.

Go look at Reid v. Covert. And then Medellin

I have. I still do not support ratification of this treaty. It could open up more cans of worms than a torture memo release.

Covert was a special complex case that really did not change anything.

Medellin will stand until what, another case reverses that holding?

I appreciate the legal input. I have gotten a lot over the past few days. The core element is that there seems to not be any up side for the U.S. in this treaty. Therefore it should not even be considered.

I encourage you to re-read Black’s opinion from Covert. In strong, broad language, it condemns the idea that treaties aren’t subject to constitutional constraints. Nobody with any credibility argues otherwise, and there’s not a scrap of case law out there to the contrary. To wit:

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. *** It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined ***

That isn’t dicta, and it’s not limited to the case at bar. That’s how you write binding case law.

You can oppose this treaty on policy grounds to your heart’s content. I’m just saying that as a constitutional matter, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. You look a little silly crying wolf about the 2nd Amd., frankly.

I encourage you to (re)read Covert. It clearly and conclusively states that treaties are subject to constitutional restrictions. Period. Nobody credible argues otherwise nowadays.

So you can oppose the treaty on policy to your heart’s content. When you do so on constitutional grounds, though, you end up looking a little silly.

i have never owned a gun but am thinking about purchasing one and learning to use it.

[...] he says he’s going to crack down on overseas tax havens.  I suppose since he thinks international treaties should take precidence over American soverienty, his pretty words should unlock the secrets of [...]

BigMIke…

I am So Lucky That I found your blog and great articles. I will come to your blog often for finding new great articles from your blog.I am adding your rss feed in my reader Thank you…