Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control

[oneshooter]

Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control
NRA guests warn international treaty would strip 2nd Amendment rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 14, 2009
7:05 pm Eastern


By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



United Nations headquarters

Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.

Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.

"Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms," Clinton said in a statement. "The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area."

Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous submission of America's Constitution to international governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control laws it couldn't pass through Congress.

'Shooting Back' tells of lives saved from attackers. Learn the Bible's defense of bearing arms from a man who defended his church from terrorists

Bolton, for example, told Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle Association's NRA News and host of the NRA's Daily News program, "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."

He continued, "There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda."

(Story continues below)

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116041


Brian Wood, disarmament expert for Amnesty International, explained in a Bloomberg report why his organization and others are pushing for the U.S. to join Arms Trade Treaty talks. Wood said the U.S. is the largest conventional arms trader in the world and the unregulated trade of conventional arms "can fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism."

"All countries participate in the conventional arms trade and share responsibility for the 'collateral damage' it produces – widespread death, injuries and human rights abuses," said Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms in an Agence France-Presse interview.
"Now finally governments have agreed to negotiate legally binding global controls on this deadly trade."

Why do they keep bringing this up? Any treaty that is in violation of the the Constitution is null and void.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[JonQ]

1. But but obama never said anything about gun control

the only people who thinks he did are racists.

Um, guns are penis substitutes.

Blood flowing in the streets.

And so on.

[TheWraith]

2. World Nut Daily? Seriously?

Sorry oneshooter, but I don't believe anything that comes out of that BS factory. Besides, I still haven't seen anyone coherently explain how a treaty against international arms trafficking affects domestic gun laws.

[taurus145]

6. I'll do some looking, but

a quick search found a number of articles, blogs, etc. addressing this issue.

If true, we should do all we can to stop it. Handing any part of our rights or U.S. sovereignty over to the U.N. or any other power outside of our elected government is unacceptable.

[oneshooter]

9. Reject the info not the source. N/T

[PavePusher]

10. I already tried that...

and was all but shot. Good luck.

[ixion]

3. yeah, I don't know why they continue to push that

it's unconstitutional, as you point out, and it really pisses off the gun folks.

[krispos42]

19. If it's a treaty, it becomes part of our Constitution once the Senate ratifies it

If the treaty includes, say, a provision that all civilian-owned firearms be registered, then that becomes federal law. You would be constitutionally required to register them.

If it requires that all civilian-owned firearms be in non-miliary calibers, then that becomes federal law. You could not longer own a .308, 7.62x39, .223, 9mm, .45 auto, etc.

:shrug:

We'll see.

[X_Digger]

24. Not quite..

That's the 'Dulles Doctrine' approach to treaties, and Dulles never backed up his assertions, even though every president since has claimed the authority.

See Reid v. Covert

. . .no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. . . .

This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty.
This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

Treaty ratification is an act of congress, and no act of congress (alone) can override the constitution. Otherwise the SCOTUS could never rule a law unconstitutional.

see US Constitution, Article VI-

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

eta: forgot to clarify the point re firearms.. If Heller set a bar at not banning weapons 'in common use, for lawful purposes', and if Heller II or one of it's offspring accomplishes incorporation against the states, then no treaty that abrogates the rights protected by the second amendment (as interpreted by Heller, etc) could be held as constitutional.

eta2: This comes up fairly frequently with the nutjobs who fear a NWO / UN takeover, or RW nutjobs against climate change / environmental legislation and treaties like Kyoto. Everyone gets stuck on the supreme Law of the Land part but overlook / don't quote the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding bit.

[krispos42]

27. Interesting, thank you

We all need to take a chill pill, then! :-)

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Why would it necessarily be unconstitutional?

What if the proposed treaty only limited exports and imports? Hell, we do that already.

[pipoman]

16. Who will decide what imports and exports will be restricted?

I am fucking completely sick of usurpation of US checks and balances through treaties and agreements which do not allow for public approval.

[eqfan592]

17. Agreed. (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Any such treaty would require ratification by congress.

We live in a republic. Your representatives will work out the details of any such treaty. So you will have input. You have it every time you vote.

[pipoman]

20. Like the input the 85% of the population

who opposed NAFTA and GATT received as our fellow Dem Senators and Congress people, along with Bill were tongue kissing the Repubs as they all sold US labor out to corps? I believe we need Treaty and Agreement reform which would require a vote on non-national security related treaties and binding agreements.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. You still had input.

We elected a man with honesty issues, and he sold us out. I'm sure real conservatives feel the same about Bush and his wild spending.

I'm still not going to flip out about this until I see a proposed treaty, and can see for myself if it might be unconstitutional. It's entirely possible to craft an international treaty on small arms that will not even touch our internal rights.

[eqfan592]

30. Very true.

Going off the deep-end now seems premature and counterproductive. Lets see what the wording is first.

[geek tragedy]

21. Because the gun nuts think they own the constitution. nt

[rl6214]

25. Because the anti=gun pussies

All have sand in their manginas.

There, that sounds about like your post.

[geek tragedy]

29. Ooh, sexism to go along with the NRA/Teabagger propaganda. nt

[eqfan592]

You're FAR closer to the "teabagger" mindset...

...than any of us our, buddy. You suffer from the same denial of reality as they do.

[geek tragedy]

32. Hmm, talking about how an international arms control treaty

is a secret Obama gun grabbing conspiracy. Yeah, that's totally not a Teabagger way of thinking.

:sarcasm:

[eqfan592]

33. Never once said I thought it was that.

In fact, you can find a post just above here where I state otherwise. Nice try though. ;)

[geek tragedy]

34. That's what the OP is about. The OP is demonstrating what

I consider to be the 'gun nut' way of thinking.

Remember that the question was why World Nuts Daily's claims about its constitutionality be correct? I answered that it was essentially a gun nut argument being advanced.

If you're not agreeing with the OP, I'm not calling you a gun nut.

[eqfan592]

35. My problem is use of the phrase "gun nut."

People who tend to use this phrase also tend to be very unenlightened when it comes to the real issues at hand. So I guess my question for you would be then how do you personally define a "gun nut"?

[geek tragedy]

37. No real defintion--kinda like porn--I know it when I see it.

But, the stuff in this article is a pretty darn good example of it. I'd say if you combined paranoia, obsessiveness, and rightwing politics, that's a pretty good start. In other words, someone who's nuts, and whose particular obsession happens to be guns.

People who collect and hunt and stuff like that--if they're not demonstrably crazy, not a gun nut.

[eqfan592]

38. Fair enough then.

I apologize then for my lashing out. Typically around these parts, people use the term "gun nut" pretty loosely, and usually to mean anybody who doesn't think guns are inherently evil like they do.

[geek tragedy]

40. I grew up in a rural state where the start of deer season was a like a holiday.

I would never own a gun myself, but I recognize that they're part of the culture.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. I think ANYTHING from WND is suspect.

If they said the sky was blue, I would head to the nearest window, because I'm pretty sure the sky would be on fire.


Speculation is pointless, until some sort of treaty is actually proposed. There is a narrow scope in which it MIGHT be unconstitutional, and plenty of ways in which it might be not only legal, but perfectly reasonable.

[rd_kent]

39. Ahh, such an eloquent post. So insightful and full of knowledge.

Not.

[panader0]

5. 153 to 1??

So if the US hadn't voted the way it did, it would be 152 to 2. I wonder who the 1 was?

[tularetom]

7. Who fucking cares?

This is all propaganda to make a bunch of scared people wet their pants in fear that the black president wants to take their guns away.

I'm a "supporter of gun rights" and I'm not losing any sleep over this.

I gave up a life membership in the NRA over just this kind of bullshit. I've been hearing the same crap for 40 years and nobody has ever tried to take even one of my guns. In fact I have more of them now than I did 40 years ago.

[Tejas]

8. No need to make this a racial issue.

Has nothing to do with the color of President Obama's skin, has everything to do with his words during the primaries, the bragging by VP Biden about his beloved AWB didn't/hasn't helped either.


Also, no one has tried to take _your_ guns? Let's see you try living in a state that requires registration. Lapse on your paperwork/permits/red tape and see how fast they come knocking on your door.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. Obviously you don't live in CA or LA.

In CA they did take away so called assault weapons and let us not forget the city government confiscating guns after Katrina. Just because you were not personally effected doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

[rl6214]

26. Oh grow up and get over it

It has nothing to do with a "black president".

Why do you have to make it into a racial thing? It's people like you that continue to stir up the racial issue when there is nothing there to warrant it.

[X_Digger]

11. We've talked about this treaty before..

Gun Owners of America: "Obama Proposes Signing Treaty To Ban Reloading"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=218614#218618

Next battle for the 2nd Amendment Obama wants senate to ratify CIFTA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=218548

CIFTA could ban reloading without a federal license.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=219503

Here's a link to the treaty with an intro by Pres Clinton..

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:td049.pdf

The Convention will not require implementing legislation for the United States. As further discussed below, the existing body of federal laws in the United States is adequate to satisfy the Convention’s provisions regarding requirements for legislation, and the other provisions contained in the Convention are self-executing and will not require new legislation.

The Convention includes a Preamble, thirty articles and an Annex. The Preamble makes clear that the Convention is intended to address the problem of transnational trafficking in firearms, and is not meant to regulate the internal firearms trade of the States Parties. The Preamble expressly recognizes, for example, that the Convention ‘‘does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession or trade of a wholly domestic character. . . .’’

[rrneck]

13. Beat me again. nt

[rrneck]

12. It's not that scary but worth watching.

From the Bloomberg item referenced by WND:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=abkyS4.975YM
Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration voted today to support United Nations-sponsored talks on a treaty to regulate the $55 billion-a-year trade in conventional weapons, reversing prior U.S. opposition to negotiations begun in 2006.

The General Assembly, consisting of all 192 UN member governments, adopted a resolution setting out a timetable for talks during the next two years on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a UN conference to produce a final accord in 2012. The vote was 153-1, with 19 abstentions.

--snip--

The U.S. trade in conventional weapons amounts to 40 percent of the global total, according to Wood. The resolution says the unregulated trade in conventional arms “can fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism.”

--snip--

Clinton said the consensus, in which every nation has an effective veto on agreements, was needed “to avoid loopholes in the treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Anything out of WND isn't going to give us much to work with. It would be better to find who they're stealing content from so you can strip out all the right wing bullshit.

[Euromutt]

14. There's so much twaddle talked about this

Much of the twaddle is based on willful misunderstanding about what the UN can and cannot do. The UN does not have the authority to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign nation except under a UN Security Council resolution passed on the basis of Chapter VII, i.e. to counteract serious threats to international peace and stability. The Program of Action (PoA) to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects is intended to halt international sales of arms to malign "non-state actors" such as terrorist groups, organized criminals and guerrilla groups like the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone (which gained notoriety for chopping limbs off non-combatants), which is a laudable goal in principle, if you ask me.

Frankly, the way certain gun rights organizations like the NRA have been going apeshit over this makes me do a facepalm. Even if (and that's a big "if") the member states manage to slip in some bit about restricting private ownership of firearms within sovereign member states, any international treaty does not gain force of law in the United States unless and until it is ratified by Congress, and frankly, I just don't see that happening. More ot the point, it means that anyone who claims Obama is trying to side-step Congress by signing an international treaty needs to either retake Civics 101, or stop fucking lying already. What Rebecca Peters wants is irrelevant; IANSA has less status at the UN than SAAMI, and the main thing she seems to good at achieving is getting her face on television, and precious little else.

The notion of the US being "the largest conventional arms trader in the world" very much depends how you measure it. Yes, the US sells the most weapon in terms of dollars, but then, American weapons tend to be more high-tech (and the workers better paid) than Chinese or Russian ones. A Chinese AK clone costs about $150, whereas an M16A4 costs the US government ~$690; so you can get more than four Chinese rifles for the price of one American one. And if you look at arms sales as percentage of export revenue, it's probably much higher for a country like Serbia (before it was spun off, the Zastava "Special Products" division --i.e. the weapons manufacturing branch--was the only part of the conglomerate making a profit).

[benEzra]

22. Out of curiousity, do you think this could restrict gun imports to the USA

in any way? E.g., shutting down the international trade in civilian AK's, Glocks, milsurps, and whatnot?

That's one of the major concerns I see, but I'm not sure how realistic it is. I know IANSA wants to push things in that direction, but I don't honestly know how much influence the gun-haters have.

The media focus on the USA does seem odd to me, though, only because the USA is among the more careful nations of the world about tracking the conventional weapons it sells.

[Euromutt]

23. Theoretically possible, in practice very unlikely

It would primarily depend on the countries of origin of the firearms in question, and I doubt any of them are keen to lose the export revenue, so they wouldn't support any treaty that contained such provisions. Where else are former ComBloc countries going to get hard currency for their obsolete military small arms or semi-auto-only Kalashnikov-pattern rifles? What if Congress decided that any country that signs such a treaty can forget about arms purchases by the US government; would Austria (Glock), Belgium (FNH) and Germany (H&K and SIG) be willing to risk that?

The bottom lines is that messing with perfectly legitimate imports of firearms into the US is going to be a money loser, and IANSA can't offer an alternative to that.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. And that's just measuring arms trade ABOVE BOARD.

Destabilization is done much more quietly, and isn't showing up on their goddamn spreasheets unless a shipment is intecepted, AND THEN only the stuff that some police or guard force reports shows up.

[Xela]

42. Careful

I don't think Rebecca Petes/IANSA should be underestimated in the least.

It's no secret that these antis bounce around from country to country pushing for the disarmament of the civilian population.

Sorry I couldn't find the english version:
http://www.iansa.org/control_arms/100days/documents/accion-mundial-de-parlamentarias.pdf

http://www.controlarms.org/en

Xela

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!