Strange 'allies' in gun rights fight

[Kythas]

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis ... gun-rights

What a strange place we have come to, when Russia, China, and Zimbabwe are, on one issue, anyway, the defenders of liberty. I refer to Russia's and China's abstention, and Zimbabwe's "No" vote, on the drafting of a new United Nations arms trade treaty.

U.N. members on Friday overwhelmingly backed negotiations on a global treaty to regulate the world's $55 billion weapons trade, but two big arms suppliers, Russia and China, refused to support the measure.

Most top arms suppliers -- the United States, Britain, France and Germany -- backed a resolution in the disarmament committee of the U.N. General Assembly that will guide negotiations on a treaty.

Only Zimbabwe voted against it, and 19 countries abstained, including major arms producers Russia, China, India and Pakistan. The resolution gained 153 votes in favour.

So what's the problem with a U.N. arms treaty--wouldn't it be a good thing for the international community to be able to outlaw arms sales to terrorists, and other unsavory types? Sure, as far as that goes--but consider the fact that one nation's "terrorist" is another nation's freedom fighter. If there had been a U.N. in 1776, George Washington would very likely have been considered a "terrorist" in international circles.

Another problem is the extreme unlikelihood of such a treaty effectively thwarting the arming of terrorists and other human rights violators.

Conventional arms control, United Nations-style, won't stem the proliferation of guns that get into the wrong hands. More likely, it will only make bad situations worse.

The United States was one of only two nations that voted against the U.N. resolution last year. Its support among member states could advance a legally binding U.N. treaty creating "common international standards" for the import and export of small arms and light weapons.

The trouble is, rogue nations and thugs don't subscribe to "international standards." Worse, a "right-to-buy" provision would enable despots to acquire arms freely and inhibit U.S. enforcement of its own arms embargoes against 26 states and/or entities.

And how would a U.N. gun treaty keep weapons away from world terrorists when, as yet, U.N. members haven't defined exactly what constitutes terrorism?

Worst of all by far, though, is the very real threat that such a treaty could be used domestically in furtherance of a forcible citizen disarmament policy that could not get the votes to be passed through the legislative process.

Currently, the United Nations is working on a new Arms Trade Treaty. This treaty’s purported goal is to prohibit arms sales to human rights violators. But with the support of a U.S. delegation under the control of Mrs. Clinton, the international gun-ban lobbies could get the treaty they want--written in broad enough terms to ban all arms sales to the United States.

The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the gun-ban lobby funded by George Soros. An official U.N. report, written by IANSA member Barbara Frey and adopted in 2006 by the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, declares that it is a human rights violation for governments to allow the use of defensive firearms against anything other than an immediate lethal threat. In other words, it is a human rights violation that the laws of all 50 American states allow police officers, crime victims or anyone else to shoot rapists, arsonists or armed robbers. Control Arms (an anti-gun organization run by IANSA, Amnesty International and Oxfam) has written its own report stating that Israel (but not dictatorships such as Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism) is one of the top targets for the arms embargo that would be imposed by the Arms Trade Treaty.

I am not fooling myself--I know that Zimbabwe's vote against the U.N. resolution, and Russia's, China's (among others) abstention, has nothing to do with the preservation of liberty, and everything to do with cynical self-interest. Still, as David Codrea often says, "Any chair in a bar fight."

[Purplehood]

I agree. They took the same road but for a different reason.

Question: Can Congress and the President sign a treaty which would abrogate any portions of our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights?

[57Coastie]

Question: Can Congress and the President sign a treaty which would abrogate any portions of our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights?

The short answer to your very important question, Purplehood, is found in Article VI.2. of the U. S. Constitution:

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.

The long answer has been debated endlessly by both lawyers and nonlawyers since even before the Constitution was approved, and when pressed both sides can find reasonable support for their positions.

The bottom line, I would submit, although others will differ, is that we don't really know for sure, and this may well be one of those questions we really do not want answered conclusively.

Jim

[WildBill]

Question: Can Congress and the President sign a treaty which would abrogate any portions of our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights?

The short answer to your very important question, Purplehood, is found in Article VI.2. of the U. S. Constitution:

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.

The long answer has been debated endlessly by both lawyers and nonlawyers since even before the Constitution was approved, and when pressed both sides can find reasonable support for their positions.

The bottom line, I would submit, although others will differ, is that we don't really know for sure, and this may well be one of those questions we really do not want answered conclusively.

Jim

I believe that the shorter answer is "Yes."

[Purplehood]

Reading that Article, it appears to me that the answer is "Yes". I wonder if it was the intent of the Founding Fathers. Normally they were pretty good at covering their bases...

[57Coastie]

Reading that Article, it appears to me that the answer is "Yes". I wonder if it was the intent of the Founding Fathers. Normally they were pretty good at covering their bases...

Don't give up the ship, Purplehood. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they waffled on some issues when drafting our Constitution. They were largely a bunch of lawyers and politicians -- often both. Article VI of the Constitution has been there for more than 200 years, and the Supreme Court has neatly avoided clearly answering your question, although it has had several opportunities to do so. We have seen the same fancy mental footwork by the Court in its treatment of the Second Amendment during those same 200 years, and even Heller leaves the ultimate question unanswered. The Court wisely avoids answering certain troublesome questions with a simple "Yes" or "No."

We must not forget that the members of the Court read both the newspapers and public opinion polls. The often-discussed question of whether or not the Court should simply "read the clear meaning" of a constitutional provision is not a question easily answered. As a clear example, your quote above appears to say that the clear language of Article VI is bad. On the other hand, I would suspect that you read the clear language of the Second Amendment as being good. This would be an example of being between the devil and a hard place on the question of whether or not we should have a little flexibility in interpreting the Constitution.

Jim

[Purplehood]

Reading that Article, it appears to me that the answer is "Yes". I wonder if it was the intent of the Founding Fathers. Normally they were pretty good at covering their bases...

Don't give up the ship, Purplehood. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they waffled on some issues when drafting our Constitution. They were largely a bunch of lawyers and politicians -- often both. Article VI of the Constitution has been there for more than 200 years, and the Supreme Court has neatly avoided clearly answering your question, although it has had several opportunities to do so. We have seen the same fancy mental footwork by the Court in its treatment of the Second Amendment during those same 200 years, and even Heller leaves the ultimate question unanswered. The Court wisely avoids answering certain troublesome questions with a simple "Yes" or "No."

We must not forget that the members of the Court read both the newspapers and public opinion polls. The often-discussed question of whether or not the Court should simply "read the clear meaning" of a constitutional provision is not a question easily answered. As a clear example, your quote above appears to say that the clear language of Article VI is bad. On the other hand, I would suspect that you read the clear language of the Second Amendment as being good. This would be an example of being between the devil and a hard place on the question of whether or not we should have a little flexibility in interpreting the Constitution.

Jim

I love it when you talk "nautical".

[The Annoyed Man]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend? ...or something like that...

[The Annoyed Man]

BTW, that was the same Russia that announced a week or two ago that it reserves the right to use its nukes preemptively.

[casingpoint]

It's doubtful if such treaties could override any constitutional rights.

And such treaties may require Congressional approval. Bill Clinton made some sort of anti gun treaty with Mexico once and couldn't get it past the Senate. That might not be so hard today.

[chabouk]

No matter how the constitutional question is settled, it's important to remember that only we can enforce laws here. France isn't going to shut down our firearms businesses no matter what kind of treaty we sign.

[Purplehood]

No matter how the constitutional question is settled, it's important to remember that only we can enforce laws here. France isn't going to shut down our firearms businesses no matter what kind of treaty we sign.

I wouldn't want to make bets on that. I trust the UN as far as I can throw them, and I trust our current administration even less.

[The Annoyed Man]

It's doubtful if such treaties could override any constitutional rights.

And such treaties may require Congressional approval. Bill Clinton made some sort of anti gun treaty with Mexico once and couldn't get it past the Senate. That might not be so hard today.

Bill Clinton couldn't get the Kyoto accords past the senate either.

[57Coastie]

Purplehood says, "I love it when you talk nautical."

That was in honor of the Marine in our midst.

[Purplehood]

Purplehood says, "I love it when you talk nautical."

That was in honor of the Marine in our midst.

We have more than one!