NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer – Washington Times.

The Second Amendment is the guarantee of freedom

By Andrew P. Napolitano

9lhvviThe right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

evil1The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

bretterbringThe historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

The liar in Chief – Tea Party Nation

The liar in Chief – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Barack Obama is the liar in chief.  We know this for any number of reasons.  First, he is a Chicago politician, so you know if his lips are moving, he is lying.  Second, he is a hard-core leftist. 

 How does that prove he is lying?  What is he lying about?

 In 2008, Barack Obama told voters he would not come for their guns.  He said, “When you all go home and you’re talking to your buddies and you say, ah ‘He wants to take my gun away.’  You’ve heard it here,  I’m on television so everybody knows it.  I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

Now that he is a lame duck, he wants to follow his heroes, Lenin, Stalin and Mao and make sure the people are disarmed.

yoursolutionThe Obama Regime has two strategies for a massive gun control program.  The first is to act by executive order.  Given Obama’s dictatorial dreams, this is certainly his first choice.  He wants to reclassify semi-automatic guns as automatic weapons and therefore illegal under the Gun Control Act of 1968

Obama’s second choice is to use his Obamacare strategy.

Obama needed a lot of help getting Obamacare passed.  He could not do it on his own.  So he went the route of crony capitalism.   The Obama Team went to the Drug and Hospital industries and asked them what they wanted. 

Pure and simple: they were bribed to support Obamacare.

Obama is going to go to firearms retailers, such as Wal-Mart and get them onboard by eliminating gun shows

Right now, private transactions are not subject to Federal background checks.  This is a huge advantage for these gun shows and many people purchase their weapons at these shows for that very reason.  They do not want the Federal Government to be aware of their firearm purchases. 

9lhvviDo you blame them?

All the background checks do is give the Feds a map of where to go to start confiscating guns. 

Think that won’t happen?

Remember Katrina?  The local cops went door-to-door confiscating guns. 

The gun-grabbing socialists are making a major push to transform America and we cannot allow this to happen.  The real danger here is a bill they will craft that cannot pass on its own but will be attached in a so-called conference committee to a “must pass” bill.

If somehow a gun control bill passes, this will be the time for real Americans to fight back.   Americans should refuse to obey this bill and have our state legislators pass laws that specifically protect firearms and firearms rights in their state.

A_A8oj5CcAAVUu1.jpg largeFor every Congressman and Senator up for reelection in 2014, our message should be simple.  Do anything to interfere with our 2nd Amendment rights and we are going to end your political career.

The danger here is not simply the loss of our 2nd Amendment rights. 

 

If the 2nd Amendment goes, how much longer does the 1st Amendment have? 

How much longer do any of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have?

Australia Warns America: Don’t Let Them Take Your Guns! : Freedom Outpost

Australia Warns America: Don’t Let Them Take Your Guns! : Freedom Outpost.

by

Government officials and citizens in Australia speak out to warn America “Don’t Let Them Take Your Guns!” According to reports when the Gun Ban went into effect in Australia the crime rate spiraled out of control. The police officers are overwhelmed and are unable to protect the citizens due to so much crime.

When the forced gun ban (buy back program) went into effect law abiding citizens had to turn in their semi automatic firearms, pump action rifles, and shotguns or face going to jail. Six hundred forty thousand conventional firearms were taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens, confiscated and destroyed. Law abiding citizens followed the law and turned in their weapons. Citizens were promised safety in return for turning in their guns. Does any of this sound familiar, like UN Gun Treaty perhaps?

Since the gun ban in Australia, armed robberies are up 69%, assaults with guns up 28%, gun murders increased 19%, and home invasions jumped 21%. More proof that not only does gun control not work, it makes it safer for the criminals at large. In their words

“The cost of lost liberty can be measured in the loss of life”

Andy Dunn from the South Australian Police Association states “The bad guys are happy to break into somebody’s house. They are not frightened to break into somebody’s house while their at home.” He also states “It is very bad right now. It has never been worse.” The police can’t protect the civilians now, because they are undermanned and their morale has never been lower according to reports.

Wake up America! To those Anti-gun activists, you need to realize this is going to affect you also. Wake up before it is too late. Will the United States listen to the warning Australia is sending us? Will it make a difference? I truly hope so. I would like to thank the Australians for taking the time to warn us about the effects of gun-control in their country. Although many of us know what affect gun control has on our nation, many do not and have been fooled by the smooth talking politicians. Others seem to be in the mind set that it doesn’t affect them. Without our right to bear arms, our right to protect ourselves, our family, and our home will be gone. Thus allowing the Constitution to be destroyed by politicians for the sake of their agenda.

Original Intent: The 2ND Amendment

Original Intent: The 2ND Amendment.

From http://ajbulava.wordpress.com/

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

– The 2ND Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The sentence above has spawned in modern U.S. history some of the most heated and vitriolic debates on government authority. The key point is whether government has authority to require background checks, waiting periods, and registration for a person to own and use firearms. Some cities have even outright banned the sale, use and possession of firearms, even handguns. In some states, there are laws governing open and concealed carry laws. But what did the Founding Fathers really mean when they wrote the Second Amendment? And how should it be applied today given that knowledge of the Founders Original Intent? That will be the topic of discussion for today’s blog article.

First, we will focus on quotes from the Founders that clearly outlines the intent and purpose behind the second amendment. Secondly, we will talk about the modern implications and authority of the different levels of government in respect to this amendment and its original intent.

The second amendment is traditionally broken up into two parts or clauses. The first clause is the militia clause, that states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” This clause is the lynchpin to most liberal arguments against private gun ownership and use. Liberals argue that the right belongs to the militia to control the use of fire arms. They view the police and military as the only legal owners of firearms. What did the founders think of this? How did they define “militia?” And what was the purpose of the militia?

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. – George Mason

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.  – Richard Henry Lee

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country. – James Madison

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tenche Coxe

No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…. Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – “State Gazette,” Charleston, NV, 1788

We can see directly from these quotes that the militia is the complete body of men trained and capable of bearing arms. This would lead us to believe that the right of bearing arms, while used in the militia, belongs to the individual trained to use those arms. This is an individual right, not a collective right. What was the purpose of the militia?

The most effectual way to guard against a standing army, is to render it unnecessary. The most effectual way to render it unnecessary, is to give the general government full power to call forth the militia, and exert the whole natural strength of the Union, when necessary. Thus you will furnish the people with sure and certain protection, without recurring to this evil; and the certainty of this protection from the whole will be a strong inducement to individual exertion.  – James Madison

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.          – Elbridge Gerry

I object to the power of Congress over the militia and to keep a standing army … The last resource of a free people is taken away; for Congress are to have the command of the Militia … Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army–or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.  – John Smilie

The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.  – Samuel Adams

In a people permitted and accustomed to bear arms, we have the rudiments of a militia, which properly consists of armed citizens, divided into military bands, and instructed at least in part in the use of arms for the purposes of war. Their civil occupations are not relinquished, except while they are actually in the field, and the inconvenience of withdrawing them from their accustomed labours, abridges the time required for military instruction. Militia therefore never amount to perfect soldiers, unless the public exigencies shall have kept them so long together as to absorb the civil, in the military character.  – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America

The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. – John Adams

The design of the militia was to protect the local community from threats against itself and to enforce the laws. We can see from these quotes that the citizens that were part of the militia were not “select” soldiers, as we see today in the national guard.  The men serving in the militia were everyday people brought together to defend their community.  This fighting force was large or controlled by the directly governor or the President of the United States to fight our wars. The use of the militia or today’s national guard in fighting wars oversees is a clear violation of that standard. As we can see by this quote of Richard Henry Lee at the ratification convention in Virginia: “The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

The militia is a protection against the dangers of a standing army, which could enforce tyranny through a barrel of a gun. The reason behind this is that the full body of citizens, armed and trained in their use will always out number the standing army produced by then national government. Take, for example, the following quotes

By the last returns to the Department of War the militia force of the several States may be estimated at 800,000 men – infantry, artillery, and cavalry.  – James Monroe

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops… – Noah Webster

The second clause of the Second Amendment focuses on the real individual right of the people protected and to not be infringed upon by the government. It states: “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To form a militia people obviously need the ability to buy arms used to protect of themselves and their community. So any laws that limit a person’s ability to possess and bear their weapons in public are in clear violation of this clause. But if the above mentioned quotes are not enough evidence for the average reader let even more quotes from both our Founding Fathers and the courts of the U.S. be entered into the record as evidence of this correct interpretation.

The great object is that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun. – Patrick Henry

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. – Samuel Adams

Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense … – John Adams

The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms. This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions.” – Henry Campbell Black, “Handbook of American Constitutional Law,” 1895.

This [Second Amendment] may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. – Saint George Tucker, “Blackstone’s Commentaries” (1803)

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution,” 1829

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee, in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry debate in the state ratifying conventions

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government – and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” – Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” 1979

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” – Bliss vs. Commonwealth (1822)

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. – Nunn vs. State 1846

The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. – People vs. Zerillo (1922)

The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions. – State vs. Kerner (1921)

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power. – Cockrum v. State (1859)

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.” – Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed – Thomas Jefferson

What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear — and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, his family, and his freedom.” – Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Preface, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – George Mason

Is any more evidence needed? It is clearly seen in the words of the Founders of our nation, cases before the Supreme Court, and even from Blackstone’s Commentaries on the law that the right to bear arms belongs to the people individually, not collectively. If anyone can provide any quotes from the courts or the Founders that show this to be a collective right instead of individual, please share them.

What implications must now be taken into consideration after learning what the founder’s original intent on the second amendment? First, no peaceable citizen shall be deprived of their right to buy, possess or carry firearms, either openly or concealed. A person’s interpretation of “peaceable citizens” does give government authority for several legal actions. There is no debate that the government has authority to require background checks before an individual purchases a firearm. The purpose of that background check would be to ensure that the person has no outstanding warrants or felony convictions. The citizen who is guilty of such a crime may legally be denied their right to own a firearm until they are proven “peaceable” by regulations authorized by the state.

Secondly, gun registration laws provide a clear and unprecedented danger to peaceable citizens, without any benefit for the general welfare of all other citizens. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the danger of gun registration laws became crystal clear. The police would go into neighborhoods and forcibly confiscate the firearms from law-abiding citizens, using the gun registration records. This is in clear violation of a person’s fourth and fifth amendment rights. They confiscated property without probable cause, and confiscated property without providing the citizen due process. After that the gangs and other criminals would flock into those areas and use their illegal guns to take what they wanted. The law-abiding citizens people were defenseless. This also happened under the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in Russia. The registration lists allowed the government to isolate and confiscate the arms owned by law-abiding citizens, thereby making them easier to control. The other part of this implication is that gun registration laws have had little or no effect on the solving of crimes. Guns used in criminal acts are rarely traced back to the own through gun registration records; so they serves no real purpose other than isolating and identifying the law-abiding citizens who own guns.

During the research for this article, there was an interesting part of the amendment that was found in the original drafts of what would become the second amendment, but excluded in the final text. In the original drafts of the second amendment, debated before the House of Representatives and Senate, included a clause that allowed for conscientious objectors excused from service in the militia. In the historical context this restriction on government make sense. The religious sect known as Quakers, were a well-known group of people in the states during our colonial and found periods. They were strictly pacifist and did not volunteer for any war. This allowed them to stay true to their faith and kept government from violating their right to freedom of religion and conscious. A U.S. hero in World War I, Sergeant Alvin York, was a Quaker and tried to get out of the draft by claiming conscientious objector status.  It was obviously denied, but one may argue that the founders intended to allow this excuse from military service.

The original intent of the Founders on this topic of the Constitution is clear for everyone to see. When the federal, states, or local governments pass laws that prevent peaceable citizens from owning firearms are in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Some of you would say that the Founders could not foresee a day when we would have of rapid fire weapons, so the second amendment requires reinterpreted. But we can see in the original intent that the specific type of weapon is not a concern when defending the right of the people to defend themselves. If you can regulate automatic weapons, what is to stop government from then regulating swords, knives and other “arms.” The meaning of the terms is clearly defined in the words of the Founders. This is the case for every questionable term that Constitutional modernists and activists think need should be reinterpreted for our modern progressive era. And that is the key behind the idea of original intent.

It is understandable that government must change with the times, but it cannot change not beyond the clearly limited enumerated powers of the Constitution. The words of the Constitution are clearly defined and understood if you do your due diligence and research the meaning behind the phrases when written. Both strict and liberal constructionists must do this research because both are bound to the origins of these phrases and clauses written 235 years ago. Both theories are necessary and proper for understanding the Constitution and the authority given in the document. But we can only completely understand that authority when we know and understand granted authority by viewing what the Founders meant when they wrote the document.

MORAN: Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable – Washington Times

MORAN: Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable – Washington Times.

Senate would shoot down U.N. treaty abridging U.S. gun rights

More than two centuries ago, our Founding Fathers wisely amended the U.S. Constitution to guarantee a Bill of Rights for its citizens. Rooted in freedom, our democracy has stood strong as Americans have enjoyed liberties unparalleled in the world – including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Today, our freedoms and our country’s sovereignty are in danger of being undermined by the United Nations.

In October 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama administration voted for the United States to participate in negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) – a reversal of the previous administration’s position. This treaty purportedly is intended to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” However, by threatening to include civilian firearms within its scope, the ATT would restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in our country.

Last month, the ATT Preparatory Committee met in New York as part of a series of meetings prior to finalizing the treaty next year for adoption. Based on the process to date, I am gravely concerned this treaty will infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners and will be used by other countries that do not share our freedoms to wrongly place the burden of controlling international crime and terrorism on law-abiding American citizens.

Proposals being considered by the committee would adversely impact U.S. gun owners. There have been regular calls for bans on the civilian ownership of guns Americans use to hunt, target-shoot and defend themselves. By requiring firearms to be accounted for throughout their life span, the ATT could lead to mandatory nationwide gun registration. Still other proposals could require the marking and tracking of all ammunition.

Forty-four U.S. senators recently joined me in sending a powerful message to the Obama administration: A U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. On July 22, we notified President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of our intent to oppose ratification of a treaty that in any way restricts Second Amendment rights. In fact, our opposition is strong enough to block the treaty from passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require two-thirds approval to be ratified. In notifying the Obama administration, we outlined several concerns.

First, civilian firearms and ammunition should not be included in the scope of the ATT. Preparatory meetings have made it clear that many U.N. member states aim to craft an extremely broad treaty. For example, Mexico and several countries in Central and South America have called for the treaty to cover “all types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology and related materials.” Such a treaty would be incredibly difficult to enforce and would pose dangers to all U.S. businesses and individuals involved in any aspect of the firearms industry, from manufacturers to dealers to consumers.

Second, any regulation of the domestic manufacturing, possession or purchase of firearms and ammunition is completely unacceptable. U.N. member states regularly argue that no treaty controlling the transfer of arms internationally can be effective without controls on transfers inside a country’s own borders. At stake is our country’s autonomy and the rights of American citizens protected under the Constitution.

Finally, America leads the world in export standards to ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes, and its citizens should not be punished by the ATT. There is no disagreement that sales and transfers to criminals and terrorists are unacceptable, but law-abiding Americans should not be held responsible for international crime and acts of terrorism. Instead, the responsibility should be on U.N. member states that have not enforced existing laws and have failed to block illegal trafficking of arms.

Our country’s sovereignty and Second Amendment rights must not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights. As the treaty process continues, I will continue to work with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure that any Arms Trade Treaty that undermines the constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival because our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.

Sen. Jerry Moran is a Republican from Kansas.

A look into Obama’s gun grabbing agenda (via The Daley Gator)

Gun control has become a back burner issue. Liberals seldom harp on taking away our guns as they once did. But, despite their new silence, the Left still wants us disarmed. Maggie’s Notebook has a good piece that sheds some light on this Had you forgotten, or perhaps never knew that Barack Obama was director of the “non-profit charitable” Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002? Along with “education,” one of their focuses is gun control which they ch … Read More

via The Daley Gator

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,063 other followers