Citing the analysis of America’s former Ambassador to the United Nations, I wrote last year about a treaty being concocted at the United Nations that would threaten our right to keep and bear arms.
Well, with the aid of the Obama Administration, this new treaty has been approved. Fortunately, there probably are not 67 votes in the Senate to ratify the measure.
And that’s a good thing. The Wall Street Journal has a column by John Bolton and John Yoo explaining why the new U.N . treaty is so misguided and dangerous.
…the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of “small arms and light weapons.” The treaty’s Article 5 requires nations to “establish and maintain a national control system,” including a “national control list.” …Gun-control advocates will use these provisions to argue that the U.S. must enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails.
But doesn’t the Second Amendment protect our rights, regardless?
Unfortunately, that’s not clearly the case, as Bolton and Yoo note.
The Constitution establishes treaties in Article II (which sets out the president’s executive powers), rather than in Article I (which defines the legislature’s authority)—so treaties therefore aren’t textually subject to the limits on Congress’s power. Treaties still receive the force of law under the Supremacy Clause, which declares that “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.” …this difference in language between laws and treaties allows the latter to sweep more broadly than the former.
One thing we can state with certainty is that opponents of individual rights will use the treaty to push an anti-gun agenda inside the United States. And since the Supreme Court has upheld the Second Amendment by only one vote, I’m not overly confident that we can rely on the judiciary anyhow.
Ultimately, our fundamental rights to protect ourselves and our families only exist because politicians are scared of getting voted out of office and losing the best job most of them will ever have.
And remember that the “slippery slope” is a very relevant concern. Many anti-gun activists think only government should have the right to possess guns, and they view incremental gun control measures as building blocks to that ultimate goal.
Even though government monopolies on gun possession have been associated with some of the world’s most brutal dictatorships!
I’m not worried that the United States is going to turn into some Venezuelan-style anti-gun totalitarian regime, so I actually disagree with the results of my poll on the biggest reason to oppose gun control.
If I was asked to give my worst-case scenario for why we need private gun ownership, it would involve fiscal and societal breakdown because of an ever-growing welfare state.
But regardless of why you believe in the Second Amendment, this U.N. treaty would be a very bad development.
[…] Is it helpful for the UN to push for rules undermining civil liberties?’ […]
[…] for sloppy and misguided work on taxes (here and here), poverty (here and here), and guns (here and […]
[…] Is it helpful for the UN to push for rules undermining civil liberties?’ […]
[…] The AP story mentioned that the United Nations has a pact to restrict private gun ownership. I explained in 2013 why that’s an awful scheme. The good news is that Trump’s new National Security Adviser […]
[…] But when I read about the UN’s efforts for gun control, global taxation, UN-imposed taxes, a world currency, the Law of the Sea Treaty, tax harmonization, […]
[…] United Nations. Like other international bureaucracies, it supports statist policies (higher taxes, gun control,regulation, etc) that hinder economic development and limit human liberty by increasing the burden […]
[…] United Nations. Like other international bureaucracies, it supports statist policies (higher taxes, gun control, regulation, etc) that hinder economic development and limit human liberty by increasing the […]
[…] United Nations. Like other international bureaucracies, it supports statist policies (higher taxes, gun control, regulation, etc) that hinder economic development and limit human liberty by increasing the burden […]
[…] United Nations. Like other international bureaucracies, it supports statist policies (higher taxes, gun control, regulation, etc) that hinder economic development and limit human liberty by increasing the burden […]
[…] And they’re using government schools to push a fanatical anti-gun agenda. And they’re also working through the United Nations in an effort to get gun control through the back door. Though I suppose we should be happy that […]
[…] they’re using government schools to push a fanatical anti-gun agenda. And they’re also working through the United Nations in an effort to get gun control through the back door. Though I suppose we should be happy that […]
[…] The United Nations and Gun Control: Two Negatives Don’t Make a Positive […]
Mufasa1026,
You are 99.99% on track everything except “big betty”, it was brown Bess…
What I’d like to add to your statement is, that it’s the 2nd because we first use our 1st and if they don’t listen we use the second.
Liberals like to say that our founders were talking muskets and didn’t envision modern weapons. Well first off, weapon design has and always will evolve the founders knew this, so the amendment is in the spirit of what ever the government has the people should also. Article 46 of the federalist papers explains why we needn’t fear a tyrant gaining power. This is because history shows that a nation can’t support a regular army of enough size to enslave it’s citizens if it’s a nation of armed people.
Of course tyrants in our government who don’t like being held in check made their first move with the gun control act of 1968…which borrowed some attributes from German laws of 1928 & 1938(which liberals are quick to point out the deregulations in and gloss over the fact that they only gave rights to those Nazis deemed “trustworthy’). GCA 68′ restricted the population from having even ground with government, and put in place a way to trace purchases through the interstate commerce clause.
The reason the founders put the bill of rights together was so the citizenry of this nation wouldn’t be subjected to things they just had. When they wanted to have locals represent them in parliament, the government appointed their representatives. When they voiced displeasure, they got taxes. When they avoided taxes, they got red coats quartering in their homes. When they rumored revolution, they got warrants for weapons confiscation…I think we all know the outcome.
The Torys (or “loyalists” depending on the media source) were the liberals of the day saying things like”the british keep us safe from pirates, natives, and foreign invaders if it wasn’t for their protection we’d be vulnerable, who’d save us”. Or “taxes keep government services running and we need them for commerce and trade protection”. Or “we don’t need muskets and cannon, we have the red coats and royal navy they’re all we need.”
The lessons learned in history are that people haven’t changed, so similar situations always arise. The reason people wanted more say in government was because they were sick of paying for a war on foreign soil which didn’t affect them here.(sound familiar) Our founders put in multiple checks and balances which are constantly being eroded by those who crave power and control. Even in ways that seem like good ideas to Joe shmo, like the 17th amendment. That amendment gave voters control of the Senate. Sounds good, except that we already had a house of “representatives”, the Senate was a balance, they were appointed by those who are responsible for collecting taxes to pay for government programs. Now all of congress vote on the whims of misled populous, not half want and half restraint.
The 2nd amendment was a check and balance, if government loses touch with citizens and doesn’t follow the checks and balances principles of our constitution, then it’s a means reset it before its too late, the ultimate check that balances…
[…] he want Obama to ram through the U.N. treaty that leftists hope would trump the Second […]
[…] he want Obama to ram through the U.N. treaty that leftists hope would trump the Second […]
I am an American citizen, and yes, there are guns within my home, however, it is a use for self-defense, hunting (which we do not do), and just going out to a range. Most people do not understand that most gun-related crime are made by gangsters, and illegal aliens in the Country that get their weapons from the black market that has established itself fairly well in the US. This gun control act is just SERIOUSLY just a way to disarm those who have guns right now whereas the criminals will still have theirs. It is a complicated situation, i get it; however, our (the US’s) gun related crime is really high because guns are easily accessible to those who ARE criminals through the black market. It’s funny to see that liberals think that most criminals get their weapons from gun shows, but it’s not true. They either steal it or get it from the Black Market, because well, the guns they use in their crimes are actually illegal in the US.
Also, Mister Niemand, our ” well regulated militia” is ANY United States citizen. That is another thing, those in power (liberals), and those from other countries fail to understand. The 2nd Amendment was created when EVERY SINGLE person had a gun (musket – big betty) of their own. Therefore, the militia that was established was every citizen of the newly founded country. Also, the first 10 Amendments in the US constitution were placed as the FIRST 10 because they were to help protect the citizens of the US from a corrupted government, so by taking away the RIGHT to own a firearm, which is the SECOND most important right that I as a US citizen has, is unconstitutional and wrong because then, the government could control EVERYTHING we do.
any attempt at disarming this nation… will result in widespread civil disobedience… and it likely will not be pretty… I admire the German guy… he is one optimistic fellow… but you know there is evil afoot in Europe… economic decline…. racial and religious tensions… terrorism… welfare states on the verge of collapse… stagnant economies… high unemployment… you just never know when a fully loaded 9mm luger might become a comfort to a clever man and his family…
@Reiner Niemand
Okay, you don’t feel the need to protect yourself with a gun. But many people, along with women and seniors like me, want the option of protecting themselves against thugs and those stronger.
Have a look at the right to protect yourself and then tell me why you along with politicians think you have the right to deny me my right to protect myself as best I can… Aren’t our rights equal under the constitution?
Gun control is not bad in itself … like the guns its only a tool.
A tool to restrict guns to reach the wrong hands like children, prisoners and lunatics. Maybe you ought to form a “well regulated militia” to adhere to the terms of the amendment, then gun control would not be an issue for any american.
I’m a german guy, I have never owned a gun, and don’t think I will ever have to. I do feel save in my neighborhood, and am not oppressed by my government, so what would I need a gun for?
Works?hun…did it…
This Treaty is bad news for people who live in countries other than the US, where this would make Gun Control ever more Tyrannical.
The ironic side of the story is that the only real gun problem in world right now is that of countries like Brazil where criminal gangs get military grade arsenal and the government response if of course to target legal gun owners. The whole subject is sometimes too depressing for me.
[…] The United Nations and Gun Control: Two Negatives Don’t Make a Positive […]