International Firearms Treaty

In a stunningly clever move, president Barack Obama, speaking from Mexico, announced support for an international firearms treaty that could have far-reaching effects on U.S. gun ownership -- without needing to pass legislation and deal with normal congressional representation. See "Antigunners Bypass House" forthcoming in Page Nine. If ratified by the Senate, the treaty, which is already written, would become law and supercede even the U.S. Constitution, as specified in the Constitution itself (Art. VI).

I have obtained a copy of the 4,078-word treaty and have begun to study it; it has numerous conditions whose effects are unclear and could depend in large measure on how they are interpreted and applied. It appears that the conditions will require binding regulations to implement, which would be written by faceless bureaucrats and be relatively immune to legislative process or full public review. As soon as possible I will be releasing an analysis of the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Materials, which you can download here: http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

This opening requirement could presumably be fulfilled in almost any way, to satisfy an anti-rights interpretation of the treaty: "Art. IV, 1. States Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials." "Trafficking" is not explicitly limited by "illicit" and could mean almost anything.

 

international firearms treaty

Comments

[pops1911]

The addendum should read: All provisions are null & void for the United States as US citizens are allowed by their own Constitution to keep & bear arms of any type, size, color, caliber, etc. Further, the illegal restrictions on firearms by any US law will be repealed in perpeptuity. No laws nor psuedo-laws will be permitted to control, diminish, register or otherwise infringe on the US 2nd Amendment rights in any manner including but not limited to arms, ammunition, accessories, components, explosives of any type, as well as any future developments not specifically cited herein.

(Of course this would have to be written in legaleese by someone knowledgeable & maybe expanded a little to make our rights bullet-proof forever!)

[Daniel]

Alan,
I hope I'm not engaging in a wishful reading of Article VI, but I read, paraphrasing, that the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties (collectively) are the supreme Law of the Land. This matter of a gun-banning treaty then would boil down to a matter of priority of laws. Given that the 2d Amendment was properly distilled in DC v. Heller, that the 2d Amendment isn't prefaced by "Congress shall pass no law..." (like the 1st Amendment), and that the Bill of Rights isn't subject to repeal or amendment (as the rights are enumerated in the Constitution but granted by the Creator), then any law or treaty that runs afoul of a "reasonable time/place/manner" restriction of the 2d Amendment should be nullified, eventually.

This assumes fair treatment in a judicial system that has chipped away at the Bill, because the Bill cannot be otherwise eradicated. About such fair treatment, I don't wax "wishful," but remain hopeful.

Best regards,
Dan

[Robbins]

Though I would’ve loved it much more if you added a relevant video or at least pictures to back up the explanation, I still thought that your write-up quite helpful. It’s usually hard to make a complicated matter seem very easy. I enjoy your weblog and will sign up to your feed so I will not miss anything. Fantastic content