Dangerous Un-American Bills that passed the Senate today…this is nuts and I can’t believe they passed this stuff:
— SB47, which prohibits so-called bullet buttons and other devices that gun manufacturers use to circumvent the state’s assault weapons ban and allow swift reloading. A similar bill, AB48, passed in the Assembly.
— SB567, which changes the definition of a type of shotgun that is already banned in the state to include a shotgun-rifle combination.
— SB53, which requires ammunition buyers to get a permit, have a background check and pay a fee.
— SB396, which bans ammunition magazines over 10 rounds, including those that people already own.
— SB755, which expands the list of those prohibited from owning weapons to include people convicted of additional drug and alcohol offenses.
— SB683, which expands the requirement for a firearms safety certificate from handguns to rifle purchases.
— SB374, which prohibits the sale, purchase, manufacture, importation or transfer of semi-automatic rifles that can accept detachable magazines.
I have to admit, this is pretty gutsy of them, because this is the kind of legislation that start revolutions.
Better Bills that haven’t ever been written and probably never will be are…
SB – Balanced budget ammendment to Constitution. The state may not spend more than it takes in…simple.
SB – The state shall not be obligated to enforce unfunded federal mandates.
SB – Persons convicted of a capitol offense must have the death sentence carried out with 24 months, no more life on death row.
SB – Illegal aliens may not receive medical or welfare benefits..not ever!!!
SB – Illegal aliens may not receive medical aid beyond that needed to return them safely to their home country, no more supporting illegals in our rest home for the next 10 years or more. You should see what we’re paying $4000 a month to keep! This is crazy.
SB – Campaign finance reform – No single entity or person shall contribute more than $500 in any 12 month period to a candidate for state office. We’ve got to stop the money from buying legislation.
SB – No incarcerated persons may receive any sort of state funded retirement pay or state welfare benefits. (Common sense)
SB – Elected officials convicted of corruption shall forfeit an amount equal to their last 4 years of salary and all accrued benefits in addition to prison time.
SB – Elected state officials shall not solicit or receive campaign contributions while in legislative session.
SB – Any legislation that advantages one private business or person over another shall be deemed void and shall be withdrawn.
SB – Legislators shall bear personal financial liability for any bill that diminishes the Constitutional Rights of an individual and upon a proper finding by a court of law that legislation shall be nullified pending an automatic review by the California Supreme Court.
SB – The highest paid position in state government shall not exceed that of the Governor’s annual salary..if they don’t like it, let them do better in the private sector.
SB – Inmates at state prisons shall be responsible for growing 50% of the produce consumed. To heck with the unions who will complain about it.
SB – Inmates shall not file writs. No more wasting courts valuable time and our tax dollars. Let them do their time like they were intended, no more perks, no more law libraries, zip, zero, nada, they must obey the rules and shut up or else.
I could go on with a lot more ideas for bills, but my point for inventing them is [reasonable] bills don’t happen anymore – have you noticed? Our state government has parted ways with the people. They’ve become dangerous radicals and they are responding ONLY to a vocal fringe element from the far left that they perceive as their people. They must be drunk with power…this is the most absurd, heavy handed legislation since the Third Reich took over in 33.
There has to be a strong link or payback to Obama on this one. Where Obama failed to impose and get passed any such restrictive and constitutionally stepped on 2nd amendment rights. The Liberal supermajority in Calif State government STEPPED in , which just proved to me they are nothing but a bunch of weak minded, blind, Constitutional hating progressively dumb and dumber people that feel the need to govern EVERY aspect of our lives. You’ll never be able to explain to me how preventing legal owner ship by such restrictive Gun measures prevents mentally ill or criminals from possetion and type of weapon. Criminals now will have the upper hand and the Constitutional right of legal ownership of the same weapons criminals will have access to will be gone in California. These criminals will carry the weapons that are outlawed to law abiding people by Calif State legislative Liberals, mostly based on appearance, not so much by the guns function and the upper hand goes to criminals. Soon the media may be reporting stories that change from mass public murderers to increased home invasion crimes and families massacred in their own homes. We were given the right to bear arms by the second amendment for our countries need of an instant militia if needed, now with MAJOR budget cutbacks (do solely to Liberal OVER THE TOP SPENDING) at both city and State levels; we do not have the Police force necessary to provide us with needed basic protection, nor will we be able to defend ourselves, So Senate Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg, you tell me now “HOW MANY LIVES DID YOU SAVE “by giving the upper hand to criminals
Harold, I think we know that Obama figures in here somewhere. His gun control was deafeated, but he might be able to redeem himself slightly and set the stage for future gun grabbing if he can get radical control passed in CA. Good observation, I like the way you think. If we don’t stay ahead of these characters we’re toast!
Post Scripts ideas for proposed legislation make 1000% more sense than what floats out of the Legislature – or Clowngress – these days.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB880
AB880 has nothing to do with guns, but this in my view, is a business killer.
If the link does not work just go to bing.com and enter AB808
More of the handi-work of our C- students under the dome. have to tell you c- students is Tom Sullivan’s description.
Harriet, AB880 is a stupid waste of time…and I agree it’s a business killer. With all the pressing issues before this legislature this is the best they can do?
Jack, can you explain why these laws are unconstitutional? After all, you would certainly agree that the second amendment does not apply to all weapons.
Also, you go into Godwin terriroty when you write: “They must be drunk with power…this is the most absurd, heavy handed legislation since the Third Reich took over in 33.”
You do know that Hitler actually expanded gun rights for citizens when he took power, right? He actually repealed Germany’s previously strict gun control laws I hope you haven’t bought into the anti-historical meme that “The first thing Hitler did was take the guns!” because you’re too smart to fall for that absurd lie.
Jack, can you explain why these laws are unconstitutional? After all, you would certainly agree that the second amendment does not apply to all weapons.
Also, you go into Godwin terriroty when you write: “They must be drunk with power…this is the most absurd, heavy handed legislation since the Third Reich took over in 33.”
You do know that Hitler actually expanded gun rights for citizens when he took power, right? He actually repealed Germany’s previously strict gun control laws I hope you haven’t bought into the anti-historical meme that “The first thing Hitler did was take the guns!” because you’re too smart to fall for that absurd lie.
Jack, can you explain why these laws are unconstitutional? After all, you would certainly agree that the second amendment does not apply to all weapons.
Also, you go into Godwin terriroty when you write: “They must be drunk with power…this is the most absurd, heavy handed legislation since the Third Reich took over in 33.”
You do know that Hitler actually expanded gun rights for citizens when he took power, right? He actually repealed Germany’s previously strict gun control laws I hope you haven’t bought into the anti-historical meme that “The first thing Hitler did was take the guns!” because you’re too smart to fall for that absurd lie. Chris
REPLY – Chris, you are partly right. Bernard E. Harcourt, writing for the University of Chicago Law School and Political Science Department, notes:
If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation – as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation – several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms.
The point was, Hitler had it in for the Jews, so he first disarmed them before carrying out his murderous campaign against them. And, unable to resist, millions died.
“In Germany, firearm registration helped lead to the holocaust,” Wayne LaPierre wrote in his book, “Gun, Crimes and Freedom.”
Here are some key aspects of the 1938 law:
– Police permission was required to own a handgun;
– All firearms had to be registered;
– Any Germans who enjoyed shooting bolt-action rifles were told to join the army “if they wished to shoot ‘military’ rifles,” writes LaPierre, in his book;
– The Nazi regime “also enacted the “Regulations against Jews’ possession of weapons” within the days of Kristallnacht – the ‘night of broken glass’ – when stormtroopers attacked synagogues and Jews throughout Germany,” he wrote;
– Firearms registration lists were used to identify (and persecute) gun owners (bear in mind that a New York newspaper just published the names and addresses of legal handgun permit holders after obtaining them via a Freedom of Information Act request, because permit holders by the very nature of obtaining the permit had to be registered [http://www.naturalnews.com/038479_gun_owners_New_York_newspaper.html]).
So there is an element of truth on both sides. You’re right the Nazi’s did relax some laws and of course they made other laws much more strict! Then used those strict laws to commit an offense against humanity…which makes my point.
Now as to the laws proposed being un-Constitutional that will require a little more work because the devil is in the details and how one interprets certain words. Some things that jump out are seizing private property because a law was passed that made such things illegal when they have always been held as legal, that’s always a questionable thing to do. The other issues are of course 2nd Ammendment rights, unlawful taxation, and restraint of trade. I’ll see what I can dig up. Till then please keep an open mind.
A little more on the gun control…”From 1918-1920, with the defeat of Germany in World War I, the nation was forced to accept a series of devastating reparations after the signing the Treaty of Versailles. The defeated Weimar government agreed to payments it did not have the ability to pay that would eventually lead to the 1920s inflationary depression. The treaty signed had stipulations to disarm the government. Fearing instability to hold the state together in the depression, they adopted a sweeping series of gun confiscation legislation against the citizens before they completely disarmed their military. Intended to prevent a conflict between the states, Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles explicitly targeted the state: “Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless.”[1]
In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that “all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.”[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.
On August 7, 1920, Rising fears whether or not Germany could have rebellions prompted the government to enact a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.
In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the structural fabric of the society, a rapidly expanding three-way political divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.”
Chris…
California’s new laws, if passed, would likely face legal challenge by groups such as Responsible Citizens of California. If challenged in court, many of these provisions would likely not remain upheld based on the Court’s previous rulings that weapons “in common use at the time” (p.55) are constitutionally protected arms. The ammunition provision is particularly interesting; the Court has ruled the regulations that render firearm useless for self-defense are not constitutional. This ruling was aimed at trigger locks, not ammunition specifically, but the principal may apply since a gun without ammunition is useless for self-defense, the Second Amendment’s “core lawful purpose of self-defense” (p.58). The court adds: “A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional” (p.57). The Court also ruled that the Second Amendment has “no interest-balancing” provision. This means that the state would not be justified in restricting purchase of ammunition (necessary to use a gun for self-defense) by reason of balancing the state’s interest in public safety.
In addition to the potential legal challenge, what is disappointing about California’s decision to pursue even stricter gun laws than they currently have is that none of these proposals address any of the underlying causes of violence. Gang violence is among the major underlying causes — accounting for “an average of 48% of violent crime in most jurisdictions, up to 90% in some jurisdictions.” It’s a safe bet some of the high rate jurisdictions are in California. Drug abuse is also a major predictor of violence. These two factors are related via the drug trade, which is heavily stepped in California through the border. Instead of addressing the root causes, California is opting for ‘more of the same’ laws they already have, while further eroding honest citizen’s rights and ability for personal self-defense.
Shall not be infringed!
The Constitution is very clear on that point. It should not be subject to interpretation, shall not, is in no way, maybe, or a little bit, or in certain circumstances.
Also Hitler was busy training the youth to be compliant little Brown shirts too. Control was a key element of the Nazi’s…sound familiar?
Jack between the new gun regs and Peggy’s business killer I see another great exodus out of California…it may be what the progressive radicals are hoping for anyway.
Reminder: student at Tienanmen Square, “Tell the Americans not to give up their guns!”
Another reminder: :
Radicals around the world and radical progressives in America will never stop pushing to disarm Americans! A disarmed people is a compliant people.
Tina, there’s really no debate about this one anymore, is there? Calif. heavy-handed, irrational and extremely liberal legislators are driving businesses out, jobs out, taxes up, restraining trade with other states, and finally the knockout punch…what we get for our heavy taxes is going down sharply.
Jack, I am willing to keep an open mind on this issue. I don’t know whether the specific regulations imposed here are wise or unconstitutional. I do agree with you that making possession of previously legal guns or ammunition illegal is unwise and probably unconstitutional; I would favor a move like what was done with the Brady Bill, which allowed people to keep assault weapons they already owned. However, I do think ammo buying should be subject to a background check, just like gun buying.
It’s hard for me to take the claims of gun rights activists seriously after the hysteria over background checks. That bill was totally constitutional, and was a common sense policy favored by 90% of Americans according to at least six different polls, including one by FOX News. It also would have been a deterrent to straw buyers and would have prevented at least some criminals from obtaining guns through gun shows and the Internet. The NRA and other gun groups were unable to give any coherent reason why background checks, which are already conducted at gun stores, would be unconstitutional or ineffective when done over the Internet or at gun shows.
Further hysteria can be seen in Tina’s cited article about the UN arms treaty. One of the quotes:
“The Senate has already gone on record in stating that an Arms Trade Treaty has no hope, especially if it does not specifically protect the individual right to bear arms and American sovereignty,” Sen. Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican who backed Mr. Inhofe’s motion, said in a statement. “It would be pointless for the president to sign such a treaty and expect the Senate to go along. We won’t ratify it.”
Sen. Cochran’s words show that either he never read the treaty, or he is intentionally lying about it. The treaty has nothing to do with gun sales within the U.S., it was about international trade. The text of the treaty specifically “reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal and constitutional systems.” You can’t get any clearer than that. Furthermore, even if this language were not in the treaty, the Supreme Court has already held that the Constitution supersedes international treaties.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
The only countries that voted against the treaty were Iran, North Korea, and Syria.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/tell-the-truth-about-the-arms-trade-treaty.html?_r=0
NRA lobbyists spread myths and conspiracy theories about this treaty for the sole purpose of selling more guns. Period. Making people afraid that their guns are going to be taken away is good for the gun business. Republican congressmen fell in line and decided to ignore the concerns of 90% of Americans in favor of listening to the people who gave them the most money. That’s what this is all about.
That said, I do think there have been times when liberals have gone too far, such as the Chicago handgun ban. These new regulations may be more examples. But if you’re going to complain about ANY new gun regulation, even ones as non-controversial as background checks and UN treaties that reaffirm our rights while asking other countries to stop selling arms to terrorists, then you’re going to sound like the boys who cried wolf. Don’t let yourselves be discredited by lies and conspiracy theories like those promoted by the NRA. What once was a sensible organization that pushed sensible gun control is now interested only in profit, and doing whatever it takes to sell as many guns as possible, to as many people as possible. Background check not required.
Chris, one of the problems, and there are many, with CA gun laws, is requiring a license to buy ammo. It is imposing an additional expense, a tax if you will, on the purchaser. That is punative on gun owners. Not one other state in the union does this. I could understand it slightly better if it was done at no cost to the buyer and if there was no record kept on how much ammo was bought, but I still take exception to it as a worthless, do nothing, feel-good type of law imposed only by liberals who are non-gun people against law abiding gun owners. It’s a punative law designed to make it increasing more difficult to own a firearm…pure and simple. And it won’t stop there, there will never be enough regulation. This is why Chris we most oppose these laws now and until there is proof the existing laws are curbing gun violence they should be subject to repeal. I bet you could repeal all of the gun laws tomorrow and you would never notice the change.
Jack, I do agree there should be no fee for a background check on ammo. That is an additional cost on constitutionally protected activity. I definitely don’t agree with you that “you could repeal all of the gun laws tomorrow and you would never notice the change.” California has a higher denial rate and a lower gun death rate than the national average, and we have lower gun violence rates than neighboring Arizona and Nevada, which have no background checks for private sales. Our state’s background check laws seem to be doing something to keep guns out of the hands of those who are not supposed to legally buy them.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_22483537/californias-gun-background-check-system-could-be-national
It is absurd to keep the gun show loophole open, when we know that criminals are taking advantage of this loophole to obtain guns. I’d gladly toss aside every one of these new gun regulations (which seem arbitrary to me) in exchange for a national expansion of background checks.
Do you think Obama will sign the UN gun treaty when Congress is in summer recess?
Kerry says US will sign UN treaty on arms regulation despite lawmaker opposition:
Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.
Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.
“We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily,” he said. Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”
The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.
Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/lawmakers-urge-obama-to-reject-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/#ixzz2VIHgD5VX
Obama to Sign UN Gun Treaty During Summer Recess:
In an attempt to avoid public scrutiny, President Obama plans to sign the controversial United Nations gun treaty in August, when Congress is in summer recess. According to White House press secretary Jay Carney, Obama will sign the treaty “before the end of August,” even though legally he could have done so next week.
The treaty is problematic for a variety of reasons ranging from the substantive to the procedural. On substance, the treaty is designed to regulate arms importers and exporters, which the United States already does. The treaty, however, does not properly regulate foreign countries, leaving the United States on the hook while leaving actual wrongdoers alone. Meanwhile, signatories are supposed to keep information on “end users” of arms imported into their country and to give that information to the supplying country. In other words, it makes it more difficult for American citizens to import arms, and guarantees the solid chance that foreign governments have information about domestic gunowners.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obama-to-sign-un-gun-treaty-during-summer-recess/question-3727515/?link=ibaf&q=obama+un+gun+treaty+summer
Peggy, those claims about the UN arms treaty have already been debunked–see comment #10. And Fox News is being extremely misleading when it says there is “bipartisan resistance in Congress;” only 8 Democrats voted against the treaty, while every Republican member voted against it. That’s hardly “bipartisan.”
This treaty does’t have any effect on our domestic gun laws, it’s an agreement that other countries will do what the U.S. has done to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and warlords. It should be a no-brainer, and it’s only opposed by people who aren’t currently using their brains:
“On it’s merits alone, the Arms Trade Treaty should be a slam dunk for any U.S. Senator to support. Prior to it’s adoption, states were left to self-regulate, creating a patch work of laws with loopholes in some cases big enough to drive a tank through – literally. Arms smugglers were able to take advantage of these loopholes to flood black and grey markets with illicit weapons that ended up in the hands of terrorists, warlords, and drug smugglers and have been used against our soldiers and aid workers. That’s why the treaty is backed by humanitarian groups, the Pentagon, Vatican, World Evangelical Alliance, National Council of Churches, and countless generals, admirals, missions groups and pastors.
This brings us to the second reason U.S. Senators should unanimously back the Arms Trade Treaty – politics. When the option is to keep company with pastors, military leaders, and humanitarians or Iran, Syria, and North Korea, the choice should be a no brainer. Hopefully with time these Senators will realize this and do the right thing.”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithfuldemocrats/2013/06/kids-ask-senators-not-to-join-the-bad-guys-team-the-story-of-the-arms-trade-treaty/
Chris: “Fox News is being extremely misleading when it says there is “bipartisan resistance in Congress;” only 8 Democrats voted against the treaty…”
Websters: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties
Fox is NOT being “extremely misleading. Chris is being extremely hyberbolic!
Chris Cox, the Hill
The UN is run and controlled by radical progressives and rogue tyrannical nations. Progressives (and tyrannical governments) do not operate openly or honestly. They are covert and not to be trusted and they will never tire in their quest to gain absolute control of all weapons and weapon making.
Barack Obama and his radical progressive administration have demonstrated a lack of respect for freedom and rights as well as covert strategies for gaining power and control…don’t trust them either!
This treaty may include language that makes sense in terms of stopping illegal arms trafficking but it also includes language that will negatively impact gun makers, gun buyers, and legal open trade. Which is why there was bipartisan disapproval for the treaty.
This is the body that voted to place Venezuela, Pakistan and other questionable nations on the Human Rights Counsel
Tina: “Websters: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties”
Do you really not see how that definition doesn’t apply here? The two parties did not “cooperate,” “agree,” or “compromise” in this case. 8 members of the Democratic party =/= the Democratic party. You’re being obtuse.
Cox is taking Article 12 of the treaty out of context. This is why you should always read the primary source document, and not just rely on quotes from any editorialist with a grudge. Here is Article 12 in full:
Article 12
“Record keeping
1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws
and regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the
conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms
covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination
or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,
model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under
Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s),
importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate.
4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.”
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf
See the part in item #1 that says “pursuant to its national laws and regulations?” That alone proves Cox’s claims false. U.S. law prohibits the government from keeping information on gun owners, giving that information to any other government, and from creating a national gun registry.
Cox also writes, “Should the U.S. refuse to take part in this international gun registry, other nations could be required to ban the export of firearms to the United States.”
“Required” by whom? The UN? Aside from the fact that the treaty says states are “encouraged”–not required–to include “end users” in their record-keeping and transferring, it’s also important to note that UN treaties have basically no enforcement mechanism. If any country chose to ban gun exports to the U.S. because we won’t give them the names of gun owners–an unlikely scenario–it would be the choice of that country. The treaty does not “require” them to do any such thing.
“The UN is run and controlled by radical progressives and rogue tyrannical nations.”
Don’t be vague; name which countries you are talking about.
Certainly you agree that Syria, North Korea, and Iran are among the worst of the world’s “rogue tyrannical nations.” Again, they were the only countries that voted against this treaty. Supporters of the treaty included Israel, Great Britain, and Sweden. Do you believe those are “rogue tyrannical nations?”
“Which is why there was bipartisan disapproval for the treaty.”
Again, you’re simply using that word wrong.
Even if you still think this treaty is somehow threatening, it’s interesting that neither you, nor the NRA, nor any Congressional Republican are offering any counter-proposal to stop guns from ending up in the hands of warlords and drug smugglers. Why don’t you propose a better treaty to deal with this issue?
The fact is, there is a large contingent that is opposed to United Nations treaties in principal, no matter what is actually in them. They’re motivated by New World Order conspiracies and believe the whole world is out to get them. In order to confirm their pre-existing beliefs that every UN treaty is somehow sinister, they work backwards and spin the evidence in order to justify their conclusions.
Unfortunately, this contingent has now virtually taken over the Republican party. By remaining silent on the real international issues this treaty is intended to deal with, and instead spinning it to be about gun confiscation or something ridiculous, your party is coming across as completely unconcerned with the actual gun violence going on in the world. As Jon Stewart noted, we can’t take any steps to deal with our more present problems because you’re too busy trying to prevent the rise of Imaginary Hitler.
The American Bar Association jas published a paper demonstrating that the Arms Trade Treaty does not violate the Second Amendment. The part about imported weapons is relevant to Cox’s claims, and was very interesting to me:
“C. Import Restrictions are Constitutionally Valid
…In general, it is currently unlawful for any person “except a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or
dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in
interstate or foreign commerce.”19 Firearms permanently imported Permanent importation into
the United States of firearms by any of the above entities is subject to the Arms Export Control
Act (“AECA”)20 and is regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”).21
These regulations contain provisions to prevent diversion and unauthorized end use. All
importers of firearms on a list prescribed in the ATF regulations must be registered by the ATF
and all importation of such firearms must be authorized pursuant to a permit issued by the
Bureau.22 The permit application must include detailed information on the purchase(s), including
the specific purpose of importation, including final recipient information if different from the
importer.23
It is therefore highly unlikely that current U.S. regulations would be considered
“inadequate” and “inappropriate” within the meaning of the proposed ATT. Further, since the implementation of the treaty will be done by national governments, the determination that the
regime is inadequate would have to be made by the Executive Branch and Congress. To the
extent that new concerns arise that may require additional legislation, the language of the
proposed ATT ensures that state parties have the discretion to address these concerns within the
bounds of their own constitutional requirements.
The AECA has withstood constitutional scrutiny for decades.24 While it has not been
challenged on Second Amendment grounds, it would likely withstand such scrutiny. The Court
in Heller went out of its way to say that the Second Amendment should not be read to “cast
doubt” on a number of existing firearms regulations.
25 Most relevant here, Heller disclaimed any
adverse consequences for “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale
of arms.”26 Finally, post-Heller, federal courts have upheld restrictions like registration
requirements and licensing fees because they do not impose a severe burden or affect the core
rights–i.e. “defense of hearth and home” by “law-abiding, responsible citizens.”27 There is no
reason to expect a different standard would apply to the ATT.”
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/individual_rights/aba_chr_white_paper_att_final.authcheckdam.pdf
Chris, I’m not sure you would find much disagreement among gun-owners on this one. This is a long standing past practice. Nobody expects to be able to import their own firearms without proper licensing.