Category: Gun Rights

Return Of The Next Big Scare

On By Tom LindsayIn 2AF, Gun Rights, NRA, Politics, Rant, RKBA, United Nations3 Comments

It seems that the possibility of a UN Arms Trade Treaty, which I first wrote about in June 2011, has returned, and, in the wake of the re-election of President Obama, it has gotten quite a few otherwise intelligent gun owners quite worked up. The word is that this treaty would require anything from the confiscation of all our guns to the cessation of the manufacture of ammunition.

My point today is to reassure gun owners that no blue-hatted soldier is going to show up at your door and take your guns. This treaty, while attractive to the anti-gun factions, is dead as far as the United States is concerned, and, if it were enacted, would not result in any change in our right to keep and bear arms.

Please consider these facts carefully, and use them as defense against anti-gunners who would attempt to scare you with the prospect of some foreign organization finally accomplishing what they could never hope to do.

Now, there are those in the pro-gun camp whose personalities and modes of thinking tend to lead them to see a conspiracy and a hidden agenda in everything. To those I say that this will be my last word on this subject, barring future developments that change the facts. I will tell you that you are wrong, and point you to these facts.

++++

Now, having said all that, is there cause for concern? Of course. But is there cause for foaming-at-the-mouth panic? No.

Why? Consider the following:

First, Article VI of the Constitution states:

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;

Thus, only treaties that are executed as outlined in the Constitution are enforceable as law.

Second, Article II states:

The President . . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

So, while the President can execute treaties, the Senate must ratify them, by a two thirds majority. This means that 67 Senators would have to ratify any treaty.

In July 2012 Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS, sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, expressing opposition to the UN Arms Trade Treaty. It was signed by 51 Senators, although since that time, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts has been defeated and will be replaced. However, it is important to note that defeat of this treaty requires only 34 Senators.

Thus, ratification of this treaty is impossible under the current Senate.

++++

But, if the treaty were ratified, would this mean we, as citizens, would be subject to its provisions, to the exclusion of the Second Amendment? No.

As it turns out, the Constitution takes precedent over treaties. In Reid v. Covert, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties. Specifically it held that “no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.”

And, given that the Heller case and MacDonald case have upheld that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms, no treaty can force a change in that legal stance.

Of course, there is the possibility that, if the treaty were enforced, there would be arguments that it now represents the law of the land. Fortunately, we have courts in this country, and our arguments would be swift, and insurmountable.

Having said that, this begs the question of who would mount such a legal challenge. Almost certainly that would fall to the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. These organizations’ political influence and legal prowess have been shown time and again. Say what you will about their fundraising or political goings-on, the anti-gun factions fear them, and for good reason.

And having said that, this begs the question of whether you are a member of the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation. If not, I urge you to join today.

++++

Now, it is true that the government has, at times, attempted to enforce treaties, or parts of treaties, that were not ratified by the Senate. One example frequently given by those who are currently up in arms is the UN Law of the Sea Treaty. Even though the Senate has never ratified this treaty, many US agencies, such as NOAA,  have adopted provisions of the treaty as part of their operating procedures. This has drawn the ire of may groups, understandably.

However, the limits of territorial waters is not part of the Constitution, so, technically, it isn’t subject to the judgment of Reid v. Covert. 

++++

Of course, one reaction I get is that the President would just bypass Congress, sign the treaty, and enforce it by confiscating all the guns.

To that, I have two reactions. First, to those who honestly believe that any President could or would attempt such an obviously seditious and treasonous act, I say, “Really?” You really have a skewed view of the power of the President, much less his political will.

Second, to those who would attempt such a confiscation, I believe I would be joined by millions of other Americans in quoting Leonidas at Thermopylae, “Come and take them.”

Addressing Hoplophobia

On By Tom LindsayIn Gun Rights, RKBA, Uncategorized3 Comments

Hoplophobia is an irrational fear of weapons, and most often, of guns. The word itself was coined by Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper in the 1960’s.

Following the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, in August, the media has become so sensitive, and so eager to report on shootings, that any shooting involving more than one person becomes a “mass shooting,” As with any irrational fear, all this does is make hoplophobes’s conditions worse.This, naturally, leads them to seek relief for their fears.

Now, my wife is an arachnophobe – she has an irrational fear of spiders. I can tell you, from years of living with her, and rational discussion in times when she is lucid on the subject, that no amount of rational talk will ever be able to change her. She knows full well the facts – that she is much larger than spiders, that the vast majority of spiders, beyond brown recluses and black widows, do not present the slightest danger to her. Yet – and this is the key point – she wishes to see the complete extinction of every spider from the face of the earth. End of discussion.

So it is, then, with hoplophobes. No amount of discussion of “common sense gun safety” will change them in any way. And we, as rational people, must understand this: that, for them, the final answer is the complete outlawing and confiscation of all guns. End of discussion.

Understand, we can point out, rightly, that criminals will still have guns, as they do in all countries where guns have been outlawed. That doesn’t matter. They don’t, or can’t, understand. That is why they talk about “gun control,” not criminal control. For them, the source of the problem is the guns themselves.

Perhaps the best way to tell it comes from the words of Col. Cooper himself:

We find it perplexing that there are people who do not realize that a right may be neither granted nor withdrawn by the State. If the Bill of Rights were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would still exist, since it was to defend that right that the Constitution was established. (See the Declaration of Independence.) Thus the state may destroy me, but it may not rescind my right to self-defense. This all seems pretty clear, but frequently I find people who do not understand it.
. . . Regardless of the best efforts of our enemies in Congress, the United States remains the last best hope of Earth. Those other people are going to do their very best to destroy us in the months between now and the next election. We must remember that this is the most serious trouble that our liberties have been threatened with since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. They are going to work very hard. We must work even harder. Regardless of how senseless hoplophobia may be, it exists, and, being a true phobia, it does not respond to reasoned argument. We must defeat it by exposing it as a psychopathic threat to our cultural liberties. When we force our adversaries to the wall and make them admit that they do not care about crime or child welfare or “animal rights,” but just hate us because we are morally better off than they are, we can pick up votes, and votes are what we must have.

Emphasis mine.

I can think of little to add.

So, realize that we are never going to change the hoplophobe with discussion. But, in doing so we expose their irrational ways to the rest of the public, on whose votes we will ultimately depend if we are to retain at least our innumerated rights as they are today. So, don’t give up.

++++

Of course, if one wants to see someone really good at this in action, I refer you to Linoge, of the walls of the city blog. Follow him on Twitter, and enjoy.

Then They Came For Me

On By Tom LindsayIn Gun Rights, RKBA1 Comment

First they came for the communists,
  and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
  and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
  and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
  and there was no one left to speak out for me.

– Martin Niemöller, German pastor and theologian, 1946



Some of us have learned the lesson, and are speaking out.

David over at Musings Over a Pint wrote today about the movie For Greater Glory, about the Cristeros War in Mexico, which started in 1925.

If you are worried about government intrusion into the affairs of religious groups, especially the Catholic Church, you should check out his post.

The lesson – if we don’t speak out against injustice at any level, against any group, then we shouldn’t  expect anyone to speak out against injustice done to us. You can pick your own example.