Many of you may be wondering about the Arms Trade Treaty. I’m sure a lot of you have read emails purporting that the UN (United Nations) would be able to completely circumvent the 2nd Amendment and take all of our guns away. So what is the truth about this possible treaty?
Well, first let’s do a little background looking. This particular type of treaty faced opposition from the Bush administration. Why? There are some provisions within the ATT that can lead to a backdoor around our 2nd Amendment rights.
However, the Obama Administration did a complete reversal of several longstanding Bush positions within the UN, including abortion funding and others. Why? The Progressive movement is counter to most of our core beliefs, but Obama ran on Hope and Change and was elected. While he has publicly stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment, Obama has also made it well known that he is actually against an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
FACT: As an Illinois Senator, Barack Obama opposed SB 2165. This law (passed 38 -20) – Public Act 093-1048 – allows an Illinois resident to use a weapon in self-defense even if there is a gun-ban in effect in the municipality.
Barack Obama opposed a bill/law that allows a person the right to self-defense.
The law stems from a case where Hale DeMar, a resident of Wilmette, was arrested for misdemeanor violations after shooting a burglar in the leg and shoulder – who had broken into his home twice. The prosecutors for Cook County dropped all charges. After the Illinois Senate passed the bill, Governor Blagojevich vetoed. The Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override the veto, and again Obama voted against the bill. The Illinois House voted 85-30 to override the veto.
Now think about that for a second. Not only is any municipality’s ban on handguns counter to the 2nd Amendment and to both the Heller and McDonald cases, but it is counter to your right to self-defense. In Illinois, municipalities could actually ban handguns and effectively neuter your ability to defend yourself, your family, and your property…and Barack Obama supported the ability of the government to decide when you can defend yourself.
FACT: Both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan stated during Senate confirmation hearings that they supported the 2nd Amendment. Kagan had difficulty answering questions about inalienable rights, and Sotomayor voted in dissent on the McDonald v Chicago case, which basically said that the 2nd Amendment applies to states.
Let’s start with Kagan. If you watch her response to Sen. Coburn, it is very telling. She skirts around the question of whether she believes in the 2nd Amendment.
…I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions of Americans, and I accept Heller…” — Elena Kagan
Kagan “appreciates” how important it is? She “accepts” Heller? The right to keep and bear arms is not something you appreciate. The God-given right to life and the right to defend oneself through arms is NOT something you just “appreciate”.
When Sotomayor voted against McDonald, she sided with the liberal side of the court.
In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ — Justice Stephen Breyer writing for the dissent
As a matter of fact, Sotomayor has stated that the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal government. By that standard, then freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment would not apply to states. Thus, we could be unreasonably restricted by a state government from speaking out publicly, or we could only protest on federal property? That simply doesn’t make sense – unless you are someone who is firmly against the 2nd Amendment.
“The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” —OPINION OF THE COURT, INCLUDING JUDGE SOTOMAYOR, MALONEY V. CUOMO (2009)
“the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” — Sonia Sotomayor – U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar
“The majority’s decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems.” — retired justice David Souter, Heller Decision dissent
As many of you know, both the Heller and McDonald decisions were decided 5-4. That means we are potentially 1 vote away from losing our 2nd Amendment rights – or at least relegating them totally to federal control.
It is very telling to read the dissent in the Heller decision. In a few paragraphs, the entire liberal progressive view is spelled out – that individuals do not have the individual right to self-defense. Thus the state must protect us. Most of the dissent is dissecting the words of the 2nd Amendment, while oddly leaving out the context of known quotations from the founders.
Barack Obama does not need to introduce legislation to implement gun control. He has the United States Supreme Court.
FACT: The Obama Administration blocked the importation of M1 Garand and M1 Carbine rifles in 2010 as “…a threat to the public safety in the U.S.”
The ATF thinks they would be a threat to public safety even though every purchase would have to go through an ATF licensed dealer with the buyer subjected to an FBI instant background check? Huh?
If you are not familiar with this, the South Korean government had a stockpile of M1’s that were approved for sale and then subsequently denied by the Obama State Department. Why?
Apparently, the ATF is worried about an increase in imported firearms, ease of conversion to automatic, and the M1 Carbine fully automatic being used in crimes. None of that makes any sense. Who cares if there is an increase in legally imported firearms? The ATF states that the M1 Garands are unlikely to be used at crime scenes. They are big and bulky and only hold 8 rounds. They are NOT conducive to what most criminals want to use.
More to the point they publicly stated “…ATF is specifically prohibited from maintaining any form of registry.” So there you have it. The main problem is that they can’t figure out how to legally keep a registry on these imported firearms.
This is simply gun control without legislation. In other words, the Obama administration completely bypassed Congress and refused to allow the legal importation. I believe it was initially approved because the Obama administration thought they could somehow track these through a registry and then use them to somehow inflate crime statistics. After all, this took place around the same time frame as Fast & Furious.
You can read more about this over at WND and David Codrea’s article.
FACT: Obama supports (a) ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons (b) increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms
Per the 1998 National Political Awareness Test, Barack Obama wants to ban the vast majority of firearms and weapons, and he wants to increase the difficulty in possessing firearms. Now, one can argue that he has changed his mind since answering that legislative test. However, I don’t think so. When you combine his other actions, such as Sotomayor and Kagan nominations, plus his comments to Sarah Brady (of the former Handgun Control, Inc), he definitely has a deep-rooted progressive belief that individuals do not have a right to self-defense nor arms.
Obama claims “As a general principle, I believe the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms.” However, it’s important to read the words carefully. He believes the Constitution grants (confers) the right. This is another prime example of a progressive mincing words.
According to our founders beliefs and those of all conservatives, we have certain rights from God. Included first is LIFE and LIBERTY. We can’t have either without the right to defend ourselves from harm or submission. Harm and submission can not only come from other individuals but also from governments. In both cases, taking up arms in defense is a basic fundamental right.
FACT: During the 2008 Democratic Primary Debate in Philadelphia, Barack Obama said states or local governments can constrain the exercise of the right to bear arms.
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
When asked if he still favors licensing and registration, he skirted the question with his “common sense approach” answer.
FACT: Obama believes that the firerarms listed in the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) are only designed to kill people – per the Illinois Senate debate Oct. 21, 2004.
OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Of course, we all know that the assault weapons ban DID NOTHING to slow down crime. It was a red herring to test the waters and see if a gun ban would make it to the public. Fortunately, violent crime has continued to decrease while gun sales and possession continue to go up along with concealed carry permits.
So what does all of this have to do with the Arms Trade Treaty? Well, if you look at the pattern of Obama, he would much rather circumvent Congress whenever possible. In this case the treaty must be ratified by the Senate, and it might possibly get the votes to do it. After all, the Progressives still control the Senate.
Would the ATT mean an immediate surrender of our arms as individuals? Most likely not. There would be nothing short of a second Revolutionary War. However, it would be another small side step toward the goal of disarming the citizenry. Combine that with the potential changes to the Supreme Court in the next 4 years, and we are looking at a recipe for disaster with the 2nd Amendment.
I know a lot of people who are dismayed at Mitt Romney. I also know quite a few people who are lamenting the loss of Ron Paul as a candidate. You can count me in both camps. However, anyone…let me repeat: ANYONE who stays home this November or who votes for Obama is a complete moron.
However, anyone…let me repeat: ANYONE who stays home this November or who votes for Obama is a complete moron.
This presidential election is all about judicial picks – and our 2nd Amendment rights stand in the balance.
We have made great strides in our 2nd Amendment rights over the decade. We MUST keep that up.