Category: Gun Rights

Perhaps it was due to the “bad” news that fewer people support gun control now, but it appears the question of whether Obama is going to actually push a gun ban might have different answers depending on the reporter. Ed Hornick and Kristi Keck of CNN only reported his full support for a ban last night.

Looking at other stories on the subject this morning, the Arizona Republic’s Chris Hawley took something else away completely.

President Barack Obama, outlining plans to help Mexico combat drug violence, promised Thursday to resurrect a treaty against arms trafficking that has been stuck in Congress for 12 years but rebuffed Mexico’s demands to curb sales of assault weapons in the United States. …
However, Obama showed little appetite for reviving the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban. …
Obama, who acknowledged the United States shares a responsibility for the bloodshed in Mexico, said that he still believes the Assault Weapons Ban “made sense” but that he wants to concentrate on measures against gun smuggling, not gun sales. …
“None of us is under the illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy, and so what we’ve focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws,” Obama said.

That hardly sounds like he’s going to be putting the weight of the White House behind any proposal. In fact, the article headline reads, “Obama rules out assault-rifle ban.”

So, is CNN simply clueless, actively pushing the Brady agenda, or a victim of wishful thinking on the part of their reporters?

Obama reiterates his support for a new assault weapons ban:

Speaking alongside Mexican President Felipe Calderón, Obama said he has “not backed off at all” on a campaign pledge to try to restore the ban. It was instituted under President Clinton and allowed to lapse by President George W. Bush.

“I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment right in our Constitution — the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners that want to keep their families safe — to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know here in Mexico, are used to fuel violence,” Obama said.

Yes, I’m sure our founding fathers would be amazed that a future President would one day think the way you respect the Second Amendment is by banning guns.  If these so called assault weapons are so useless for people “that want to keep their families safe” then why are they so popular among police officers?  Police wouldn’t carry anything that’s not useful for self-defense.

CIFTA might be good ground for a fight with the Obama Adminsitration.   There’s enough crap in this treaty to scare the bejezes out of gun owners, but it is not self-executing.  This means if it’s ratified by the Senate, it will not change any current US gun laws.  Ratification would obligate Congress to pass implementing legislation, which are basically a body of laws that brings us into compliance with the treaty.  Now, most of this treaty requires actions we already do, and it leaves it up to the State Party to decide a lot of things.  But the treaty can be read as requiring a host of new restrictions we do not already have, as I outline in the link above.

I think it is incumbent on us to oppose this treaty’s ratification, because I think this is a can of worms we’d rather not open.  Keep in mind the courts have generally read the treaty power as being quite substinative, and might be more willing to defer to Congress on implementing legislation, should we challenge it in court under the Second Amendment.  But there’s a lot going for us in fighting a treaty too.  For one, it takes a vote of 2/3rds of the Senate, meaning Obama would have to get 67 senators to vote for the treaty.  That’s a tall order.  Second, it lets us get Senators who are up for election in 2010 further establish a record with gun owners.  And even if Obama does somehow manage to get 67 Senators to go along with this nonsense, we still haven’t lost yet.  We can set up a fight over all the implementing legislation too.

The other side of the coin is, much of the treaty’s substance reflects existing United States law, so a lot of Senators might feel it’s no big deal to vote for it, figuring a lot of our fears about how far this treaty could be taken in terms of implementation would be unfounded.  What we definitely don’t want, is for this treaty to be a rallying cry for the United States to change its gun laws.  This treaty could be a lot worse, but I see no reason to roll over for the Administration.  Let’s fight this one.

From NRA’s Office in Fairfax:

You can find the text of the treaty here.  Let’s take a look at the point of this treaty and see just how bad what Obama is advocating is.  This treaty is definitely a problem, especially for home manufactures, hand loaders, and accessory makers.  Let’s take a look at some of the provisions that should worry us.

The treaty bans “illicit”manufacturing” of firearms, defined as:

the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.

This would seem to require a government license for home building, assembling from parts, and quite likely many types of repairs and customizations.  And here’s the really scary part, it defines “other related materials” this way: “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.”  This would make all people who make accessories that attach to a firearm to have a license.  It would presumably also ban home manufacture of these items without a government license.  Do you own trigger jobs?  Reload your own ammunition?   Not anymore, not without a government license!

It defines illegal trafficking as “the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it.”  This would not seem to affect any of these things happening exclusively within the domestic market.

It requires states to destroy seized firearms. “States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.”

It would seem to require some vague requirement for transport: “States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported from, or in transit through their respective territories.”

Here are the licensing requirements:

1. States Parties shall establish or maintain an effective system of export, import, and international transit licenses or authorizations for transfers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.
2. States Parties shall not permit the transit of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials until the receiving State Party issues the corresponding license or authorization.
3. States Parties, before releasing shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials for export, shall ensure that the importing and in-transit countries have issued the necessary licenses or authorizations.
4. The importing State Party shall inform the exporting State Party, upon request, of the receipt of dispatched shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

It’s hard to say how they expect this to be implemented.  It could, if interpreted strictly, make traveling internationally with a firearm impossible or next to impossible without expensive licenses.  We already have licenses required for commercial import or export, but personal import, export, or international transit has always been considered a separate matter.

It would seem to regulate carriage of weapons:

1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on matters such as:

a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;

This could mean your concealed carry records would be subject to being shared with foreign nations.  It doesn’t specify whether they mean carrier in the sense of guns, or common carrier, in the sense of shippers.  Do you trust the Mexican government with information about you?  I don’t.  I’d give the list about 10 minutes before someone bribes a Mexican official for the lists of American licensees.

I think this treaty fits in the framework of “very bad news.”  We have to fight this.

Obama has announced he will support the Inter-American Arms Treaty:

The treaty requires countries to take a number of steps to reduce the illegal manufacture and trade in guns, ammunition and explosives.

In addition to making illegal the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms, the treaty calls for countries to adopt strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a cooperative process for sharing information between national law-enforcement agencies investigating arms smuggling.

Licensing requirements?  Unauthorized manufacture?  The answer to this, from the Senate, better not be no.  It needs to be “HELL NO!”  If Harry Reid even peeps that he’ll back this, I can guarantee he will be target numero uno in 2010.  He’s already facing a tough race.

Just last week, a Rendell spokesman said he wasn’t going to pursue gun control.  It now appears that statement came with an expiration date:

Rendell, at the Allegheny County Courthouse to announce economic development grants, declined to give details on his gun control request. He plans to announce more at a press conference tomorrow in Harrisburg, he said.

At the very least, he said, he would like state legislators to allow local governments to set their own gun laws, something prohibited in 1996, he said.

It’s not going to happen Ed.  We’ll fight for preemption like our gun rights depend on it, because they do.  If local governments are allowed to set their own laws, any of us who travel with firearms, which we do regularly both for self-defense, to travel to matches, to hunt, or what have you, risk unknowingly committing criminal offenses.  We will have no idea where we are and aren’t in compliance with the law.

Presumably Ed Rendell is OK with making millions of Pennsylvanians criminals because they happen to own guns.  Preemption is a bedrock principle.  There’s no negotiating on that.  End of story.

UPDATE: It looks like Ed Rendell is using the Josh Sugarmann playbook by asking the Legislature to ban “automatic weapons”

This tirade against millions of Americans who value the Second Amendment shows what we’re up against:

But not quite. Perhaps money is the real answer. I think that Russell Simmons, Arianna Huffington, George Soros and other limousine liberals should gather their forces and raise enough money from the wealthy who are actually interested in our civilization. With enough money, they just might be able to put a hole in the bucket of the gun lobby.

We have to match actions like this with those of our own.  As I mentioned yesterday, Bloomberg seems intent on creating a well financed and effective 527 organization to push gun control.

In honor of Mr. Crouch’s suggestion, I have just donated 50 dollars to NRA-PVF and 100 dollars to NRA-ILA.  It’ll take a serious commitment on our part, in time and money, to defeat rich guys with an agenda like Bloomberg and Soros.  Given the choice betweeen a couple of rich guys who donate millions, and millions who donate a bit here and a bit there, politicians will generally go with the latter.  Bloomberg and Soros are still only two votes.

In the LA Times.

UPDATE: Feldman says:

Finally, Paul, I never said I favored background checks on all gun transfers. It’s no wonder the NRA leadership doesn’t want to meet with you — it could cost them their jobs. I stated very clearly that I support instant criminal background checks at gun shows where sellers do not know who the buyer is — and only at gun shows. Last year, I sold an AR-15 rifle to my buddy in Vermont; he’s a former Chittenden County prosecutor. I know who he is. There are four kinds of people to whom I might ever sell guns outside a gun show: a friend, a neighbor, a relative or a co-worker. In each case, I know the person, period. If your “gun show loophole bill” overreaches to everyone at all times, I’m dead-set against it. It wouldn’t work, would create another bureaucracy and would put off those already suspicious of your real motives because you aren’t limiting the solution to the actual problem: sellers who don’t know the buyers.

The only guns I’ve ever sold are to people I know.  Regardless, I don’t agree that a “gun show only” bill is acceptable, because gun shows have never been shown to be a serious problem in terms of availability of firearms for criminal purposes.  I don’t think that is a smart trade.

If the Brady Campaign wants a compromise on the issue, they can work on making the NICS system more available to people other than FFLs.  Anti-Gun folks would probably do a lot more than bellowing nonsense if they set up booth at guns shows, and ran free NICS checks for anyone who asked, no questions asked.  No gun owner wants to sell a gun to a criminal or a whack job, but we don’t want to be forced to go through the FFL dance either.  We’d use a free system voluntarily, if it just gave a thumbs up or thumbs down.  If the Brady Campaign is really concerned, what could be the objection to a system like this?