Sen. Moran and 44 Senators to Obama Administration: Second Amendment Rights Not Negotiable

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lordhat**

http://moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ContentRecord_id=523007a3-18e1-4de3-a358-d4437234be56

http://moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ContentRecord_id=523007a3-18e1-4de3-a358-d4437234be56 wrote:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) today led 44 senators in expressing grave concern about the dangers posed to Second Amendment rights by the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. The 45 senators notified President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton of their intent to oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding American gun owners. This is enough to block the treaty from Senate passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require approval of two-thirds of Senators present to be ratified.

“Our country’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations,” Sen. Moran said. “Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.”

In the letter, the senators wrote: “As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your Administration to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership. These freedoms are not negotiable, and we will oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition and related items.”

“As we have for the past 15 years, the NRA will fight to stop a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on the Constitutional rights of American gun owners,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “This letter sends a clear message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian arms within its scope is not supported by the American people or their elected U.S. Senators. Sen. Moran is a true champion of our freedom. We are grateful for his leadership and his tenacious efforts on this issue, as well as the 44 other senators who agree with the NRA’s refusal to compromise on our constitutional freedoms.”

In October of 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama Administration reversed the previous Administration’s position and voted for the U.S. to participate in negotiating the Arms Trade Treaty, purportedly to establish “common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms.” Preparatory committee meetings are now underway in anticipation of a conference in 2012 to finalize the treaty. A treaty draft has not yet been produced.

The letter was signed by U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Scott Brown (R-MA), Richard Burr (R-NC), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mike Lee (R-UT), John McCain (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rand Paul (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), John Thune (R-SD), Pat Toomey (R-PA), David Vitter (R-LA), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

**Karon**

I hate it when Politicians say that something "isn't negotiable" or "cant be compromised upon"

...but that's your job D;

**Lordhat**

Karon wrote:I hate it when Politicians say that something "isn't negotiable" or "cant be compromised upon"

...but that's your job D;

Not on this topic it isn't.

**Mannahnin**

No? Do they also insist on the right of every citizen to own a 50 cal machinegun? How about a grenade launcher?

The right to bear arms has been negotiated quite a bit, for many, many years.

To resort to this kind of rhetoric is silly and embarassing grandstanding. I'm sure Sen Ayotte thinks she's going to win the approval of NH's happy gun lobby, and she's probably right. But she doesn't look very smart or reasonable signing onto this.

**Lordhat**

Mannahnin wrote:
The right to bear arms has been negotiated quite a bit, for many, many years.

It has, but the UN has no business even touching on our national rights. If our constitution is to be changed it is going to be done so by the American government and people. Admittedly I know next to nothing about the UN Arms Trade Treaty, but I do know that I do not approve of the President signing any treaty with a foreign power or powers that might infringe upon our rights, and sidestep our own legal process. I do approve of these senators standing up and saying so as well.

**SOFDC**

If our constitution is to be changed it is going to be done so by the American government and people.

+1.

And with the court decisions relating to arms issues in the past few years, I think Obama and Co may be in for a bigger struggle than they though previously on the issue. I won't even bother to go into the ramifications of the Fast and Furious debacle coloring peoples minds towards no gun control here.

**Mannahnin**

How does it infringe your Second Amendment rights to have restrictions on to whom you can sell in other countries? Does the Right to Bear Arms also inherently include the right to sell them to anyone you like internationally?

**Stormrider**

Mannahnin wrote:How does it infringe your Second Amendment rights to have restrictions on to whom you can sell in other countries? Does the Right to Bear Arms also inherently include the right to sell them to anyone you like internationally?

Not necessarily, but it gives all kinds of legal precedence for the case to be made by the UN for us to lay down our arms.

The UN is the camel trying to get into the tent, we cannot yield any sovereignty to this organization, we do so at our own peril.

**SOFDC**

How does it infringe your Second Amendment rights to have restrictions on to whom you can sell in other countries? Does the Right to Bear Arms also inherently include the right to sell them to anyone you like internationally?

That thought, in itself, does not. However, given that we already have a Quite strict ITAR in effect in the USA, and have for some time...all under our own power and decision, why bother with some sort of treaty at all?

To boot this treaty is early enough in development that I cannot determine what EXACTLY it is that they are after, and with weaponry you need to be very specific. Then you pile on the fact that depending on what is asked of the signatory nations very well COULD impact the 2nd amendment severely, AND this is all from a section of the UN who has a very definite interest in disarming civillians as much as government bodies, well...that people are displaying their feelings that the treaty going in that direction would not be welcome should come as no surprise.

**Mannahnin**

Did you try reading the wiki article on it?

I can't imagine a circumstance in which the US would allow this thing to mutate in some way into a gun control mechanism internal to a state. That seems like a weird paranoid conspiracy theory. How does "don't sell guns to terrorists or internationally in such a way that they can easily fall into the hands of terrorists", equate to authority within a country to disarm its citizens?

**biccat**

Mannahnin wrote:Did you try reading the wiki article on it?

I can't imagine a circumstance in which the US would allow this thing to mutate in some way into a gun control mechanism internal to a state. That seems like a weird paranoid conspiracy theory. How does "don't sell guns to terrorists or internationally in such a way that they can easily fall into the hands of terrorists", equate to authority within a country to disarm its citizens?

The wiki article doesn't specify (and it notes that the treaty hasn't been negotiated) that it only covers international transfers of ownership. It could very well apply to legitimate transfers between dealers and consumers or between two consumers.

Further, the language the wiki article uses is "substantial risk," which would likely require some investigation into ownership. Since US law currently prohibits sale of weapons to terrorist organizations, criminals, and those under an embargo, the only effect of this law would be to broaden the inquiry before purchasing a weapon. Too much interference from the government can create a de facto ban on sale, thereby limiting the right.

**SOFDC**

How does "don't sell guns to terrorists or internationally in such a way that they can easily fall into the hands of terrorists", equate to authority within a country to disarm its citizens?

What constitutes "Easily falls into the hands of terrorists"?
What constitutes a terrorist?

Do be specific on how you determine these things prior to someone doing something naughty, because you can quite easily cast a net far larger than you intended.

This is not trying to be contrary. This is reinforcement that specifics are important where weapons legislation is involved, and currently as far as the UN treaty and intentions are concerned...too vague. It is not enough to say "Oh you know what I meant!" and be done with it, when fitting an ill-conceived or overly-broad criteria can mean a lifelong loss to a right, jailtime, etc.

**Mannahnin**

The treaty is yet to be negotiated, but the idea that it is some sort of stalking horse for banning guns inside a given country seems odd and unfounded.

The UN is an organization in which countries negotiate international matters. The US already has some good laws about arms dealing, which shouldn't we participate in making sure other countries do too?

**SOFDC**

The treaty is yet to be negotiated, but the idea that it is some sort of stalking horse for banning guns inside a given country seems odd and unfounded.

Thinking that the UN office of disarmament affairs might, maybe, have an interest in the amount of arms in circulation in civilian populations is odd and unfounded? I feel obliged to disagree.

While I am far from screaming about the UN helicopters that are going to fly overhead, going door to door and confiscating Granddaddy`s duck gun, I don't believe for one moment that the state of civilian arms ownership in the USA (Which, legally speaking, DOES include things like tanks, artillery, mortars and grenade launchers, etc.) is beneath their notice.

**dogma**

Lordhat wrote: Not on this topic it isn't.

Sure it is, politics is all about compromise. You can believe all you want that you have the fundamental right to bear arms, but if the government disagrees, or simply decides not to protect that right, then your individual belief means very little in terms of what the state is going to do. Because, quite simply, no matter how many guns you have, they have more.

In any case, I find it hilarious that this resolution isn't even aimed at a credible threat to the second amendment. Its like 44 Senators found out they live in constituencies that receive a large number of chain letters, and decided to pass the legislative equivalent of one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SOFDC wrote:... I don't believe for one moment that the state of civilian arms ownership in the USA (Which, legally speaking, DOES include things like tanks, artillery, mortars and grenade launchers, etc.) is beneath their notice.

I doubt very seriously that tanks, being vehicles, would be considered arms. The weapons attached to the tank, perhaps, but not the tank itself.

There may also be some legal distinction between vehicle mounted weaponry, and man-portable weaponry. You don't bear Hellfire Missiles, or a 120mm smooth bore.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:The US already has some good laws about arms dealing, which shouldn't we participate in making sure other countries do too?

The issue is that, while we have fairly stringent protections against the private transfer of arms on the international level, there is very little to stop the government from buying arms from domestic manufacturers and then shipping them to whomever they desire. If this treaty were to pass, it would likely curtail our ability to do this without violating international law which, while perhaps meaningless to the US, might not be meaningless to potential customers. As a result, the arms industry fears a loss in sales to the US government.

And, ultimately, the arms industry has far more clout than the NRA et al.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I've alway been curious about the USA's relationship to gun control. At the time it was created, the 2nd amendment made sense - you had just gained your independance from the UK and the threat of another war was a real possibility (war of 1812)

But, in modern terms, where is the threat of invasion? Canada? Mexico? Chinese invasion of Alaska?

Now I understand that there is an issue of tyranny within i.e your own government might turn fascist (or whtever) and you may have to raise arms against them, but IMO there have been mny questionable things in recent years that are cause for alarm, but nobody seem to be bothered about. For example: the Waco incident should have led to more checks on federal powers, instead Clinton "got his Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which included provisions eviscerating habeas corpus rights for death-row inmates, allowing the use of secret evidence in deportation proceedings, and dangerously expanding presidential power to designate and persecute suspected terrorist groups and their associates."

Then of course there was the Patriot act, which is a discussion for another thread. Isn't the strengthing of executive power by both Republicans and Democrats to the detriment of congress and the judiciary, more of a cause for concern?

But what exactly is tyranny in the USA. I remember watching a Tea party rally complaining about the tyranny of Obama's medicare and I thought to myself, here is a guy who won an election by a large majority promising to do exactly what he campaigned for. Hmm...

I do apologise if I'm going slightly off topic but I am trying to understand why americans protest strongly about somethings like guns, but are passive about other things. I'm trying to put it into some kind of context.

**juraigamer**

The only reason we (the us) need our guns right now is for people to defend themselves from their neighbors, zombies, and our two warring political parties that aren't getting gak done but still getting paid.

**remilia_scarlet**

juraigamer wrote:The only reason we (the us) need our guns right now is for people to defend themselves from their neighbors, zombies, and our two warring political parties that aren't getting gak done but still getting paid.

Welcome to the 21st century, pretty soon, there will be no more constituinal rights.

**alarmingrick**

Oh look, more "Obama's doing something bad", that he's not doing.

**remilia_scarlet**

alarmingrick wrote:Oh look, more "Obama's doing something bad", that he's not doing.

He's not doing bad, but he sure as hell isn't helping.

**alarmingrick**

remilia_scarlet wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Oh look, more "Obama's doing something bad", that he's not doing.

He's not doing bad, but he sure as hell isn't helping.

And the Republicans are being so helpful? If Obama was giving someone CPR, the republicans would try to stop him.....

**Requia**

Mannahnin wrote:The treaty is yet to be negotiated, but the idea that it is some sort of stalking horse for banning guns inside a given country seems odd and unfounded.

The UN is an organization in which countries negotiate international matters. The US already has some good laws about arms dealing, which shouldn't we participate in making sure other countries do too?

The UN has passed non binding resolutions stating they want to disarm all civilians worldwide. The resolutions don't mean much, but they do make me hella suspicious when The UN proposes binding treaties related to guns.

As for 'only international sales' there's a Finnish rifle I'd like to buy when I can afford it, so this potentially effects me personally.

**remilia_scarlet**

alarmingrick wrote:
remilia_scarlet wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Oh look, more "Obama's doing something bad", that he's not doing.

He's not doing bad, but he sure as hell isn't helping.

And the Republicans are being so helpful? If Obama was giving someone CPR, the republicans would try to stop him.....

Not at all, I like how you said that about the republicans stopping obama from giving CPR, truth is, they're both conflicting way too much, over everything, just look at the flipping debt ceiling, they can't make their minds up, and time is running out.

**SOFDC**

I do apologise if I'm going slightly off topic but I am trying to understand why americans protest strongly about somethings like guns, but are passive about other things

Quite likely because there are a lot of people screaming for more laws that could easily turn me into a felon and send me to jail for years and years over here. It's a very effective motivator to start jumping up and down and yelling to anyone and anything that will listen.

At the moment, I live in California. If I were to take my currently legal rifle and change the -furniture- of the thing in a manner unsatisfactory to the state, I face 2-8 years. It is not hard to go to jail over firearms, and people are wanting to make it a more restrictive environment....kinda hard not to get animated in a hurry.

**dogma**

remilia_scarlet wrote:
Not at all, I like how you said that about the republicans stopping obama from giving CPR, truth is, they're both conflicting way too much, over everything, just look at the flipping debt ceiling, they can't make their minds up, and time is running out.

There was a time when the parties weren't organized according to ideology.

Halcyon days.

**SOFDC**

I doubt very seriously that tanks, being vehicles, would be considered arms. The weapons attached to the tank, perhaps, but not the tank itself.

There may also be some legal distinction between vehicle mounted weaponry, and man-portable weaponry. You don't bear Hellfire Missiles, or a 120mm smooth bore.

Yes, in the case of tanks, I was more referring to the armament. At the federal level, a sawed off shotgun is equal to a 120mm cannon in terms of regulation, in fact were it not for a sporting purpose exemption, only .410 shotguns would -not- fit into the legal definition of cannon. Additionally, as far as I am aware they do not care how it is carried, at least as far as land transport goes (Aside from the typical regulations on displaying weapons openly/loaded/etc.)

I have little knowledge of FAA regulations on armed aircraft so I cannot speak to that.

**alarmingrick**

SOFDC wrote: At the federal level, a sawed off shotgun is equal to a 120mm cannon in terms of regulation,......

What exactly is a sawed of shotgun used to hunt? I'm all for guns, i just don't see a need for a fully automatic assault rifle to go deer hunt.
just as some of the gun laws can over reach, so can some of the items desired to be owned by the gun owners. i like the idea of being able
to purchase a pistol for home defense. i just don't think it needs 30 rounds, with the optional over/under grenade launcher.....

**Monster Rain**

Mannahnin wrote:No? Do they also insist on the right of every citizen to own a 50 cal machinegun? How about a grenade launcher?

But I want one of those...

alarmingrick wrote:What exactly is a sawed of shotgun used to hunt?

Burglars!

**alarmingrick**

Monster Rain wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:No? Do they also insist on the right of every citizen to own a 50 cal machinegun? How about a grenade launcher?

But I want one of those...

alarmingrick wrote:What exactly is a sawed of shotgun used to hunt?

Burglars!

I thought that Frazz's massed hordes were for that....

**Monster Rain**

It's never bad to have a failsafe.