Gun Control through the International Terminal

Ambassador John Bolton and UC-Berkeley legal scholar John Yoo have written a timely piece in the Wall Street Journal concerning the Obama Administration’s efforts to get gun control through to back door after his failure to ram it through Congress earlier this year.  To quote:

Even before his most ambitious gun-control proposals were falling by the wayside, President Obama was turning for help to the United Nations. On April 2, the United States led 154 nations to approve the Arms Trade Treaty in the U.N. General Assembly. While much of the treaty governs the international sale of conventional weapons, its regulation of small arms would provide American gun-control advocates with a new tool for restricting rights.

I wrote about similar efforts previously.  The Bush administration had rejected the treaty, but with a few minor tweaks and a new administration, the U.S. is on board – or at least the executive branch is.  Thankfully, it takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to ratify the treaty and give it the actual force of law; something that is highly unlikely to happen with the current make-up of the Senate.  However, until a vote the Obama administration is likely to treat it as law via executive orders.  Much mischief can be done and vigilance for those who actually believe that the Constitution means what it says, as in “ . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, ” is necesessary.

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Lloyd says:

    The United Nations is not a good option for the Obama Administration. Congress will carefully analyze the treaty and if it contains elements of the weapons included in the attempts at a ban in the U.S. Such attempts have failed before and will fail again.

  2. Niles says:

    “Thankfully, it takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to ratify the treaty and give it the actual force of law; something that is highly unlikely to happen with the current make-up of the Senate.”

    Thank goodness for ratification protocol.

  3. Nolan says:

    “Much mischief can be done and vigilance for those who actually believe that the Constitution means what it says, as in “ . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, ””

    What are the contents of this treaty? Because gun control is not always complete gun revocation.

    • Lilian says:

      Any gun control is an infringement on our rights. There is no such thing as violating a portion of some ones right, it’s an all or nothing situation. The U.S. citizenry needs to stand up against this and protect our right to revolt.

  4. Kraimer says:

    However, until a vote the Obama administration is likely to treat it as law via executive orders.

    How come none of these executive orders have been challenged and brought to the supreme court? Because under my understanding of Con-Law, there are significant restrictions on Executive Orders.

  5. Wallace says:

    The second amendment is such a terrible sentence.

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

  6. Tommy says:

    Unfortunately, politics are a sneaky business. The safe guards built into our government institutions are so vital in checking rogue branches.

  7. Tomas says:

    Interesting developments coming along in the quest for gun protection from the current administration.

  8. Hi there, its pleasant article on the topic of media print,
    we all understand media is a fantastic source of information.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.