- Created: Tuesday, 04 May 2010 05:00
- Written by Erich Pratt
Having been stymied in their efforts to enact more gun control at home, U.S. politicians are going global in a back door effort to restrict the firearms of American citizens.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is spearheading an effort to get the World Court to do what the courts in our country have refused to do -- namely, find gun makers guilty for the damages caused by their products’ misuse.
Chicago’s frivolous lawsuit was dismissed by a liberal Supreme Court in Illinois six years ago. So now, Mayor Daley is trying to get the international court to go after U.S. gun makers.
Daley compared guns to poison saying, “If we ship over poison to a country, don’t you think we should be responsible for it?”
The Chicago Sun-Times reported on April 27 that Daley has managed to convince more than a dozen mayors from around the world to join him in approving a resolution urging “redress against the gun industry through the courts of the world.”
Not to be outdone, President Obama is also trying to stick it to American gun owners.
According to Bloomberg News, the Obama administration voted “aye” late last year at the United Nations in support of continued talks that are aimed at regulating firearms. The Obama administration’s vote reversed the Bush Administration’s strong opposition to any arms control treaty that would impact the rights of American gun owners.
To be sure, gun owners can expect any UN small arms treaty to limit their rights.
The Heritage Foundation, a think-tank based in the nation’s capital, has followed the arms control discussions at the UN very closely. They report that a UN small arms treaty would require all signatory nations to adopt the “highest possible standards” in keeping guns away from criminals and terrorists.
But as the think-tank notes, this standard is intended as an assault on the Second Amendment right of all Americans because, ultimately, “there is no guarantee that any privately held gun in the U.S. will never be used in criminal activity.”
Hence, Americans could expect to see licensing restrictions, bans on most semi-automatic firearms, an end to private sales at gun shows, and much more.
President Barack Obama made promises to protect Second Amendment rights during his campaign. But he seems perfectly happy using the United Nations to enact gun restrictions that he cannot otherwise get passed in the Congress.
Remember the President’s startling proclamation during the State of the Union speech in January? When the Senate voted down a commission he wanted, he said this: “Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward.”
In other words, the Separation of Powers be damned! “If Congress doesn’t give me what I want,” he seems to tell us, “then I’ll just go around them using my Executive Order pen.”
There is no regard for the Separation of Powers; no desire to limit himself to the boundaries set by the U.S. Constitution, a document he swore to uphold. For Obama, the United Nations has become a convenient surrogate to get his anti-gun agenda enacted.
One hopes that if an international arms treaty were to pass, our country could just ignore its edicts. That would be the best-case scenario.
Of course, there will be many in Congress and at the White House who will then dust off their copies of the Constitution (which they love to ignore) and argue that treaties are the supreme law of the land, according to Article VI. We will then see anti-gun liberals -- and the rest of the world -- use the treaty as a stick to beat us into compliance.
The worst-case scenario for gun owners involves the United Nations directly enforcing compliance. As noted by the Heritage Foundation, the International Criminal Court could be “an alternative avenue of enforcement.”
The Foundation states that this World Court could investigate and charge U.S. policymakers who, wanting to help freedom fighters in other countries, vote to send them arms. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Could we see the international court rule against gun owners for refusing to lock up their firearms? What happens if one of our guns is stolen and is later used in a crime or the gun is smuggled south of the border?
Americans are not used to seeing UN Peacekeepers donning their blue helmets in our country. For most Americans, the presence of international troops here would not be welcome.
The enforcement question is a huge question mark and necessitates that gun owners continue to watch these arms control talks very closely and hold their policymakers accountable.