New UN Court: Serious Threat To Gun Rights

New Threat to Your Gun Rights Becomes a Reality
— Help Rep. Ron Paul stop the new UN court from grabbing your guns

(Friday, April 19, 2002) — You stand before the judges, accused of failing to register your firearms. You look around the room, and there are no civilians to try your case. Trial by jury is absent in this courtroom. Not only that, there is no presumption of innocence. You look at the judges behind the bench and realize they have been appointed by unelected bureaucrats from hostile and repressive nations around the globe.

Is this a scene from a George Orwell book? Unfortunately, this scene could someday happen since a newly established International Criminal Court (ICC) became a reality last week. On his last day in office, former President Clinton signed his name to an agreement which authorized the ICC, a global court which was officially instituted at the United Nations headquarters on April 11, after the 60th nation signed the treaty.

Thankfully, the United States Senate has still not ratified this agreement. And to ensure it never does, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) recently introduced legislation (H.R. 4169) that calls on President Bush to revoke his predecessor’s signature before the Democrat-controlled Senate can ratify the treaty.

Among other things, H.R. 4169 would:

* Call on the President to rescind the US approval of the International Criminal Court;

* Prohibit federal funds from being used to establish or operate the ICC; and

* Establish that any action taken by the ICC against an American serviceman shall be considered an act of aggression against the US.

The stakes in this battle are huge. With the advent of the anti-gun ICC, unelected bureaucrats at the UN will be able to override the national sovereignty of the US and to bring us under their thumbprint. The consequences of this will be horrendous.

The ICC will be able to second-guess almost any decision our country makes, and will claim it has the authority to haul our Presidents, governors or military leaders into court. Even our war in Afghanistan — or the execution of Timothy McVeigh — could be actions that would trigger the arrest and prosecution of American citizens. This is NOT speculation. This is the authority that ICC judges now have.

But this treaty could end up doing more than just hauling military or elected officials into court. Gun owners have much to fear from these global tyrants. It is no secret that at several of their recent conventions, UN officials have been actively trying to get the nations of the world to register firearms. In 1997, they supervised the steamrolling of firearms (yes, using actual steamrollers) in the streets of Brazil. And to make their intentions absolutely clear, they have even erected a statute of a gun with a barrel twisted into a knot in front of their New York headquarters. To be sure, the UN has demonstrated its hatred for civilians owning guns in a myriad of ways.

So what happens if, somewhere down the road, you don’t comply with UN gun registration or a firearms ban? Will the UN be able to prosecute you before the International Criminal Court? Will UN Blue Helmets be able to search your home for evidence? (You can forget about any Fourth Amendment protections that keep your home from being searched without a warrant.)

The treaty which establishes the court claims jurisdiction to prosecute gross human abuse. But there’s no reason to think that this permanent court is going to limit itself to prosecuting real dictators. The judges on the court could be from Cuba, Iraq, Russia or Red China. Don’t expect to read about ICC prosecutions of folks like Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein. Rather, one can fully expect that, similar to judges in our country, these judges will make law “from the bench” and expand the court’s jurisdiction every chance they get.

If you think we have a problem in this country with judges making up the law and failing to respect your gun rights, how bad of a problem do you think this will be at the UN level where these tyrants have no concept of what the Second Amendment is?

Rep. Paul correctly notes the International Criminal Court is an “illegitimate court” that was established contrary to the provisions of the American Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. The court puts United States citizens in jeopardy of “unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution,” he says, “[and] especially at risk of politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonments.”