Democrats Oppose Obama-U.N. Gun Control Treaty

[TPaine7]

By PAUL BEDARD
Posted: July 26, 2011
Print

276retweetTOP1K
Share This
Twelve Democratic senators have joined 45 Republicans in a fast growing movement to halt progress on an Obama-backed United Nations effort that could bring international gun control into the United States and slap America's gun owners with severe restrictions.

Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester's office today provided Whispers with their letter, signed by 11 other Democrats, urging the president to press for significant changes in the treaty. Their major concern: that domestic manufacture, possession, and sales of firearms and ammo will be included, thereby giving an international authority the right to regulate arms sales already protected by the Second Amendment. They also said any move for an international gun registry would be a non-starter.

...

Ratification requires two-thirds of the Senate. So far 57 senators have said they would vote against the treaty, expected to be wrapped up next year.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/07/26/democrats-oppose-obama-un-gun-control-treaty

I really hope this is not the "under the radar" gun control Obama allegedly told the Brady Campaign he was working on. If so, he's apparently willing to give 2012 to the Republicans for nothing.

[damntexdem]

1. I'd have no problem with a UN treaty on this.

The U.S. could only agree to what it constitutionally could agree to, and that is controversial. But even with the current SCOTUS rulings, the UN treaty could still have good effects -- especially on manufacturing and international sales of guns.

[kelly1mm]

6. Treaties have the same validity as the constitution - see Article 6. nt

[X_Digger]

7. Nope, see Reid v Covert..

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.

I covered this in more detail here.

[kelly1mm]

16. Thanks for the info. nt

[iverglas]

9. treaties

are VOLUNTARILY SIGNED by states.

What was your point? Perhaps I'm missing it ...

[DissedByBush]

12. Never think a treaty can't override the Constitution

It's not supposed to in theory, but it does happen.

Copyrights in this country are supposed to be for limited times, 14 years plus a 14-year extension as envisioned by the Founders, before work goes into the public domain.

Then we signed onto copyright treaties with long terms written by countries that have a completely different basis for copyright than we do.

Now it's effectively forever.

[X_Digger]

14. Umm.. that's because of copyright extensions we passed in our own legislature..

Not because of treaty.

Article 3, section 8 merely states, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Blame the legislators who passed..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831

Yes the Berne Convention and UCC ended up as a treaty, but it was the legislators who implemented the above acts who are to blame.

There is no constitutional definition of 'limited'. Just because the first term was 28 years doesn't mean that's as far as the framers intended to limit it.

[DissedByBush]

20. Their excuse to pass it

Was the premise of complying with the treaty. The same could happen here, all we need is a compliant anti-rights Supreme Court to allow it.

"There is no constitutional definition of 'limited'. Just because the first term was 28 years doesn't mean that's as far as the framers intended to limit it."

Obviously the framers intended for it to be a limited time within your own lifetime. You make a work, it goes out of copyright, if you still want to make money you better make more works. Incentive. Anything beyond lifetime is unlimited for the purposes of incentive to create more works. You can't create if you are dead. thus it is not limited as stated in the Constitution.

Jefferson didn't even want copyrights, Adams (the main author of the provision) ensured him it wouldn't be abused, that the main goal would still be the benefit of the people overall, not the monied few.

[X_Digger]

22. Doubtful

The vagaries of writings on copyright don't even compare to the writings about the right protected by the second amendmnet.

eta: Also remember that in 1791, average lifespan was ~35 years.

[Euromutt]

31. Wrong; the U.S. was already in compliance with the Berne Convention

The Berne Convention requires states party to provide copyright protection for the life of the author plus fifty years at least. The U.S. was already in compliance with that requirement under the Copyright Act of 1976.

The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 wasn't nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" for nothing; the Disney corporation lobbied hard for it, as did the estate of George Gershwin. Jack Valenti, then head of the MPAA, wanted the term of copyright extended to "forever less one day" to get around the letter of the Copyright Clause in Art. I Sec. 8 of the Constitution.

[DissedByBush]

36. As they call it, "Forever on the installment plan"

Referring to the constant retroactive extensions given to existing works.

IMHO blatantly unconstitutional too.

The Supreme Court gave far too deference to Congress, going past the mark of blatantly against what was intended.

[ileus]

2. This could be good news for the Second and our gun industry.

[petronius]

3. It feels like a bit of an over-stated concern at this point - there's barely even a draft

of the treaty at this point, and as far as I can tell it doesn't contain nearly as many boogey-men as some commenters suggest. This site appears to have the current 'draft' in the right-hand column; as I skim it I don't see much that threatens internal trade, and point I.6 speaks directly against that.

The senators' letter seems like more of a shot across the bows to answer the exaggerated concerns in the blogosphere, rather than a critique of actual administration actions or mis-steps. For instance, this line: "We are encouraged that your administration is working to ensure that signatory countries will maintain the exclusive authority to regulate arms within their own borders" I find more positive than not...

[iverglas]

10. thank you for the link

I was searching high and low. It helps not that the UN's own link to "Towards an Arms Trade Treaty" here
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/Html/SALW-PoA-ISS_intro.shtml
is dead.


For instance, this line: "We are encouraged that your administration is working to ensure that signatory countries will maintain the exclusive authority to regulate arms within their own borders" I find more positive than not...

But in fact all it does is raise the spectre of the treaty doing something else -- which it could not do in respect of any country unless that country signed and ratified the treaty and brought it into force by whatever method its own legislation/constitution provides for ... and even then, exactly what would the enforcement mechanism be?

The usual "enforcement" mechanism is to require states (on pain of ...?) to file annual or less frequent reports on their progress in implementing the provisions of a treaty. Then whatever UN committee or commission has jurisdiction issues its report on the reports ...

Everybody should be quaking in their boots, I'd say.

In what universe would any country not maintain the exclusive authority to regulate ANYTHING within its own borders? is the actual question.

Not ours.

[Euromutt]

34. Agreed

The alarm(ism) expressed by various American gun rights organizations appears to be based on a worst-case interpretation of what various provisions in the committee's notes might entail. However, individuals better informed than I have pointed out that one can also (and arguably more realistically) interpret those provisions as setting requirements with which the United States has been in compliance since it adopted the Gun Control Act of 1968, specifically stamping each newly manufactured firearm with a unique identifier and requiring manufacturers, distributors and dealers to maintain paperwork of where each gun went when it left their possession so that it, if recovered, it can be traced to its first buyer. The purpose of the treaty, therefore, would be more to bring other arms-manufacturing and -exporting countries (such as China) into line with the United States, not vice-versa.

Moreover, the committee will ultimately not be the entity putting the treaty into force: only the member states can do that by ratifying it.

[MrDiaz]

4. first off

We should sign NOTHING that supercedes our own Constitution. Second of all, all this stuff going on with the ATF in mexico and Florida. I wonder if this was a ploy in order for us to have more of a reason to agree to this stupid TREATY

[SteveM]

5. Do you have some links for this? Thanks:

"I really hope this is not the "under the radar" gun control Obama allegedly told the Brady Campaign he was working on. If so, he's apparently willing to give 2012 to the Republicans for nothing."

[TPaine7]

11. Here's one. I just had a minute to look.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x421385

[iverglas]

8. isn't it sad

when politicians who run under the banner of a party choose instead to pander to the stupid and evil element among their constituents, and act this dishonestly?

Their major concern: that domestic manufacture, possession, and sales of firearms and ammo will be included, thereby giving an international authority the right to regulate arms sales already protected by the Second Amendment. They also said any move for an international gun registry would be a non-starter.

Did they also express their fear that the US will be prohibited from growing corn, and say they would oppose any move for an international singsong day?

Or did they just want some stupid people to believe that either of the things they mentioned had anything to do with the UN discussions?

Or maybe they are so stupid themselves that they believe that.

In his letter, Moran wrote, "Our country's sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations," Moran wrote in the letter.

What a fucking demagogue. And this is the bedfellow these Democrats are lying down with.

Stupid or evil ... stupid or evil ... why can I never decide?


2001

www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/inventory/pdfs/aptsarms.pdf

II. Preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects

1. We, the States participating in this Conference, bearing in mind the different situations, capacities and priorities of States and regions, undertake the following measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects: ...

Give it a read. Note phrases like this:

States are encouraged, subject to their national practices, ...
To ensure, subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of States, ...
To regularly review, as appropriate, subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of States, ...

The term "registration" occurs twice:

14. To develop adequate national legislation or administrative procedures regulating the activities of those who engage in small arms and light weapons brokering. This legislation or procedures should include measures such as registration of brokers, licensing or authorization of brokering transactions as well as the appropriate penalties for all illicit brokering activities performed within the State's jurisdiction and control.

16. To ensure that all confiscated, seized or collected small arms and light weapons are destroyed, subject to any legal constraints associated with the preparation of criminal prosecutions, unless another form of disposition or use has been officially authorized and provided that such weapons have been duly marked and registered.

For chrissakes ... the intent is for other countries to implement what is already done in the US.

2011

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/289/72/PDF/N1128972.pdf?OpenElement

Ah, a gun registry:

43. The Panel of Experts on the Sudan noted that UNAMID had no internal system for recording the arms and military materiel brought into Darfur under its arms embargo exemption, which would be essential in identifying losses or leakages from stockpiles. While no formal disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme for Darfur has been established to date, the Panel recommended that UNAMID create an internal register of weapons, to be made accessible to the Panel and to UNAMID staff monitoring the arms embargo, in order to effectively address loss or diversion.

... for Sudan.


I have never been able to figure out where the paranoid ravings of the US right wing about any international small arms control proposals even originate.

Perhaps the person who posted this item will tell me.

Exactly what are Tester and his fellows talking about?

Surely you know.



html fixed
I hope

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Poisoning the well again, I see.

when politicians who run under the banner of a party choose instead to pander to the stupid and evil element among their constituents, and act this dishonestly?

A Democrat who does not so act in states like Montana will be replaced at the next election by a Republican.

And then we'll be enjoying someone who acts completely in a manner you despise, instead of someone who does so only part-time.


Treating politically aware gun owners as "stupid and evil" has helped put the Democratic Party into the minority in Congress.


Kindly take your "my way or the highway" schtick over to the Greens. They're too busy wrangling over position papers to

actually get elected to much, and they seem much more amenable to the notion "It's better to be out of power than compromise".

[iverglas]

27. post 26

My gift to you too.

[onehandle]

13. 'The Gungeon'

'Name a room at Democratic Underground that assists the fight against President Obama.'

[DonP]

15. Oh, maybe GD, LBN and Presidential to name a few fora

Between people railing at him for not standing up to Boner, not withdrawing troops as he promised from Afghanistan, Libya and the ongoing GITMO embarrassment there is no shortage of DU members against his positions or lack of position.

Are you suggesting that anyone disagreeing with the President on any issue is somehow not a true Democrat? Or just the ones that own firearms that you personally don't care for?

[iverglas]

18. hmmmmm

Are you suggesting that anyone disagreeing with the President on any issue is somehow not a true Democrat? Or just the ones that own firearms that you personally don't care for?

Are YOU suggesting that people who object that Obama is not sufficiently strong against right-wingers and their agenda are somehow equivalent to the voices in the Guns forum attacking him for (even if imaginary) failures to stand foursquare enough with the right-wingers and their agenda?

Odd.

[DonP]

24. hmmmmm, who gives a shit?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

37. Do you believe that the party platform is on the right side of every single issue?

On trade? On guns? On drug prohibition? On medical marijuana? Do you think that there is no issue that we shouldn't be supporting the other side of?

Or is it that you simply think we should oppose anything the Republicans support? Do we need to oppose gay marriage because Dick Cheney is in favor of it?

[Upton]

17. Strange..

I've never seen you make a similar complaint over in GD. Perhaps I missed it. Though, I suspect, your problem has little to do with a perceived lack of support for the president, and a whole lot to do with your dislike of guns..

[iverglas]

19. not really a suspicious mind, I think

Though, I suspect, your problem has little to do with a perceived lack of support for the president, and a whole lot to do with your dislike of guns..

Or of right-wingers and their agenda, and attacks on Obama for failing to support them.

Hmm, I wonder which it could be.

[Upton]

23. What right-wingers and their agenda are you referring to?

Where your difficulties come in is your mistaken idea that all Democrats must be full bore in favor of gun control otherwise you don't view them as true Democrats..

Well, I've got some news for you, millions of Democratic voters own guns. Though many of them may have second thoughts, if they haven't already, if Obama attempts to push any kind of gun control agenda. Thankfully, he appears to be smarter than that..for he knows it's surefire political loser.

One more thing. Just speaking for myself, and the folks I know and talk about this subject where I live (rural WA state), we don't appreciate urban dwelling Dems, Repubs, or Canadians putting forth proposals that would infringe upon our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties..that means ALL civil liberties, not just the ones you approve of..

The Democratic party has already ceded much of rural America to the Republicans....It's time we took it back.

[iverglas]

26. awwww

One more thing. Just speaking for myself, and the folks I know and talk about this subject where I live (rural WA state), we don't appreciate urban dwelling Dems, Repubs, or Canadians putting forth proposals that would infringe upon our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties..that means ALL civil liberties, not just the ones you approve of..

Imagine how we feel when USAmerican governments threaten to cripple our economy by interfering with cross-border trade when we try to decriminalize cannabis possession in our own country.

Imagine how we feel when USAmerican guns kill children and other people on the streets of our cities.

My heart bleeds for you, chum.


Well, I've got some news for you, millions of Democratic voters own guns.

What I have for you isn't news, because you know it as well as I do.

Not all gun owners are right-wing assholes or paranoid lunatics. My gosh.

So not all gun owners can be expected to fall automatically into line behind the NRA-ILA and the gun manufacturers and their puppet Republicans. And some of those who do can be pried away from them.

Unless people like you keep working to persuade them that firearms control measures that protect their neighbours are actually meant to turn them into slaves of the one world government.

Put your money where your mouth is. Promote progressive firearms policies. Work against the Republicans and the right-wing gun militants and their agenda. Support the work of organizations and elected representatives toward firearms policies that are actually effective at reducing harm.

Be a truly responsible gun owner. Show the world, and your fellow gun owners, that not all gun owners are right-wing cretins.

I know they aren't. You know they aren't. How hard should it be to convince other gun owners that they aren't either and they shouldn't be letting themselves be led around by the nose by, and, voting for the ones who are?


typo fixed

[Blown330]

29. Vast majority of the gun owners here....

...are truly responsible. Why don't you show the world, and your fellow Canadians, that you are not all this...








You are still astoundingly ignorant on gun laws. Whole lot of hot air, never any details.

[iverglas]

30. talk about pooping it out

You are still astoundingly ignorant on gun laws. Whole lot of hot air, never any details.

What the fuck are you talking about, O great expert on all things moi?

Specifics and links, s'il te plaît.

Or do you just prefer to make false statements about another member of this website?

Okey dokey if so. Your choice.

[Blown330]

33. I know you are a....

....little slow so I'll make this a little easier.

Promote progressive firearms policies. Work against the Republicans and the right-wing gun militants and their agenda. Support the work of organizations and elected representatives toward firearms policies that are actually effective at reducing harm.


See...lots of words, little substance. Policies, policies....what specific policies do you propose? So easy for the simple minded to say "we need more laws!" yet when pushed for specifics there is just silence or rhetoric.

And some of those who do can be pried away from them.

Oh, and please explain what exactly you meant by this little gem. This should be funny.

[iverglas]

35. "Policies, policies....what specific policies do you propose?"

Oh dear, what an oversight. I've never answered this question.

Not in a decade of being on this site, posting in this forum.

Never have I been asked what specific policies I propose, and never have I answered.

Not this very week, I was not asked this and did not answer it.


For someone else who is so expert in all things moi, you're slipping.


And some of those who do can be pried away from them.
Oh, and please explain what exactly you meant by this little gem. This should be funny.

You're amused by the idea that not all people who vote for right-wing assholes actually are right-wing assholes?

I've found it fairly common, myself.

My uncle, a fundie Baptist by conversion when he married (they're actually fairly rare birds up here), has been much more pleasant to my mum's family in recent years. I even had a conversation with him a couple of years ago in which he ranted away about his idiot neighbour and his desire for Canada to be more like the US. My uncle suggested he sell his house and use the proceeds to go get his hip replacement surgery south of the border.

So I was rather surprised when he sent an obnoxious reply to my mother asking that she not send him any more NDP-oriented emails forwarded from a mutual childhood acquaintance of theirs ... a lesbian minister at the very progressive Protestant church the rest of the family attends/attended. Turns out he votes for Stephen Harper -- whose avowed aim (at least before going into politics) was to dismantle the Canadian health care system, among other damage he'd love to inflict on the country. Why? Because he's anti-abortion. Well, Harper's anti-abortion-ness is about as sincere as his own fundie religious conversion; think George Bush. But the lie was the one my uncle wanted to hear.

My uncle is not actually stupid, and I don't think he's genuinely evil at all. There is a major hitch in his thought processes. There are ways to unblock that chi. For one thing, the Conservatives are not going to outlaw abortion, or even restrict access in any way. (The Constitution as properly interpreted by the Supreme Court just doesn't allow that.) So pragmatically, why vote for them for that reason?

The longer haul would be to work on his very ideas about abortion. I spent considerable time doing it on the internet -- and the odd time when I came across a sincere person, one who had taken a position they genuinely believed to be the "right thing", people who genuinely cared about women ... I converted them. Yup, a number of notches on that belt. I treated them like sincere people with genuine human values whose good intentions were being exploited by people whose intentions were in no way good. And they found their own way to the light. Some were touched by personal situations that made them realize how horrific it would be for a family member, for one reason or another, if they were forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Some were persuaded by the harm reduction argument: they did genuinely care about women, and they grasped that outlawing abortion was a dangerous thing from the perspective of women's welfare.

Sincere people of goodwill are open to input that appeals to their own values, and as long as those values don't smell, they are capable of change. If their values do totally stink, if they place no value on anyone but themselves and on any interests but their own, it may be a hard row to hoe. But there's still the plain fact that voting for the right wing is not actually in the interests of very many people, and there are lots of ways of demonstrating that.

It all takes a lot of work, from various angles for different people, and it would take a lot of people doing the work.

But hell, a good first step would be for a lot of self-professed progressives and liberals and Democrats and what-not to stop feeding the monster. Stop propagating the lies, stop stoking the ugly self-interest, stop spreading the disinformation. That part would be easy.

Happy?

[TheWraith]

38. I think you've missed something: Most of the biggest gun-controllers are Republicans.

Bloomberg is a Republican.
The entire Brady Campaign is Republican owned and operated.
Paul Helmke is a Republican.
Dennis Henigan is a Republican.
The 2008 attempt to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban was sponsored by Mark Kirk, a Republican, and co-sponsored by four other Republicans. No Democrats co-sponsored.
Carolyn McCarthy is a former Republican who only changed parties to run for Congress.
Dianne Feinstein might as well be a Republican, she makes enough money off the wars.

Meanwhile, in the pro-gun Democrats column you have people like Russ Feingold, Jon Tester, Eleanor Roosevelt (who was an avid pistol owner and carrier decades before "concealed carry"), Howard Dean (who received the NRA endorsement in eight straight campaigns for office), John F. Kennedy (who held a lifetime NRA membership), et al.

For certain, my party (I won't say "our party," since I know you're not a member) has in past years bought deep into the gun control nonsense. But that has been shown to be both unpopular and extremely unsound in it's application. It's a failed policy, no more rational than the idea that cutting the taxes of the rich magically creates jobs. But some people cling to it even so. Fortunately, the President seems wise enough to realize that it's a dead horse.

[oneshooter]

25. And we should walk blindly in lockstep to the tune of the DNC? n/t

[pnorman]

32. K&R, for careful study of this entire thread later.

n/t