Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.The nation's press rushes to assures America that this will not infringe upon the Second Amendment.
As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a "significant step" in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.
"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong," he said. "This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes."
U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.
And, I think, they are right.
The Constitution imposes some limits on treaties. Specifically, any treaty which infringes on American Constitutional Rights is compared to the rights of American, and in any contest between treaty and Constitution, the Constitution wins.
What is ignored in the discussion is that Congress and the Supreme Court can join to determine that or any governmental activity selected by Federal, or even State government, do not necessarily enjoy the protection of the Constitution.
Witness the seizure of private property in recent years to build shopping malls. The Constitution states that confiscation of private property requires several tests to be met, including appropriate compensation and that the property be used for the "public good". But events have shown that the expropriation of private property sometimes benefits developers more than "the public good", and compensation rarely leaves property owners in a state of equilibrium; more often, home-owners are left relatively destitute, with insufficient compensation to purchase an equitable property elsewhere.
At the risk of sounding alarmist, it seems to me that a corresponding risk is involved in this nonsensical treaty.
Our government has signed what is essentially an "agreement in principle".
Essentially, this means (in this limited case) that America agrees that the sale of arms is 'a bad thing', and has here agreed to strictly limit the international sale of arms. The terms have not necessarily been defined, but essentially the American Government has agreed to need to limit the importation of arms.
Thank God for Smyrna!
Yes, you will still be able to buy your Glock, because has probably been manufactured in America. But any firearm which is manufactured outside the Continental United States of America is subject to a legal Blockade.
Because America has just agreed that foreign interests will be allowed to interdict sales to Americans from firearms manufactured outside the country.
Mister Kettle, PLEASE stop criticizing Mister Pot!
From this point on, it is entirely possible that law-abiding firearms owners in America will be proscribed from buying firearms manufactured outside the country (imports).
Because YOU, Mister or Miss Legal Firearms Owner, have just been (internationally) equated to Mass Murderers in Durfur. Or machete wielders in Rwanda. Or any other radical group which uses massacres to achieve their political or religious goals .. which are with increasing frequency achieved by genocide.
Of course, nobody is suggesting that this is a federal effort to support Mr. Obama's "Gun Control" agenda. And nobody is saying that imported firearms have ever been identified as a contributing factor to mass slayings in schools, churches, or shopping malls .. which, incidentally, are notoriously identified as "Gun Free Zones"
It just .. seemed like The Right Thing To Do.
Everyone is doing it. Why shouldn't we?