U.N Gun Ban Treaty is ILLEGAL — Neither Obama nor Clinton Have The Authority

There was a lot of talk this year about the dreaded U.N. Gun Ban Treaty.  This year it was in the guise of a “UN Conference on Arms Trade Treaty,” 2-27 July 2012, commensurate with its long-standing push to rid the world of privately-owned firearms, as undeniably indicated by the very large statue near the entrance to the United Nations building in New York, NY.  That revolver has its barrel tied in a knot, like so:

Furthermore, as one rather astute blogger noticed, “One such working draft of possible treaty language, dated July 14, 2012, tried to assuage the concerns of gun rights proponents … that the treaty would interfere with their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It did so by affirming in its preamble “the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.””  This blogger observes “The problem is that preambles have no binding legal effect in a treaty or a contract.  Thus, the disclaimer is legally meaningless. What counts are the operative provisions within the body of the document.”

Six years ago, the United Nations tried similar tactics by posting two disclaimers, still on their website here, and here, in which they claimed there is no agenda to deny law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, that they’re not negotiating any sort of treaty (like the one Hillary Clinton and Obama just signed), that the U.N. has neither jurisdiction over the states nor any interest in compelling them to abide by their “treaty.”

Put simply, the United Nations has been lying their butts off.  It’s one of the many reasons I fully support their immediate removal from U.S. soil, and our immediate withdrawal from their ranks.  Their efforts are hell-bent on undermining our Constitution.  As such, they are our foreign enemy.

This summer, immediately following the conference, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton eagerly took the U.N. resolutions to Congress and said, “See?  The world is in agreement!  Can we sign it now?” to which Congress not only said “No,” but effectively told the dynamic duo “HELL NO!”

So, what did Obama and Clinton do in response?  They signed it anyway, without Congressional approval as is required by our Constitution, and therefore without any Constitutional authority whatsoever:

“He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” – U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2

So, no problem, right?  I mean if they didn’t have the authority to sign it, it’s not binding, right?

Well, legally speaking it’s not binding.  Then again, Obama has committed a number of high crimes and misdemeanors while in office, including running for election, not once, but twice, even after he admitted in public and before live video cameras (see the video, here) that he’s not an American, wasn’t born in Hawaii, and is from Kenya.  He has signed more Executive Orders than all his predecessors combined, and some of those E.O.’s grant himself various authorities which are neither his to grant, nor posses, at least according to our Constitution.

You see, the problem is two-fold.  First, Obama the “Constitutional Scholar” neither respects nor follows our Constitution.  Forget the fact that it’s the law of our land, and violating it is a crime.  He doesn’t care because of the second part of the problem:  Congress refuses to act on it.  When I asked John Boehner’s office last week, one of his staff members told me, “We’re not going to launch impeachment proceedings because we don’t have a 2/3 consensus.  It would just look foolish.”

So, America, we’re allowing a known criminal to remain in the highest office of our land because Congressmen are afraid of looking foolish.

Hmm…

Whatever happened to doing the right thing, regardless of the way it looked?  What if Sgt. York stayed in the trenches because he may have thought popping up and doing battle with the enemy with his expert marksmanship and fighting skills “looked foolish?”  What if General Eisenhower decided to scrap D-Day because he thought a full-scale invasion of the European mainland “looked foolish?”  What if George Washington refused to cross the Delaware River at night because he thought going against crack German mercenaries with a war-weary bunch of rag-tag troops “looked foolish?”

What Congress fails to realize is that their actions, based on their fear of looking foolish, actually looks shameful.  I would much rather look like a fool doing the right thing than look shameful because I could have done something but instead chose to do nothing.

Congress, it’s time you stop being concerned about how you look, and start being concerned about doing what’s right for our country.  We have a criminal in our White House, and by his own admission he’s not even eligible to be there in the first place.

People, write your Congressmen!  Do not “respectfully request” they look into the matter.  They already have, and they’re refusing to take the appropriate action.

Instead, write them and demand they take the appropriate action.  Let them know the only appropriate action is to immediately convene impeachment proceedings, preferably before January rolls around.  It’s not like there’s a lack of evidence!  If Obama’s not eligible, then he’s not eligible, and by his own admission he is not eligible to run for the office of the President, much less sit in the White House.

Bonus:  The People didn’t elect Biden.  They elected Obama-Biden.  If Obama is removed now, Biden will have no claim to the office.  He will either have to capitulate to Romney, or we’ll have another election, Biden against Romney.

Let’s see them try to win that one…

Why Gun Control Laws and No Firearms Signs Do NOT Work

I’m writing this in the wake of this morning’s shootings at an after-midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado. Deranged gunman James Holmes entered the theater, shot 71 people, killing 12 of them, before police arrived just 90 seconds later.I’m also writing this as a graduate of Virginia Tech, where a similarly deranged gunman Seung-Hui Cho shot 49 people, killing 32 of them. The Virginia Tech massacre remains the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history, and occurred in the same halls in which I spent many hours myself.

The victims in both instances had something in common: They were unarmed. In the case of the theater, they have a no firearms policy. Cinemark’s official firearms policy is no OC/CC except for LEOs. If you want to watch a movie in their theater, you must forfeit your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, your right to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm. In the case of Virginia Tech, their “gun-free zone” was seen by Cho as a “free-fire zone,” for some simple reason: When you disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, you remove a powerful deterrent to crime — the most powerful deterrent, according to violent criminals.

Some people opinion if we were to get rid of all firearms, we wouldn’t have this problem, yet when England followed this course of action, their rate of violent crime soared by 77%.2 Why? Simple — because their victims were now unarmed. Apparently Australia thought they could do better than their former warden and enacted the same measures, with similarly dismal results. Put simply, gun control is a naive and idealistic attempt to lesson one’s fear of guns or gun-related crimes. The problem is, not only is gun control futile, it actually increases the likelihood of violent crime.

Our Founding Fathers knew this well. Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is widely recognized throughout the annuls of American History. Thomas Jefferson said “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”3 In their 24-page 1982 Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, our U.S. Congress concluded, “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.” (attached) Furthermore, “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, … or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”4
The laying down of arms in any manner, whether through gun control laws or frequenting establishments sporting “No Firearms” signs, is counterproductive to a peaceful society. Perhaps the most insightful treatise on why this is so was well-explained by Thomas Paine in his “Thoughts on Defensive War” in 1775:

[A]rms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.
The soundness of this wisdom has repeatedly been echoed throughout our nation’s history, even in recent times: “I cannot consider the Bill of Rights to be an outworn 18th Century ‘strait jacket’…Its provisions may be thought outdated abstractions by some. And it is true that they were designed to meet ancient evils. But they are the same kind of human evils that have emerged from century to century wherever excessive power is sought by the few at the expense of the many. In my judgement the people of no nation can lose their basic liberty so long as a Bill of Rights like ours survives and its basic purposes are conscientiously interpreted, enforced and respected so as to afford continuous protection against old, as well as new, devices and practices which might thwart those purposes.”5

In fact, our Supreme Court reaffirms this as well. In District of Columbia vs Heller, they held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense, even in federal enclaves. Later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

Why then is Hollywood Theaters erecting “No Firearms” signs at all their theaters today? Are they merely ignorant of the fact that it’s not only a Constitutional right, but that the exercise of that right is actually a known, proven deterrent to violent crime, even in the case where the perpetrator is criminally insane? Do they not understand that the mere act of posting a “No Firearms” sign greatly increases the likelihood that their establishment will be targeted by criminals, mass shooters, and Islamic extremists?  Don’t know they that they are actually — and significantly — increasing the risks of loss of life, limb, and property for themselves, their employees, and their customers?

For that matter, why does any institution restrict or prohibit the ability of honest, law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against these events?

That’s just stupid!

I both open carry (OC) and concealed carry (CC). In recent years I’ve been waffling about whether or not I should carry at all when I’m at the movies. They’re so peaceful and safe, right? I mean no one would ever go on a rampage in a crowded theater…

As we learned today, we never know where these events will happen. They can and have happened at the movies. They can and have happened at public areas, college campuses, supermarkets, post offices, and public parks. Despite the fact that people can legally carry a firearm in most areas throughout 49 states, these events seem to happen most often where people are prohibited from carrying firearms, areas those who claim are “safe” call “no-gun zones.” Those of us who’re more knowledgeable about how and why criminals choose their targets refer to them as “free-fire zones,” and we do our best to avoid them!

Why is it, then, that the most common knee-jerk reaction to these incidents are to create more such zones, thereby increasing the likelihood of such an event? If a course of action continually proves to have the opposite outcome than the one that’s desired, it’s time to change the course of action. The relaxation of gun control laws over the last twenty years has had a tremendously positive impact on the reduction of crime! Criminals, even insane ones, don’t target a well-armed populace.

Hollywood Theaters and others who throw up knee-jerk “No Firearms” signs are doing their honest, law-abiding customers a grave disservice. What they should be doing is posting the following sign:

firearms welcome

References
1
Link to MSNBC article

2James Slack, “The most violent crime rate in Europe: Britain is also worst than South Africa and the U.S.,” Daily Mail U.K., July 2, 2009. Link.

3Draft Constitution for Virginia, 1776

4Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824).

5Justice Hugo Black, dissenting in Adamson v. California (1947)

Please join us in discussing this article on RYOC Forums!