Tag Archives: 2nd Amendment

Disarming America, the Final Solution?

By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer

A new report touted by NBC News’ Maggie Fox makes the claim that the level of firearm ownership can be correlated with homicide deaths of Law Enforcement Officers. More civilian gun ownership in a given area, more dead police. Study authors David Sewedler and David Hemenway would later admit that perhaps this homicide rate was actually driven by criminals. The “criminal offender theory” draws the not-so-remarkable conclusion that police who have frequent encounters with violent criminals are more likely to be injured or killed. Not all that surprising a proposition, is it?

Of course, gun hating members of the media aren’t interested in the legitimacy of a study, but in the claims of its authors. In this case, more police are killed in states which have more of those evil guns. It’s short, sounds reasonable and is easy to pass off as fact. What could be better!

But why has the media decided to pick yet another nationally syndicated fight with gun owners?

On September 25th of last year, Secretary of State John Kerry-acting on behalf of the president-signed the UN’s Global Arms Trade Treaty. Though it has not been ratified by the Senate, Obama’s minions traveled to the UN ArOBAMA AND KERRYms Treaty conference in Mexico on Monday, August 24th.

It’s quite clear that the purpose of the Treaty is to disarm civilian populations—that is, people deemed unauthorized by government officials to possess firearms or ammunition. But the federal government and individual states have attempted to disarm the American people before. Connecticut and New York recently passed legislation requiring owners of “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines to register these items with the state. It has been widely reported that more than 1 million “assault weapon” owners in the two states have publicly defied the legislation and law enforcement officials, many who refuse to enforce the law anyhow.

One purpose of the UN Small Arms Treaty is to bring an end to this spirit of freedom and defiance on the part of American gun owners. As Article 16 of the Treaty explains:

“In implementing this treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include management, disarmament, demobilization, model legislation and effective practices for implementation.”

So Barack Obama might dispatch U.N. forces to quell unrest in Ferguson, for example. Once accomplished, this makeshift army of mercenaries could be directed to forcibly disarm any and all   DevilObama civilians in the area. U.N. officials would have the authority to formulate the law themselves, or go back to State Department Publication 7277, which purports to work towards the goal of the small arms treaty, “where all nations have been disarmed and merged into a system of international control within standards set by the United Nations.”

And by the way, those “standards” include the disbanding of all armed forces but those contributing to the United Nations Peace Force.   UNITED NATIONS MILITARY FORCE

Barack Obama and the radical left are hoping to use the Arms Trade Treaty to affect an end run around our inalienable, constitutionally protected right to self-defense, that is, to keep and bear arms. What couldn’t be accomplished in Congress or by the Supreme Court will now take place thanks to the authority of a treaty. And according to many, use of the Fast Track trade agreement will preclude the necessity of the Senate having to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty. Obama, or any president, will have the power to impose every article of the treaty as the law of the land.

Maybe the media has picked this fight because they figure it’ll finally be a winner.

Thoughts on Article V and the Second Amendment

By Rod and Sherri Dodsworth, staff writers

Article V of the Constitution is to the body of the nation what the Second Amendment is to our persons; both enshrine the right to self-defense.

Their enumeration in the Constitution isn’t actually necessary, for both rights are derived from nature and nature’s God, existing long before the Constitution. They are thus unalienable, meaning we could not give them away if we wanted to.

Still, it is hard to not regard both as bequests, as invaluable gifts from our Framers to every subsequent generation of Americans. Having pursued and ultimately failed at peacefully settling their   

James Madison, "Father" of the Constitution
James Madison, “Father” of the Constitution

differences with George III and having fought and nearly lost their rebellion against him, the Framing generation ensured Americans they would for all time have tangible recourse in the form of rights enshrined in the supreme law of the land. These rights would be ours, should menacing waves of tyranny ever again break over our shores.

Just as the Left would deny the right to self-defense in order to enslave us, otherwise well-intentioned conservatives would deny the nation an Article V State Amendments Convention because it might “runaway” and result in an oppressive constitution.

Without doubt, there isn’t an earthly power that cannot be turned from its intended purpose. A man can use his weapon for suicide as well as for self-defense. Similarly, a convention of state delegates could theoretically design a government to enslave the people of the United States; a calculated suicide of the republic.

Yet, let’s look at probabilities instead of remote possibilities. Both Article V and the Second Amendment can be made use of in emergencies. When an impending tyranny-if not police state-is just over the horizon, Article V provides a peaceful means to   2ND Amendment confront the danger and defeat it without violence, rebellion, or war on our shores. Likewise, a homeowner often deters violence merely by showing he is armed and ready to confront an intruder. It is as unlikely that an amendments convention in the age of Obamunism would establish tyranny, as a homeowner would turn his gun on himself during a home invasion.

Republican government places enormous responsibilities on its members far beyond voting, for no election alone can remove the vast arbitrary powers that have accumulated in the Executive and Judicial branches. If tyranny is to be stopped, repelled and reversed, the people and their states must step up to the task. An Article V State Amendment Convention should be our immediate goal, for if we don’t convene to stop the leviathan, our next resort-that being to the Second Amendment-will mean certain destruction of the remnants of the American Republic.

Lies and Gun Grabbers, Part 2

By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer

Why is it that those who demand tolerance for every sexual perversion and every abomination inspired by a “religion” have an hysterical reaction to firearms? I would bet most individuals hyper-critical of guns have never fired one and wouldn’t wish to if given the chance. Their aversion to even rationally discussing the subject of firearms borders on the pathological.

A true standout of the hoplophobe community is sfgate blogger, Mark Morford. Mr. Morford has gun owners all figured out and is eager to share his insights with the rest of the world.

I laughed loudly after reading what this smug, self-important, anti-gun zealot said about gun owners. See how many of Morford’s descriptions of the average gun owner apply to you. Be honest now:

You are a scared white male; you don’t live near a university or large city; you have never traveled, you don’t read books, you don’t like change; you think Obama is a “scary black president,” (scary because he’s Black, not because he is a power-hungry, America-hating Marxist).

This is how Morford views gun owners. I assume that he will be highly disappointed when he discovers the fastest growing segment of the gun owning public is young, urban females. Equally crushing will be the results of a 2014 Gallup Poll revealing 54% of gun owners to be Black or otherwise non-White. Back to the drawing board for Mr. Morford.

Although gun rights are expanding in a majority of the 50 states, the administration is still working to implement gun control legislation incrementally. Obama, along with hoplophobe alarmists like Bloomberg, Blumenthal and Feinstein, to name a few, is attempting to have the State Department implement new rules Published in the June 3rd Federal Register, making it a crime to discuss firearms or ammo on the internet. My first question is, what does this have to do with the State Department? And secondly, what makes this administration think that the patriots who own guns in this country will allow them to so blithely trample our First Amendment rights?

The intent of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights is to protect the citizenry from the government. When the Constitution was ratified, it was assumed that a militia involved all those who were able to bear arms. In addition to defending towns and the nation, the duty of a militia was to help defend citizens from a tyrant. If the government became tyrannical, it was up to the militia to make things right.

This is why progressives want a “living” Constitution and Bill of Rights. For “living” means changeable and NOT according to the methods set down in the Constitution. The left prefer to make uncomplicated, wholesale changes to any portion of our liberties as enumerated. They don’t want the American people to know that the right to keep and bear arms is a God given right of the people, not of the states and certainly not of the federal government.

Will Obama use the unratified Arms Trade Treaty to undermine the 2nd Amendment?

 

By Doug Book, editor

Among the terms of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) are the following mandatory provisions:

1.) Civilians are not permitted to “own, buy, sell, trade or transfer” “[any] means of armed resistance including handguns.”

2.) Also prohibited is the ownership of ammunition/munitions.

3.) All countries participating in the Arms Trade Treaty “shall establish and maintain a National Control System” with a list of all weapons including “their current owners.”

This makes the registration of all firearms–that is,  the National Arms Registry dreamed of by American liberals–a Treaty requirement. The registry will be used to enforce the prohibition against civilian ownership of firearms by making certain all gun owners have surrendered their firearms to the state. What the far left has been unable to accomplish at either the state or federal level has become possibly by means of International Law applying to all nations which have ratified the ATT. Should the U.S. Senate ratify the Treaty, each provision would ostensibly assume the force of law in the U.S. as well.

However, just as Harry Reid made it clear that the present Democrat-controlled Senate would not ratify the ATT, a particularly important fact will also prevent any future anti-gun Senate ratifying the Treaty. Two centuries of precedent and the decision in a number of Supreme Court cases have determined that no law may be passed in the United States which conflicts with or serves to change the Constitution. The terms of the Arms Trade Treaty obviously disagree with the 2nd Amendment. That being the case, the Constitution must either be radically altered or the Treaty rewritten. Neither of these is likely to take place.

But why would Barack Obama send delegations to 5 years of Treaty conferences, making certain the document language met Administration approval, if the Treaty terms could not be imposed on the American public even if the document were at some point ratified?

“The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is a treaty concerning the international law on treaties between states.” Sometimes described as the Treaty of Treaties, it was adopted in May 1969 and entered into force in January of 1980.

Under Article 18 of the Convention, “…a State which has signed or ratified a treaty has the obligation to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of that treaty prior to its entry into force.”

The written Object and Purpose of the ATT:

Object and Purpose: The Object of this treaty is to—Establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms. Prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion;

For the Purpose of—Contributing to international and regional peace, stability and security; Reducing human suffering; Promoting cooperation, transparency and responsible action by States Parties in the international trade in conventional arms, thereby building confidence among States Parties.

The question is whether the signature of Barack Obama or his agent John Kerry binds the United States by International Law “to not defeat the object and purpose” of the Arms Trade Treaty?

If so, could this entail a calculated scheme by which Obama might claim to be “compelled” to implement the terms of the treaty so as to avoid defeating the treaty’s object and purpose? For example, could Obama bring into play the treaty term calling for a national arms registry, claiming it was absolutely necessary to avoid doing harm to the purpose of the treaty?

I don’t know the legal answer to question. But I do know that, as the most corrupt president in the nation’s history, Barack Obama is capable of implementing any underhanded or illegal scheme he believes he might get away with. And he would undoubtedly go to any lengths to manufacture a method by which he could undermine the 2nd Amendment.

Will this administration spend the next months working to impose terms of an unconstitutional treaty on the American public?

Sources: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/10/03/constitution-vs-un-arms-treaty/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties

https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/English7.pdf

http://www.libertygunrights.com/2TreatySet10Pgs.pdf

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2517&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dunratified%2Btreaties%252C%2Bdomestic%2Bpolitics%26form%3DPRUSEN%26pc%3DAV01%26mkt%3Den-us%26refig%3Df5a8d567fbea420cbcafd9f2eaf5a93a%26pq%3Dunratified%2Btreaties%252C%2Bdomestic%2Bpolitics%26sc%3D0-23%26sp%3D-1%26qs%3Dn%26sk%3D%26cvid%3Df5a8d567fbea420cbcafd9f2eaf5a93a#search=%22unratified%20treaties%2C%20domestic%20politics%22

 Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com

 

 

Will the Senate threaten the 2nd Amendment?

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty goes into effect on December 24th. Through that date, Coach is Right will provide background and current information concerning the dangers this treaty poses to the American people and their freedom.

President Obama has been re-elected since this piece was written and Republicans secured a massive, midterm victory in 2014. The midterm results should guarantee an incoming Senate that would  not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty. But conservative voters were certainly betrayed by the vote of the Republican House on the Omnibus Spending Bill a few days ago.

First published on July 13, 2012

by Doug Book,  staff writer

As New York City plays host to a conference which will shape the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) into final form, most 2nd Amendment supporters are concerned that stealth language or overly broad applications woven into the document will serve to separate Americans from their right to keep and bear arms. After all, why else would preliminary versions of the Treaty be so difficult to obtain and U.N., pre-conference position statements remain consistently absent from the internet?  

Barack Hussein Obama leads the most anti-gun rights Administration in the nation’s history. Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and recently appointed, ATF Acting Director B. Todd Jones have spoken often and passionately about the importance of implementing more restrictive gun control legislation.  

But the gun-grabbing Regime will not be able to ratify the UN’s global gun control measure without first securing a 2/3rds majority of senators to vote in favor. And it won’t be easy to convince 67 politicians to sign onto a document which countless critics have spent nearly a decade rightly representing as a worldwide assault on the 2nd Amendment. It will be especially difficult as the American public may once again be told that the document has to be “passed” in order to find out what’s IN it!

Late last year the Heritage Foundation obtained an ATT “Draft Paper” from an NGO participating in the Treaty mark-up. The Paper makes it clear that the finished product would be broad in scope, controlling everything “from rifle scopes to battleships.” And though the Treaty purports to monitor only “international arms transfers,” document language shows the UN also wishes to control “internal transfers” as “any firearm transfer—meaning any change in ownership…might conceivably somehow affect another nation…”

Therefore the ATT will demand signatories control and monitor “transfers including ‘transport’ across national territory.” To accomplish this, a nation would necessarily “maintain records of all imports and shipments of arms that transit their territory,” creating records on “the type of arms transferred and their ‘end users’.” So as international records would be kept of all weapons bought and sold within the United States, the Treaty would create not only a global arms registry, but the rules by which arms may be transferred and to whom.

Would Senators sympathetic to global arms control try to slip these and other unconstitutional ATT edicts past American voters? 

DC politicians—including Republicans—have already written purposely misleading and legally ineffective language into both the 2012 and 2013 National Defense Authorization Acts for the sole purpose of deceiving the American public into believing their constitutional rights were being looked after.  As for treaties, they commonly include “reservations;” that is, language designed to “define and limit the effect of a ratified treaty.” A few dedicated, gun-grabbing Senators might get the idea of attaching a codicil to the ATT, claiming it would prevent the ratified Treaty imposing upon the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people thereby safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course they wouldn’t bother to inform Americans that the Arms Trade Treaty specifically forbids any reservations which are “incompatible with the object and purpose” of the Treaty! Would members of the Washington political class be so dishonest as to try such an underhanded stunt?

It’s doubtful that a sufficient number of Senators would risk the fury of the NRA and gun owning voters. But then, stranger things have certainly happened in the nation’s capitol.  After all, a Supreme Court Chief Justice has just prostituted both himself and the Constitution!

Maybe keeping tabs on the Senate wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

Sources:

(1) http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/UNArmsTradeTreaty_USSenateLetter.pdf

(2) http://propheticnewsblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/un-arms-trade-treatyloosing-our-right.html

(3) http://patricksperry.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-will-restrict-your-gun-rights/

(4) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/dc3364.doc.htm

(5) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/effects-of-the-un-arms-trade-treaty-on-the-us