Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

David French says:

The New York Times is in the midst of an editorial crusade against guns, and it’s doing it in standard New York Times fashion: supplementing its own house editorial with classic counterintuitive op-eds — in this case an infantry officer and a cop weigh in on behalf of the paper’s position. (Note to young writers: The absolute best way to get prime space in America’s most famous newspaper is to write a leftist op-ed while holding down a stereotypically conservative job). While I certainly respect his experience with weapons, I daresay that the infantry officer represents a minority viewpoint amongst his own brothers-in-arms …

Well, I don’t know enough to respect this officer’s experience with weapons.  I respect my son’s experience with weapons.  He was in the 2/6 Marines, Golf Company, 3rd Platoon, combat tour of Fallujah in 2007.  He thinks this officer’s opinion is ridiculous and juvenile.  Besides, in discussing the issue he toils mightily over such notions as understanding collateral damage because of the backstop behind your target.  These are basic issues to the firearms owner, and you simply don’t shoot if you can harm innocent victims in an urban setting in America.

But the most juvenile statement is this.

Those who truly believe that need to be carrying a gun right now, wherever they are. They need to keep it closer than I kept my weapon in Iraq. In Iraq my fellow soldiers’ lives were on the line. Soldiers’ lives are important — but our families’ safety is even more precious.

Those who truly believe that anyone should be able to buy semiautomatic weapons will need a gun at soccer practice, at church, at “Batman” movies. That’s the only logical choice. And civilian life will feel almost like being in Iraq.

I carry my weapon from room to room with me at home, to church, and so on like he says.  And I don’t feel at all like I’m in Iraq.  My son doesn’t feel like he is still in Iraq.  In fact, I think the officer is lying about this.  I don’t really think he feels like he is in Iraq.  I think he is using this as a dishonest literary device.

On to other lies.  Joy Ann-Reid is all in a fit.  She says:

… how many Rocky Mountain hunters deem it necessary to stockpile 6,000 rounds of ammunition and enough military-style assault weaponry to take on the Taliban? I’m guessing not many.

… the NRA has morphed from a supporter of responsible gun ownership into a lobbying and fundraising juggernaut, and some would argue, a handmaiden of mass murder.

LaPierre specializes in extremism: calling the federal agents who took part in Waco and Ruby Ridge “jackbooted thugs,” prompting former President George H.W. Bush to quit the NRA in protest in 1995.

He has earned a veritable Ph.D. in paranoia; fantasizing that the United Nations was plotting to somehow confiscate every gun in the United States …

The door has been slammed on the gun debate right up to the White House, except for billionaire New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who has no political party, is terming out and doesn’t need, or fear, the gun lobby’s money.

Regarding the issue of U.N. confiscatory measures, Joy hasn’t read my U.N. Arms Treaty: Dreams Of International Gun Control.  She also needs to read my category on SWAT Raids to learn about jackbooted thugs.  But I don’t believe that she really believes that the NRA, which is comprised of and gets its funding from citizens, is a hand maiden of mass murder.  I think she is lying, and using this as a dishonest literary device.  And I think Joy knows that just about the only thing America is doing right now is debating guns.  I don’t think she really believes that the “door has been slammed” on gun debate.  I think Joy is using that as a dishonest literary device too.

Finally, Stewart Patrick really wants the U.N. Arms Treaty to be ratified.  He says:

An international arms treaty would work to stem the flow of licit and illicit arms into unstable countries and regions, and prevent such weapons from falling into the wrong hands. However, despite three years of preparations and nearly a decade of advocacy campaigns, there remains a lack of consensus on the scope, criteria, and implementation of the treaty. The usual suspects, Russia, China, and—to a certain extent—the United States, are among the most influential of a handful of countries raising objections, particularly over the proposed inclusion of small arms and ammunition, human rights criteria, and regulatory measures. And to compound matters, the United States continues to face domestic opposition to its participation in the treaty negotiations.

[ … ]

In response to the charges that the treaty would coopt U.S. national sovereignty, arms control experts argue that the treaty would have “little to no impact” on existing regulatory processes, and that American businesses would not assume any additional regulatory burdens. The United States already has in place a rigorous export control system, defined as the “gold standard.” Instead, the treaty is primarily aimed at countries in which rigorous controls and oversight are absent, in an attempt to harmonize and coordinate standards worldwide.

I think Mr. Patrick is a liar.  I think he knows that the treaty wouldn’t do anything at all to stem the tide of weapons from rogue nations, and I think he also knows that it would affect the ownership of weapons within the U.S.

Andy Ostroy wants to get rid of the damn guns.

This is a simple issue, people. It’s a choice between allowing mass killers to easily purchase assault weapons and ammunition… or not. We can stick our collective heads in the sand and “come together” to talk about God, prayer, healing and sing Kumbaya, but none of that — let me repeat…none of that — will stop the blood from spilling again.

And let me say that we can confiscate every known, legal weapon in America and it will not, let me repeat, it will not affect the fact that criminals violate the law and commit crimes, sometimes violent crimes.  Andy isn’t considering the price of gun control.

So instead of getting rid of the damn guns, I say we keep the guns and get rid of the damn lies.

From Fox News:

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: “Impact Segment” tonight as we reported last night the far- left is trying to use the Colorado movie massacre to promote gun control. The brother of a young woman murdered by James Holmes was confronted by that last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MSNBC HOST: Do you feel compelled to push for tighter gun laws?

JORDAN GHAWI, BROTHER OF JESSICA GHAWI: Well, here’s the thing. We can try to politicize this and make some sort of polarizing debate and make this a tenet of the election. But that’s not what we are here to do right now. We are here to celebrate the lives of the victims that have been lost. If somebody’s to do harm to somebody they are going to find a way to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O’REILLY: Then of course that’s true. But it also makes sense for Congress to pass a new law that requires the sale of all heavy weapons to be reported to the FBI. In this age of terrorism, that law is badly needed.

Joining us now from Washington, Congressman Jason Chaffetz who disagrees. Where am I going wrong here, Congressman?

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, (R) UTAH: Bill, giving the FBI a master list of everybody who owns weapons in this country is not the right direction.

O’REILLY: Now do you think you just categorize what I said accurately everybody who owns weapons. That’s not what I said and you know it?

I said, heavy weapons, all right. Mortars, howitzer’s machine guns. In this age of terrorism, if you do a flight school, the FBI is alerted. But you can buy a machine gun and the FBI doesn’t know. And you think that’s responsible?

CHAFFETZ: No that — well, first of all, I don’t think that’s absolutely not true. If you buy a fully automatic weapon, you have to go get a tax certificate from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in order to do that. You have to pass a fingerprint background check.

O’REILLY: Have you ever been to a gun show, Congressman? Have you ever been in a gun show?

CHAFFETZ: Yes, I have.

O’REILLY: You know, you can buy any weapon you want there and there’s no reporting anyway; you can walk right out there.

[ … ]

O’REILLY: You can buy an AK-47 in this country and no federal agency will know you by it. And as the guy in Colorado proved, you can buy a mass amount of ammunition on the net, ok, and nobody is reported.

Good grief.  The ignorance is astounding, but idoicy is brazen ignorance, and that’s what is on display here.  We’ve covered this before, but the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act of 1986 banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, inflating the cost of fully automatic weapons then in circulation to $10,000 or more (far beyond their actual worth).  For most people, it is cost prohibitive to own a fully automatic weapon, and purchase of one requires registration and approval with the ATF and local law enforcement (oftentimes not granted).

You cannot own a fully automatic weapon without ATF approval, a tax stamp and registration (as well as local LEO approval).  A fully automatic weapon has not been used in an illegal shooting in the U.S.  in nearly a century.  Even purchase of a semi-automatic weapon requires a background check and completion of ATF form 4473.  This applies as well to gun shows.

To be sure, individuals can sell weapons to other individuals without going through a Federal Firearms License in many states, but this is true regardless of whether the circumstances of the sale include being at a gun show.  And selling to individuals who cannot otherwise own a weapon is still illegal, regardless of whether you are an FFL or a non-licensed individual.  To say that people can have illegal things because they can break the law is a tautology, and doesn’t advance the discussion.  It only makes people more ignorant.

O’Reilly goes on to mention howitzers.  Yes, howitzers.  I’m not sure what color the sky is in O’Reilly’s world, but he has the same knee jerk reaction to guns that most Northeastern elites do (e.g., Chris Christie).  The offensive part in this case is his transmission of ignorance to his viewers.  Be aware – concerning guns, Bill O’Reilly is an idiot.

UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn for the attention!

In Salt Lake City:

A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith’s employee Dorothy Espinoza says, “He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people.”

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. “There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms.”

Then, before the suspect could find another victim – a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. “A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith’s grabbed him.”

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, “This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time.”

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. “Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me.”

As has been pointed out befrore, gun free zones are premised on a fantasy, i.e., that criminals will obey the law.  No one who is sane actually wants to endure this kind of confrontation, and in a knife fight, even as a weapon carrier (sometimes concealed, sometimes open), my own rules are based on three E’s: Evasion, Egress and Escape.  Get out of the way of the attack, egress from the area, and escape the danger.  But this may not work, and when it doesn’t, a gun is your best bet.  And in this case the concealed carrier potentially saved lives other than his own.

In spite of the new appeals for gun control, law abiding people must not be disarmed.  Nothing good comes from it.

The Colorado shooting has brought out the worst in analytical reasoning in what I had called (in a different context) confused and goofy Christians who “forgot all about their theology and think that a new regulation, law or treaty will bring peace on earth and good will toward men.”  There is David Gibson at Huffington Post, and Chuck Currie at Huffington Post, and others.  Gun control is certainly a religious issue (at least for me), as I discussed in Let He Who Has No Gun Sell His Robe And Buy One.  The question “what would Jesus do” if he had the chance to have weapons or jettison them is easily answered.  Jesus advocated weapons.

But it was in this context that a church in Georgia went to court to request legal relief from Georgia’s law that forbids the carrying of weapons in places of worship.  About one and a half years ago:

A gun rights group filed a notice Wednesday that it will appeal a federal judge’s dismissal of a suit challenging a state law banning weapons in churches, mosques and synagogues.

John Monroe, the attorney for GeorgiaCarry.org, filed a notice that he plans to ask the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review U.S. District Judge Ashley Royal’s decision. Royal ruled Monday that a 2010 law that lists places of worship among locations where guns are not allowed did not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion or the Second Amendment guarantee of a right to bear arms.

The lawsuit — brought by GeorgiaCarry.org, the organization’s past president and  the minister at the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston — challenged the inclusion of places of worship on a list of places where guns are not allowed –  government buildings, courthouses, jails and prisons, state mental hospitals, nuclear power plants, bars without the owner’s permission and polling places.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has made their decision.

A federal appeals court has upheld Georgia’s law banning guns in churches and other places of worship.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, published Friday, upholds a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the law. The lawsuit was filed by a gun rights organization — GeorgiaCarry.org — and the Rev. Jonathan Wilkins of the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston. Wilkins had said he wanted to have a gun for protection while working in the church office.

The 11th Circuit rejected arguments that Georgia’s ban violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion and Second Amendment right to bear arms.

John Monroe, a lawyer for Georgia Carry, said Monday the plaintiffs hadn’t decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We’re looking at it,” Monroe said of the 11th Circuit decision. “We respect the court’s decision, but we were disappointed.”

[ … ]

“We conclude that the Second Amendment does not give an individual a right to carry a firearm on a place of worship’s premises against the owner’s wishes because such right did not pre-exist the Amendment’s adoption,” the opinion says. “Enforcing the Carry Law against a license holder who carries a firearm on private property against the owner’s instructions would therefore be constitutional.”

This last part is very important, because the news report has, in my opinion, hit the core of the court’s argument.  It says:

A place of worship’s right, rooted in the common law, to forbid possession of firearms on its property is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.  Surely, given the Court’s pronouncement that the Second Amendment merely “codified a pre-existing right,” Plaintiffs cannot contend that the Second Amendment in any way abrogated the well established property law, tort law, and criminal law that embodies a private property owner’s exclusive right to be king of his own castle. By codifying a pre-existing right, the Second Amendment did not expand, extend, or enlarge the individual right to bear arms at the expense of other fundamental rights; rather, the Second Amendment merely preserved the status quo of the right that existed at the time.42 Indeed, numerous colonial leaders, as well as scholars whose work influenced the Founding Fathers, embraced the concept that a man’s (or woman’s) right to control his (or her) own private property occupied a special role in American society and in our freedom.

Regardless of one’s views on weapons on private property, this might be a compelling argument if it had anything to do with the case.  This isn’t a case about concealed carry permit holders wishing to carry their weapons when the church authorities had a policy against such actions.

The original complaint states that “The Tabernacle would like to have members armed for the protection of its members attending worship services and other events at the Tabernacle’s place of worship, but is in fear of arrest and prosecution of such members under the Carry Ban for doing so.”

In fact, the church is a plaintiff in the complaint.  So in addressing (under the rubric of the second amendment) the issue of whether weapons may be carried on private property where there is a policy against it, the court has erected and knocked down a straw man.  Instead they could have granted the plaintiff’s petition and still left intact the prohibition for private property when the owner’s policy went contrary to the plaintiff’s desire.  They avoided the core issue in their cowardly ruling – they cut and ran when faced with people who wish exercise their constitutional rights.  Typical American workers can’t get away with such foolishness in the work place and still retain a job.

Continuing with the things we are progressively learning about the shooting in Aurora, Colorado, the shooter’s weapon jammed.

The semiautomatic assault rifle used by the gunman in a mass shooting at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie jammed during the attack, a federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press, which forced the shooter to switch to another gun with less fire power.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to in order to discuss the investigation, said the disabled weapon had a high-capacity ammunition magazine. Police have said that a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene and that such a device would be able to fire 50 to 60 rounds a minute.

As I have pointed out, the rifle wasn’t an “assault rifle” (since it didn’t have selective fire capability) and the phrase “semiautomatic assault rifle” is nonsensical.  It is a contradiction, since a semiautomatic rifle cannot be an assault rifle.  The police and media are both to blame for sloppy work.

But note also what I said about mass shootings.

“… the most frequent choice for such shooters in order to achieve effectiveness seems not to rely on magazine capacity, but having multiple weapons and magazines.”

Unlike me, he had a crappy rifle and his jammed.  He also had a high capacity magazine.  It didn’t matter.  He reverted to use of multiple weapons.  It also won’t matter to the anti-gun lobby.  They will continue to use this as yet another example of why high capacity magazines should be banned.

My readers know better, and you’re among the first to learn the right definitions, in the right context, the right way.

The Phoenix New Times reports on “assault rifles” found by hikers in the desert of Arizona, and the three weapons – two SKS’s and an AK-47 – according to the news report, “could have come from almost anywhere, considering the hundreds of gun stores in Arizona that sell such weapons.”  The report is followed by another which again calls the guns “assault rifles.”

Northescambia.com reports that a man was charged with discharging an AK-47, later citing a witness who saw “what appeared to be a clip connected to an automatic weapon in a back passenger floorboard.”  Without knowing any better, one would be tempted to think that rogue New Yorkers were running around with machine guns given this news report about a recent shooting in the Springfield Gardens area of Queens.  It shows a picture of an AK-47 take from Wikipedia, with the following caption: “The AK-47 is a deadly assault rifle that can fire 10 rounds per second.”

Most main stream media reports concering “assault rifles” and “assault weapons” become badly confused, with terms conflated with other, and with competing (and oftentimes incorrect) terms.  Thus does the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 become important in our discussion.  Among other things, this act banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, inflating the cost of fully automatic weapons then in circulation to $10,000 or more (far beyond their actual worth).  For most people, it is cost prohibitive to own a fully automatic weapon, and purchase of one requires registration and approval with the ATF and local law enforcement (oftentimes not granted).

Why is this important?  The answer hinges on the technical, formal, official definition for “assault rifle.”  The correct definition comes from the U.S. Military.

Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges … Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters.

When understanding the phrase “assault rifle,” one needs to imagine U.S. Marine Corps squad rushes; the fire team member using the Squad Automatic Weapon fires area suppressing fire while the other three fire team members run forward.  After a certain distance has been covered, the three Marines carrying the M4s or M16s go prone and lay down suppressing fire with their rifles (capable of selective fire) while the SAW gunner runs forward, goes prone, and then the rush continues in like manner until the enemy position has been assaulted and overrun.

So assault rifles have at least three characteristics: (1) capable of selective fire (which includes fully automatic fire), (2) fire an intermediate cartridge,  and (3) mild recoil.  My Rock Rivers Arms rifle has two of the three characteristics, and so it is not an assault rifle.  The confused phrase “assault weapon” pertains to weapons that were banned and later allowed because of the sunset provision on September 13, 2004, and have to do with weapons that look scary because they have collapsible (or telescoping) stocks, forend grips, high capacity magazines, and so forth.  The expiration of the assault weapons ban doesn’t have any affect on the continued ban on fully automatic weapons in the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

The phrases “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” (now a defunct and outdated definition) are used interchangeably in the main stream media, and sloppiness is to blame, even if firearms owners refer to their weapons as ARs (AR is shorthand for ARmalite).  One humorous example refers to .50 caliber assault rifles, a contradiction in terms and an impossibility.

But not all media is as ignorant or reluctant to be precise as the dozens of examples I find daily.  For one such report headlined with the phrase assault rifle, I contacted the author, Jessica Schrader, with the following note.

Jessica,

I am a gun rights and second amendment blogger.  I strongly suspect that the use of an “assault rifle” is incorrect (to fully meet the definition of “assault rifle” it must be capable of select(ive) fire, which includes fully automatic fire).  The phrase “assault weapon” is purely a political definition, and went out when the federal “assault weapons” ban … because of the sunset provision on September 13, 2004.  It pertains mostly to weapons that look “scary,” not to fully automatic weapons.
 
I strongly suspect that the shooting was done with a semi-automatic rifle of some kind, of which there are 50 million plus in the U.S.  Can you confirm that a semi-automatic rifle was used, or was it in actual fact a machine gun capable of fully automatic fire?  The wording in the headline may have been a function of sloppy police department communications, so I am not attempting to place blame on anyone, just get to the facts.

To which she responded:

Thanks for your note. That is a good point- actually, in the follow up we published yesterday, police used the term semi-automatic. We will update the other one. Thanks again!

So even though the police are sometimes to blame for sloppy word usage, they occasionally get it right too.  We may not ever win the battle, but words mean something, and it’s important to be precise.  Jessica Schrader knows this and serves as an example for how the rest of the main stream media should cover the facts.

Much will be learned about the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado in the coming days.  There will be ready-made diatribes, crafted for the ignorant, for the purpose of advocating increased gun control.  But for those who do not choose to be ignorant (e.g., my readers), listen carefully.

“The gunman was armed with a rifle, a shotgun and two handguns …”

It is as I observed before in a slight different context.

“… the most frequent choice for such shooters in order to achieve effectiveness seems not to rely on magazine capacity, but having multiple weapons and magazines.”

I do not know if the gunman had what would qualify as high capacity magazines.  It likely doesn’t matter, because he had four weapons with him.  So in the coming days when you hear more calls for banning high capacity magazines because of this event, remember that those calls are from people who don’t care about whether the facts comport with their agenda.  They just don’t care.

As regular readers know, I am an advocate of open carry.  I openly carry a firearm for several reasons, none of which is to “make a point.”  I hate the feel of so-called “inside the waistband” carry, I hate sweating my weapon (especially in the summer), and my weapon simply hangs better if I use a good tactical holster and carry it on my side.  My home state of North Carolina is an open carry state, and has no stop and identify statute.  I have observed before that no one screams and runs for cover, and all of the boogeymen under the bed that people imagine when they think of open carry simply do not obtain.  They aren’t real.

So as you can imagine, I couldn’t resist a chuckle when I read this paragraph in a commentary somewhat friendly to open carry.

If you do carry in an exposed manner, have you considered what would happen if someone snatched your pistol while you were distracted?  Don’t give me that line about always being in condition yellow, or how you are never distracted.  Everyone can be, and everyone is at various points throughout the day.  You do your best, but your best ain’t perfect.

Sometimes, spotting a criminal is obvious.  Many times it is not.  Sometimes the person grabbing your gun isn’t a criminal at all, but that nice lady in the grocery store line behind you who just lost her job, found out her husband is cheating on her and thinks life is not worth living.  She smiles at you, but she is thinking about death.  If someone grabs that exposed gun, can you defend it?

Here in my home state, nice ladies don’t snatch guns out of holsters and go on rampages.  Nonetheless, thinking about weapon retention is usually in order.  What kind of holster do you have, how difficult would it be to unholster your weapon, and so forth.

But the notion about people going berserk and freaking out and spuriously going on killing sprees and rampages is just the monster in the closet.  Give it some thought.  If you suspect a monster of being in your closet, have your weapon ready, open the door, and if he’s not there, relax.  Be prepared, but don’t be paranoid about it.  Fearing monsters and boogeymen after you’ve already looked under the bed and in the closet is just being paranoid.

Capital Hill is under pressure to adopt the approaching U.N. arms treaty, from the New York Times, to Reuters, to confused and goofy Christians who forgot all about their theology and think that a new regulation, law or treaty will bring peace on earth and good will toward men.

We have been informed that this administration will not allow the U.N. to impose any restrictions on American’s gun rights.  But then again, this is the same administration that: [1] Sent Donald Verrilli and Lanny Breuer to argue against Sean Masciandaro concerning the possession of firearms on National Park land, [2] Nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (who testified that Heller was settled law, and then dissented in McDonald versus Chicago, agreeing with Breyer who argued for overturning Heller), and [3] Named Rose Gottemoeller to head the U.S. delegation to the U.N. arms control negotiations, the very same Rose Gottemoeller who informed Moscow that the U.S. was open to significant compromise on U.S. missile defense.

In fact, a short tour through the U.N. schemes shows that international tracing, combined with nationalized regulations and controls on the manufacture, transfer and sell of small arms, is the central feature of the plan.  The U.N. program for implementation includes such requirements as no “military style” weapons should be possessed by civilians, a registered and traceable lifetime for every weapon, and so on.  Courtesy of reddit/guns, here is a marked-up listing of the kinds of regulations envisioned by the U.N.

As we have discussed before, the distinction between civilian and military weapons is meaningless today, and wasn’t ever very useful.  Bolt action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, tactical shotguns and a whole host of other kinds of weapons are being used in both civilian and military applications, and have been for a very long time.  A U.N. distinction between civilian and military weapons would yield regulations more onerous than the assault weapons ban (sunset provision on September 13, 2004) ever could.  A U.N. distinction between civilian and military owners achieves nothing beyond what the U.N. already wants, i.e., an international gun registry and lack of weapons transferability, and thus is this distinction a disingenuous subterfuge.  Promises to exempt “civilians” – whatever that means – doesn’t make this treaty any less dangerous to firearms ownership in America.

Missives on why treaties do not obviate or supersede the constitution, while well intentioned and informative, miss the point entirely.  Even in the wake of the Heller and McDonald rulings, there are still four justices on the Supreme Court who fundamentally do not believe in the second amendment, and then at least one who sees reversal of Heller on the horizon with a “future, wiser court.”  Furthermore, the decisions in Heller and McDonald do not address issues such as a gun registry, further controls on transfer of weapons across state lines or even within states, or other meaningless and intrusive ATF regulations.  There is a pregnant field of un-litigated second amendment issues in America, and the existence of an international treaty only complicates gun ownership.  It isn’t obvious that any court, much less the Supreme Court, would find stipulations similar to the ones in the U.N. treaty to be unconstitutional.

Finally, take note that international luminaries such as Iran – known to supply weapons to insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria – have been appointed to a post negotiating the treaty.  The very real possibility exists that legitimate weapons sales from the U.S. to allies (such as Israel) would become problematic under the treaty.  Taiwan, for instance, is concerned that the treaty could undercut weapons imports.

The silliness of the treaty and its effect on other nations is outlined fairly well by David Bosco at Foreign Policy (even if Bosco is willing to overlook its silliness).

There was a lot of talk at the session about the absurdity that sales of bananas are more regulated internationally than sales of assault rifles and about the need for more states to enact domestic legislation regulating arms transfers. The assembled activists did leaven their optimism with a dose of reality. They acknowledged that the treaty almost certainly would not contain any binding language or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, every country will determine for itself whether an arms sale or transfer is likely to contribute to human rights violations. (Under the ATT likely to emerge, Russia could report that it has duly considered whether arming Syrian forces would lead to violations and decided that it would not. Nobody would be able to gainsay the Kremlin, at least not through the treaty mechanism.)  What’s more, the treaty negotiations will be conducted on a consensus basis (Washington insisted on that), which means that any state can block adoption of a text it doesn’t like.

So civilians in America would be subject to onerous new regulations since America is a law abiding nation, while rogue nations would be free to export weapons as they see fit.  Or in other words, the criminals have the guns while the law abiding citizens are disarmed, sort of like gun control in America.  As I have previously observed, the U.N. arms treaty is a solution in search of a problem.

Not only does this treaty intrude on the second amendment rights of American citizens, and not only is it hypocritical in its intent, it would target the very country who abides by its laws and allow the perpetrators justification for their own actions.  The treaty is just one more progressive, micromanaging, over-controlling, statist solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.  We’ve seen ten thousand like it, and as long as the U.N. gets funding and a home from the U.S. government, we will see many more instances of this kind of busy-body meddling into the affairs of American citizens.

Regardless of what kind of language is included in the treaty concerning military and civilian weapons, it does nothing to address the real problem of weapons traffickers such as Iran, and there is no reason to ratify it.

UPDATE: Thanks to David Codrea for the attention to this.

UPDATE #2: Glenn Reynolds says bring it!

Prior:

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty

From Politico: