By Mr. Curmudgeon:
Flush with a new sense of purpose after his re-election victory, President Obama signaled his administration’s support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. What follows are two of the treaty’s provisions:
- Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.
- Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regulations of the items referred to … such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred … and end-users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
That means every firearm, its various parts and ammunition will be regulated. And you, the “end-user,” will earn the privilege of having your name recorded in an international registry.
“That can’t happen here,” you say, “The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller denies the feds, the states and local authorities the power to restrict my ‘right to bear arms.’”
If you believe so, you are dead wrong.
Most Americans believe the only way the United States Constitution can be revised is when Congress passes an amendment for the states to ratify. However, the president and Senate can do just that by signing and ratifying an international treaty. And just in case you have forgotten, Fast and Furious Democrats control the White House and Senate.
In 1920, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Missouri vs. Holland said the Constitution’s treaty-making provision (the Supremacy Clause) means that international agreements entered into by the United States are the “supreme law of the land.” The issue in the case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The U.S.-British agreement limited the hunting of certain endangered birds. The State of Missouri contested the treaty for violating their 10th Amendment state’s rights.
Progressive Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the high court’s majority, established a line of legal reasoning that persists to this day: That changing times requires rethinking the interpretation of our dusty and antiquated Constitution.
“… We must realize that they [the Founders] have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters,” wrote Holmes, “… We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that [10th] amendment has reserved.”
In other words, the “Truths” the Founders declared to be “Self-Evident” are malleable clay. The Constitution is not a parchment containing the steadfast certitude of law but a living and evolving “being.” More importantly, there is no need to exercise the constitutionally sanctioned remedies to amend the document when we have nine erudite high priests who are better suited to the task.
When President Obama signs the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, and if the Democratic Senate ratifies it, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause – as interpreted by Holmes – effectively removes our Second Amendment protection from the founding document.
It’s more than a little ironic that an early 20th century treaty, designed to save birds, effectively renders us a nation of sitting ducks.