Global Gun Control..State Dept Nominee Agrees!

[Rich-D]

Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

Full Story: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31711

Rich

[d90king]

He is a believer of Transnationalism and I think he is a bit odd for the job.

They would have the UN dictating the rights of our citizens if they could get away with it.

Basically the same thing Soros has been trying to accomplish with his billions...

[Rich-D]

American Heritage Foundation
Author: Theodore Bromund

"Harold Koh, the nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department, supports “the global regulation of small arms” and a “global gun control regime.” And he believes it is “needlessly provocative” for any U.S. representative to refer to the right to bear arms when speaking to a foreign audience:"

Full Text: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/11/koh%E2%80%99s-goal-for-the-legal-trade-in-arms-ban-it/

Rich

[Chilo45]

Lifted the following from Wikipedia - (sorry for all of the footnote citations)

On March 23, 2009, the White House announced Koh's nomination as Legal Advisor to the State Department in the Obama administration, the senior legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. His nomination has been generally supported in the Senate and among legal colleagues. The nomination drew criticism from some conservative commentators for his views on international law and its use in American legal analysis and jurisprudence,[20] while drawing support from other conservatives such as Ted Olsen and Kenneth Starr and from typically conservative publications such as Forbes.[21][22][23][24][25] Koh has written in support of the practice of using tenets of international law and foreign legal precedent to inform the deliberative process of judicial decision making in the United States, and has described what he has called "transnational jurisprudence" as essential to maintaining a well ordered international legal system. Arguing that "concepts like liberty, equality and privacy are not exclusively American constitutional ideas but, rather, part and parcel of the global human rights movement"[26] Koh has traced the influence of decisions from foreign courts throughout the history of United States Supreme Court and the American court system.[27] Critics of this approach, including Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, argue that citing foreign decisions as legal precedents threatens American sovereignty. Other commentators have observed that the “use of such nonbinding sources to bolster legal arguments is a central and uncontroversial tenet of the American judicial process."[28][29] Conservative television and radio commentator Glenn Beck, speaking on his Fox News show, said, "Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead."[20]Law professors Duncan Hollis and Chris Borgen refute Beck's assertion: "Neither Koh nor any serious American lawyer disputes the Constitution's supremacy within the U.S. legal system. What Koh has advocated - along with many others - is the educational value of other countries' experiences in interpreting our Constitution and statutes."[30] On May 12, 2009, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted 12-5 in favor of Harold Koh. [31]

After reading this and the other articles mentioned in other posts here, his overall legal acumen would be a very positive addition to our State department. He is a forward thinking jurist.

[Rich-D]

What Koh has advocated - along with many others - is the educational value of other countries' experiences in interpreting our Constitution and statutes."

After reading this and the other articles mentioned in other posts here, his overall legal acumen would be a very positive addition to our State department. He is a forward thinking jurist.
The statements are hard for me to digest! As well the fact that you see positives in the previous posts. I am missing something that you see. Please explain further, in an attempt to change the minds of those who seriously doubt "the educational value of other countries' experiences in interpreting our Constitution and Statutes."

Also the fact that Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.” Koh feels that U.S. should “establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters” of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens.

I do hope that others who add their thoughts on this subject, do so in a reasonable and professional manner.

EDIT: Member States of the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml

Rich

[d90king]

Lifted the following from Wikipedia - (sorry for all of the footnote citations)

On March 23, 2009, the White House announced Koh's nomination as Legal Advisor to the State Department in the Obama administration, the senior legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. His nomination has been generally supported in the Senate and among legal colleagues. The nomination drew criticism from some conservative commentators for his views on international law and its use in American legal analysis and jurisprudence,[20] while drawing support from other conservatives such as Ted Olsen and Kenneth Starr and from typically conservative publications such as Forbes.[21][22][23][24][25] Koh has written in support of the practice of using tenets of international law and foreign legal precedent to inform the deliberative process of judicial decision making in the United States, and has described what he has called "transnational jurisprudence" as essential to maintaining a well ordered international legal system. Arguing that "concepts like liberty, equality and privacy are not exclusively American constitutional ideas but, rather, part and parcel of the global human rights movement"[26] Koh has traced the influence of decisions from foreign courts throughout the history of United States Supreme Court and the American court system.[27] Critics of this approach, including Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, argue that citing foreign decisions as legal precedents threatens American sovereignty. Other commentators have observed that the “use of such nonbinding sources to bolster legal arguments is a central and uncontroversial tenet of the American judicial process."[28][29] Conservative television and radio commentator Glenn Beck, speaking on his Fox News show, said, "Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead."[20]Law professors Duncan Hollis and Chris Borgen refute Beck's assertion: "Neither Koh nor any serious American lawyer disputes the Constitution's supremacy within the U.S. legal system. What Koh has advocated - along with many others - is the educational value of other countries' experiences in interpreting our Constitution and statutes."[30] On May 12, 2009, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted 12-5 in favor of Harold Koh. [31]

After reading this and the other articles mentioned in other posts here, his overall legal acumen would be a very positive addition to our State department. He is a forward thinking jurist.

First off I would recommend that you use Wilki sparingly in many cases for fact checking.

Personally I think we need some of our leaders to STOP looking forward when interpreting the constitution. I would prefer that they look backwards and just read it in the simple way that it was written.

I certainly would never support our courts considering the opinions of foreign countries in helping us define and interpret OUR constitution. OUR law is just that OUR law. Other nations opinion have nothing to do with our laws and how we interpret our constitution. Sovereignty isn't just a word...

There is only one United States Of America, its laws and liberties are not subject to the consent from any other nation.

[BluegrazzGuy]

Except when interpreting treaties and international agreements, this country should look to it's own laws and legal traditions and eschew views from other countries. I wonder if Koh would countenance cutting off limbs for petty theft or stoning a woman to death for adultery. There are, after all, a significant number of countries who do these very things.

I also believe that international treaties will be used choke our gun rights. Once signed, many provide for interpretation and enforcement by an arbitrator. I fear this is a bad appointment.

[azreb]

I have read statements that imply our constitutional rights (2nd amendment specifically) can be modified by treaty with foreign countries, without any vote of the people. I find that disturbing. Is there an precedent, or is that someone's wishful thinking?

[Rich-D]

I have read statements that imply our constitutional rights (2nd amendment specifically) can be modified by treaty with foreign countries, without any vote of the people. I find that disturbing. Is there an precedent, or is that someone's wishful thinking?
It has not been tested, as of yet! The fear is that they will work around the constitution. The impact will be most effective if all ammo making had to be by licensees, making home reloading illegal! The banning of so called Assault Weapons. Micro-Stamping, Law suits against firearm companies initiated by foreign peoples or Governments. Severe restrictions on imports and exports. And numerous other restrictions that would skirt around rather than conflict directly with our watered down constitution, which will be impacted by foreign legal perceptions of what the 2nd Amendment actually protects.

Rich

[Frank]

And I am very concerned by what appears to be an increasing trend to abrogate our sovereignty.

I am personally very leery of, and I disavow, cultural xenophobia. I think that there is much to learn from other cultures in the realms of the arts and sciences, and I think that it's appropriate for an educated person to have some facility in languages in addition to English, to have an understanding of the histories and values of other cultures and to be able to get along in other countries. Foreign travel is an important part of one's education. BUT....

We should not be letting other countries usurp our prerogatives to decide our national interests, nor should they have a part in deciding how we govern ourselves.

[EvenStephen]

This is the greatest country in the world. Other countries might benefit from studying what we do.

[Rich-D]

This is the greatest country in the world. Other countries might benefit from studying what we do.

Your first post is a memorable one! :)

Welcome Aboard!
Rich

[Chilo45]

I see it as thinking. Thinking allows for an expansion of one's understanding of fact as it is seen and understood by the thinker. When we as a nation state that what we say about things (internally and externally) is the only avenue that exists, we have done ourselves the greatest of disservices and in my opinion challange what our own Constitution protects - free thinking.

No one is saying abrogate our laws, morals, values that make / has made America what it is today (even though on the moral part we could use a bit of old fashioned behind the shed discipline); I see it as more of listen and learn what others have to say about what we have done / how we are doing it / what we can learn from our past victories and other results.

I may look at things as the proverbial glass is half full - when 2nd Amendment topics are discussed here and on other interesting forums available. Maybe I trust that the Constitution is greater than those who wish to modify its intent.

I see Harold Koh as having the required legal acumen and open minded philosophy to be an asset to our State department; and his views on gun control are just that - his views. I do not believe that personal and/or emotional positions should interfer with the stated goal of advising to the best of ones ability according to our Constitution.

But taking into account that the past administration has jurist that selectively allowed for our government to condone torture as defined by the world body to be disheartening.

There are two sides to every coin and issue and person. I hope that the correct side is applied to the correct situation.

[Rich-D]

I see it as thinking. Thinking allows for an expansion of one's understanding of fact as it is seen and understood by the thinker. When we as a nation state that what we say about things (internally and externally) is the only avenue that exists, we have done ourselves the greatest of disservices and in my opinion challanged what our own Constitution protects - free thinking.

No one is saying abrogate our laws, morals, values that make / has made America what it is today (even though on the moral part we could use a bit of old fashioned behind shed discipline); I see it as more of listen and learn what others have to say about what we have done / how we are doping it / what we can learn from our past victories and other results.

I may look at things as the proverbial glass is half full - when 2nd Amendment topics are discussed here and on other interesting forums available. Maybe I trust that the Constitution is greater than those who wish to modify its intent.

I see Harold Koh as having the required legal acumen and open minded philosophy to be an asset to our State department; and his views on gun control are just that - his views. I do not believe that personal and/or emotional positions should interfer with the stated goal of advising to the best of ones ability according to our Constitution.

But taking into account that the past administration has jurist that selectively allowed for our government to condone torture as defined by the world body to be disheartening.

There are two sides to every coin and issue and person. I hope that the correct side is applied to the correct situation.

First, The subject of torture is not at issue here and it would be against the rules of this site to discuss. That aside, we can address the issue at hand.

In so far as free thinking. Anyone is free to research foreign laws, rules, regulations and policies. The idea that foreign governments and legal systems would impact on our Constitution and laws, gives up a freedom that we have enjoyed for over 200 years. A freedom which many have fought and died for.

The listen and learn analogy you utilized, "I see it as more of listen and learn what others have to say about what we have done / how we are doping it / what we can learn from our past victories and other results." leaves me a bit lost on your meaning.

Your trust in the constitution, did not protect you from a written directive from your County Parks Department, concerning "No loaded Firearms in your Park System!" http://www.gun-politics.org/showthread.php?t=127&page=4&pp=10 If a County can abridge your 2nd Amendment Rights, just imagine what the UN could do utilizing Koh's philosophy.

Koh's legal views are not "open minded" as it is obvious that Koh is highly opinionated. However, I agree with your statement that "his views on gun control are just that!" Views that are closed minded and contrary to our Constitution and our personal interests a gun owners.

Koh's open mind is not to be confused with Koh's philosophy that our legal system and constitution should be open to world debate, our education, and subsequent modification.

If you can fully support such a man, your philosophy and mindset differ greatly from the NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, nor the many other 2nd Amendment organizations. And also, from what I can gather, the members of this site. However, I respect your right to pursue your opinion.

In my opinion, there are far too many anti-gun politicians in positions of power and influence to add another. Adding the world's opinion is just a means to an end in the never ending quest to achieve gun control!


Rich

[Chilo45]

Koh's open mind is not to be confused with Koh's philosophy that our legal system and constitution should be open to world debate, our education, and subsequent modification.

That statement, sir, is pure conjecture. While I do enjoy frank / honest discussions, I do not abide in conclusion making based on limited knowledge and/or as stated conjecture.

The subject is not torture but in fact the aberration of our laws against such an act by our own prior administration's jurist, which is related to 2nd amendment issues being taken into personal / emotional realms rather than strictly Constitutional based. They (the legal team) used personal / emotional desires dictated to them by their superiors to manipulate their interpretation of the law to the benefit of those who wanted to use said means of getting information. That in itself was a violation (IMHO) of the rule of law.

One thing the Supreme Court did do in Heller is delineate for the first time outside of the actions of the writers and signers of our Constitution that the wording of the 2nd amendment means we can own our own guns. Any talk by any person is just that - talk. Opinions are not law nor should they ever be unless codified by the Constitution.

Having said and/or published opinions on international recognition of US law does not disqualify one from being considered for public office; just as if a woman had an abortion in her past and now is running for a Republican selection slot.

"If you can fully support such a man, your philosophy and mindset differ greatly from the NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, nor the many other 2nd Amendment organizations. And also, from what I can gather, the members of this site. However, I respect your right to pursue your opinion".

I do not see "things" as black and white issues as the organizations you mentioned seem to reflect in their ads and dialogue. The world is a gray issue and constant clarification is required in order to prevail against attacks on our freedoms - not the you're either with us or against us type of attitude. One of my main reasons for joining this forum was the respect that I saw that all members held as sacred as they do their Constitutional rights. It is a pleasure to discuss here and I too respect the opinions of others as I do learn from what I read and when in doubt I enjoy some of the banter created.

It's all for the preservation of our Constitutional rights.

[Rich-D]

Again I remind you that this is a debate concerning Gun Rights and the Constitution as it applies to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Your comments on Torture, other violations that you consider violations of law by the previous administration and abortion are strickly off limits to discuss in this forum.

In so far as limited knowledge and conjucture, I could say the same for your position on the matter. However, that would distract from the debate, and make it more of a personal argument.

Getting to the point of this debate. Your statement: "Having said and/or published opinions on international recognition of US law does not disqualify one from being considered for public office" Is the matter in dispute.

Opps! I am on call for Court and just was summoned! I will finish at a later time!

Rich

[KCShooter]

Gentlemen, don't let this turn personal. Stay on track and within the rules of the forum. It hasn't turned yet, but the thread is teetering.

Rich, saying that you "could" say it is the same as saying it. Don't do that again.

[Chilo45]

To all here:
In no way is anything that I have posted meant as a personal and/or emotional retort. When a word and/or statement is removed from the content it can easily be taken out of context and totally misunderstood.

America is seen by most of the civilized world as a "gun-toting, wild west acting" country and to counter this demeaning view of the US, a world view should be a requirement for legal representation at our State department. This world view in no way changes our Constitution but it is a living document (as since its inception it has had many amendments added, along with a stream of continual judicial interpretations) and while a person being considered for a jurist position in the State department has commented on a world gun control topic, this should not keep them from being considered. That is my point and yes it may be in opposition to many but as my earlier post stated, I am a "the glass is half full" kind of guy - and my opinions tend to reflect this point of view.

Regards. :o

[Rich-D]

To all here:
In no way is anything that I have posted meant as a personal and/or emotional retort. When a word and/or statement is removed from the content it can easily be taken out of context and totally misunderstood.

O.k. I'll Post you exact quote!


That statement, sir, is pure conjecture. While I do enjoy frank / honest discussions, I do not abide in conclusion making based on limited knowledge and/or as stated conjecture.


America is seen by most of the civilized world as a "gun-toting, wild west acting" country and to counter this demeaning view of the US, a world view should be a requirement for legal representation at our State department.
By what means will the perception you describe as demeaning, be countered in the world's view?

I am a "the glass is half full" kind of guy - and my opinions tend to reflect this point of view. Does that leave us, who oppose the world view requirement, the "glass half empty guys"?

Rich

[Carole-K]

Gentlemen,

It might be best to avoid the point-counter-point and quote-by-quote refutations of what is and isn't a personal or emotional response. I think you both, Rich and Chilo should step back and cool off. KC has already made the request that this stay on topic and I am seconding that request.

If the thread doesn't the focus back on the gun politics of the issue and off of the personal asides it will be closed.

[Chilo45]

I have replied to Rich via private message since I do not want to cause any distraction on this forum.

Thank you.

[EvenStephen]

Your view is your view. Your view when you're an advisor to a policy maker is more.

[Aguila Blanca]

After reading this and the other articles mentioned in other posts here, his overall legal acumen would be a very positive addition to our State department. He is a forward thinking jurist.
We don't need forward thinking jurists. We need backward thinking jurists -- jurists who respect the Constitution, what it says, and what it was intended to mean rather than what "forward thinking jurists" can twist into.

I see Harold Koh as having the required legal acumen and open minded philosophy to be an asset to our State department; and his views on gun control are just that - his views. I do not believe that personal and/or emotional positions should interfer with the stated goal of advising to the best of ones ability according to our Constitution.
It is quite impossible to advise according to our Constitution if one believes that jurists operating under our Constitution should look outside of it for guidance in exercising jurisprudence. The two concepts are diametrically opposed. Either we look to OUR Constitution as the law of the land, or we look to other nations and other laws.

Should we look to Napoleonic law, perhaps? Mexico follows the Napoleonic code, I believe. The basic premise is "guilty unless proven innocent." Pretty neat system, isn't it? Shall we use that in American courts?

I respectfully submit that your position is untenable. This man cannot objectively fulfill the role and the duties required given that he does not accept the Constitution as the highest legal authority. We require strict constructionists ("originalists"), not transnationalists.

[Frank]

As I mentioned earlier, I am not a fan of abrogating our sovereignty. It appears to me that Koh is a very bad choice. One in that position must be prepared to serve and foster U. S. national interests and NOT defer to foreign interests in defining ours.

It is, however, appropriate in deciding the application of the Constitution to look outside the four corners of the document. But there are proper and improper secondary sources. Proper sources would be such things as documents prepared in connection with the drafting and ratification of the Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers. It would also be appropriate to consider contemporaneous Common Law of England authorities since our law at the time was based on the Common Law of England and looked to cases decided thereunder for precedent. But it does NOT include current alien legal doctrine.

And just for clarification, some law of the states once under Spanish or French hegemony is based on Roman civil law (the basis of the Code Napoleon). This is particularly the case with regard to laws relating to marital property and, to some extent, real property, in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Louisiana.

[Patriotic]

I believe the issue here should not be what the appointment of Koh means in terms of his position within the government but instead that Congress approved the appointment knowing his stand regarding International Law. Remember, this Congress has the task later this year to review a nomination to the Supreme Court. If the same mindset is used to approve a Supreme Court nominee then we are in trouble.

I believe the 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court in the Heller decision is scary. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is very clear that the right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed and that it is an individual right and not a collective right. Apparently 4 SC justices feel differently. If someone, lets say were approved by this Congress with the mindset of Mr. Koh to the SC, the decision could have been a 4-5 ruling. International Law has no place within our borders, we are a sovereign nation with a Constitution and Laws unique to the founding of our country.

[Chilo45]

I respectfully submit that your position is untenable. This man cannot objectively fulfill the role and the duties required given that he does not accept the Constitution as the highest legal authority. We require strict constructionists ("originalists"), not transnationalists.

I try not to surmise what another person will or will not do based only on a single point of reference. In the position that he is being considered for, his duty is to advise the State department on matters that they request him to address, his qualifications are outstanding (one reason that his confirmation made it through committee). His 2nd Amendment views should be based on the 200+ years of Constitutional interpretation by all of those put in place by the American people - as that is the will of the people. Anything short of that would not be servicing our country to the best of one's ability.

[Chilo45]

To bolster my take on this probable appointment, the following was published in FORBES online magazine (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/28/state-department-sharia-law-opinions-contributors-harold-koh.html) on 04/28/2009:

To the disappointment of his excitable critics, Koh has never suggested the subordination of the American legal system to foreign powers. He has championed respect for our obligations under treaties to which the U.S. has explicitly signed. He views international legal sources as a valid--but not binding--source of inspiration and perspective for U.S. courts.

The use of such nonbinding sources to bolster legal arguments is a central and uncontroversial tenet of the American judicial process: Law review articles and other academic sources are a lynchpin of the opinions of courts everywhere; current Chief Justice John Roberts has even cited a Bob Dylan song.

Moreover, and too frequently overlooked in the frisson of recent weeks, Koh's work as a transnationalist has been more descriptive than prescriptive. He has devoted a portion of his well-respected body of publications to chronicling the historical reality that U.S. judges have been citing international legal sources for generations.

A string of prominent Supreme Court cases dating back more than 100 years is testament to that; on the current court, justices across the political spectrum, from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Antonin Scalia, have cited foreign law. His stance is, if anything, strikingly orthodox. Koh is an embracer of a storied status quo, hardly the judicial revolutionary he's been made out to be.

The chaos spurred by Koh's nomination has less to do with his own views than it does with his critics' long-term fears. Koh's oft-vaunted potential as a Supreme Court nominee has triggered a frenzied attempt at preemptive discreditation. It has made him an unwarranted symbol in the broader debate over the Obama administration's increasing push against Bush-era isolationist tactics.

The truth is that Koh himself commands fairly universal respect among those familiar with his work. He is not a radical academic, but a pragmatist with deep legal and political savvy built during years of service in Ronald Reagan's Department of Justice and Bill Clinton's State Department; not a sharia sympathizer but a heroic champion of women's and minority rights; not an anti-American seditionist but a passionate champion of American constitutional ideals.

[Patriotic]

Chilo45,

If Forbes in their assessment of Koh is correct than we should not worry about our 2nd Amendment right. Why don’t I believe that to be true with this administration. Look at the number of countries out there that prohibit their citizens from owning firearms.

MONDAY, MAY 4, 2009- MCCARVILLE REPORT
Obama Nominee Touts UN Gun Control

From Human Events ~ Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department.

One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled “A World Drowning in Guns” where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international “marking and tracing regime.” He complained that “the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.”

Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. “to submit information about their small arms production.”

Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.”

Koh feels that U.S. should “establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters” of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens.

[Patriotic]

One thing I was just reading on the 2nd Amendment that while it would take a 2/3 vote of all the states to approve an amendment to it, it only takes a 2/3 vote of the Congress present at the time to approve a treaty. If the President were to sign a treaty with the UN agreeing to their Human Rights policy of no private ownership of firearms and make sure only those who agreed with that treaty were there for the vote, we could find ourselves without our 2nd Amendment rights.

Now that bothers me.

[PhantomAce]

Patriotic:
To make matters worse, a Treaty only requires a 2/3 vote of the SENATE, not even the full Congress.
Last I checked, the left controls, what, 59 seats with the 60th likely going to Franken?

Follow this link, but I warn you, keep a bucket close by to puke in:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/04/24/gun-law-update-obama-gun-treaty-skirts-congress/

[d90king]

as that is the will of the people.

That would have some merit if we were a Democracy, "the will of the people" has no merit in a Republic with the exception of electing leaders.

Treaties are signed but not ratified all the time... We signed this years ago but it runs counter to our rights under the constitution and therefore will not be ratified. You will notice other countries did the same... Have you bothered to look at the countries that have signed it?

As far as I am concerned we need to get out of the UN. It serves no purpose and is run by corrupt individuals. They implement sanctions all the time yet they never enforce them...

This will be my last post on this subject, it appears to be one members view of "what should be" instead of "what is"...

[Chilo45]

That would have some merit if we were a Democracy, "the will of the people" has no merit in a Republic with the exception of electing leaders.

Nevertheless, history of Constitutional interpretations over time is what we have today with all of the laws "on the books" in the federal and state governments. Every law currently "on the books" is the will of the people - as the people have the right to redress of grievances provided by the First Amendment.

This fact cannot be disputed, but the people as a whole do not have the courage or honor to take redress, as everyone expects their view to be THE VIEW - and thus cannot and/or will not agree as a whole to the required formula for redress.

So we are left with opinion polls / forums where we express our content or lack their of and think that we've done our duty (not as individuals but as a group known as THE PEOPLE - as in WE THE PEOPLE).

Sad but true.

[Patriotic]

For the sake of discussion, lets say our government was able to bypass the 2nd Amendment and ordered the citizens to turn in their firearms. We know the criminals will not give up their firearms. How many law abiding citizens do you think would turn in their firearms knowing that if they didn’t they would be a criminal? I often wondered how many LEOs would follow an order to pickup firearms from once law abiding citizens. Would the revolt start with them? I would think if the LEOs wouldn’t do it then the duty would be passed on to the National Guard. How many National Guard members would go against their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and disarm the citizens?

The founding fathers had quite a bit to say about the “right to bear arms”. Not only did they feel it necessary for self protection and hunting but also as a defense against tyranny.

[KCShooter]

I often wondered how many LEOs would follow an order to pickup firearms from once law abiding citizens. Would the revolt start with them? I would think if the LEOs wouldn’t do it then the duty would be passed on to the National Guard. How many National Guard members would go against their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and disarm the citizens? Are you serious? Don't you remember Katrina? The not only collected all the firearms, they beat up an old lady who tried to resist.
Don't count on LEO and Military to disobey orders. I have no doubt that they would confiscate, with prejudice.

[Aguila Blanca]

For the record, KC, it was the California Highway Patrol who beat up the old lady and stole her gun. IIRC no National Guard units engaged in any weapons confiscations.

[Rich-D]

Are you serious? Don't you remember Katrina? The not only collected all the firearms, they beat up an old lady who tried to resist.
Don't count on LEO and Military to disobey orders. I have no doubt that they would confiscate, with prejudice.

I cannot subscribe to the assertion that confiscation will take place with "prejudice" by the National Guard and Law Enforcement Agencies.

During the riots in Camden NJ. We did not take anyone's right to defend themselves. In spite of the fact, laws against concealed and open carry were being violated, and orders were issued to disarm and arrest those who were armed in public. Families and friends were openly armed in front of their businesses and homes, on roof tops and standing armed guard outside of apartment buildings. I noticed that in the LA Riots, news video showed simular events of armed citizens openly protecting their businesses.

Furthermore, if the 2nd Amendment is breached. It will not only involve one city or area, it will involve the entire country. And the order for confiscation will not come in the midst of a riot, or the immediate aftermath of a disaster.

Rich

[Frank]

I don't think that we can reliably predict how the civil or military authorities would react to a gun confiscation order, it there were to be one.

First, a lot will depend on the exact circumstances and what led up to it. It's not just going to be a matter of everything going along normally and then all of a sudden national command authority says, "Go get all the guns." So the events leading up to the confiscation, it it were to ever happen, and how the stage gets set, will have a lot to do with whether such an order will be widely carried out.

Second, such an order is unlikely unless Washington leadership has concluded that it will be carried out. Issuing such an order and having it ignored would undermine national command authority.

[d90king]

For the record, KC, it was the California Highway Patrol who beat up the old lady and stole her gun. IIRC no National Guard units engaged in any weapons confiscations.
That is my recollection also... The NG was not confiscating guns it was Ray Nagans cronies... the ones that either were not committing crimes themselves or had not abandon their duty and just left....

[KCShooter]

I cannot subscribe to the assertion that confiscation will take place with "prejudice" by the National Guard and Law Enforcement Agencies. I'm just going off of what I saw happen during Katrina, and that was carried out by law enforcement and/or the military. There was an old lady who was physically accosted, by which agency exactly I don't remember, in order to confiscate a pistol she was refusing to give up. Their actions led to several states, including my own, passing legislation to prevent it from happening agian.

I truely believe that if you are counting on LEO and Military agencies to ignore orders of confiscation, in the highly unlikely even that ever would happen, you are kidding yourself. While there may be some who would resist, there would be enough to carry out that order.

[d90king]

If we want a thread on the "what if" (no tin foil required) scenario of gun confiscation someone should start a thread on it in the appropriate forum. This is getting off topic and could go down hill fast. Please respect this threads integrity...

[ditto_95]

This is on topic. If there were any attempt to circumvent the 2A via UN treaties, there would be much more of an uproar than there was during the N.O. gun grab.
I cannot see any anti 2A treaty being ratified by congress. B.O. may sign but it won't pass.