Thursday, August 25, 2011

Schengen, Small arms treaty, and Heller

This is an ellaboration on my comment in The Filthy Lying NRA and Their Incredibly Slick Phone Operators

The UN Small Arms treaty sounds as if it would influence US firearms laws the same way that the Schengen Treaty influenced the Swiss firearms laws. The Schengen Agreements have created a borderless Schengen Area, which operates very much like a single state for international travel with border controls for travellers travelling in and out of the area, but with no internal border controls. Part of these changes was to harmonise laws in order to eliminate customs checks. One major change in the Swiss Firearms law is that Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit which is a radical restriction, from a Swiss point of view, that is assumed will undercut private gun trade dramatically.

The aim of a potential U.N. arms treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of small arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market." Even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.

The problem is that the Supreme Court said that laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms were acceptable in Heller-McDonald. Additionally, Registration was acceptable as well. The only issue is whether the US would implement those Constitutionally acceptable restrictions.

I do like how the Snopes piece on this ended:

There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

I thought that already happened with Heller-McDonald.

10 comments:

  1. "The only issue is whether the US would implement those Constitutionally acceptable restrictions."

    I think that is the key phrase in your point. Will the US enact such restrictions?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Congress does what ALEC wants.

    If registrations and restrictions are what is needed for trade, then so be it.

    After all, who bankrolled the Heller-McDonald decisions?

    If you people were as clever as you like to think you are!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If you people were as clever as you like to think you are!"...

    We would probably write in complete sentences.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Better yet, you could understand them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry I don't understand your point in saying

    "If you people were as clever as you like to think you are!"

    Typically after this phrase would come a "then blah blah blah" which would be your point.
    Example:
    If you have not written a complete thought, then I assume you have no point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jim, you are too lazy to bother checking up on facts, which is why you can be lied to.

    You believe what fits your belief system.

    What I am saying is do some thinking for yourself and not ask me to try and spoon feed it to you.

    look up ALEC, look up who bankrolled Heller-McDonald. You think it was private citizens bringing their own cases in Heller-McDonald.

    The Koch Brothers figure into this.

    Do you like it when government works in the shadows to provide laws?

    It isn't Obama I'd be afraid of, especially since the ultimate outcome of Heller-McDonald was the constitutional sanctioning of laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms were acceptable and Registration of firearms.

    It's not blah blah blah.

    It's figure it out for yourself.

    But you're too dim to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You keep refering to ALEC as if it is some sort of evil empire. They write up laws and then hand them out to politicians ready to be run on the state and/or federal level. Is this against the law? Don't they have the right to suggest something they want the government to do? It is not like they get to vote directly on these laws. They don't even get to vote on the people who make up the legislatures. Don't the voters bear some responsibility if they feel the laws are being to generous to corporations? If that was the case wouldn't there be a large outcry to remove these politicians that act as corporate hacks and they would be thrown out at the next election?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, Jim, it's nice if the public has the opportunity to read the laws and comment upon them rather than have big business dictate them.

    That's part of the democratic process, or don't you like democracy?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Shall not be infringedAugust 26, 2011 at 3:56 PM

    You fucking coward,

    No, Jim, it's nice if the public has the opportunity to read the laws and comment upon them rather than have big business dictate them.

    That's part of the democratic process, or don't you like democracy?



    But the same does not apply to Nancy "We have to pass this bill to find out what is in it"Pelosi, that makes you the bigest hypocritical whore on the planet.

    but hey you're a pro statist/marxist/socialist/fascist lawyer, so I am being redundant.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Laci - are states passing these laws without anyone being notified what is in them? Here in TN they have a website where all the legislation is posted for your review regardless of who proposes them. Additionally, it is not like ALEC just gets to put their proposed laws out there for a vote right? They have to get a legislator to officially propose them just like anyone else right? I don't see how this is a "shadow" government. It seems like democracy to me where a group of people have assembled to petition their government. Surely that is allowed under our Constitution somewhere right?

    ReplyDelete