How Close We Came To Australia Style Gun Control In U.S.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Everyone should take a second to read the American Rifleman this month (or any of the companion magazines). The NRA does an excellent job of laying out the antis strategy to bring the type of gun control proposed by Australian gun-control activist and IANSA speaker, Rebecca Peters to the United States.

All the antis need to do this is a President who will sign it and 50 votes in the United States Senate. Normally to pass an internationally binding treaty, you would need two-thirds of the Senate to ratify the treaty - a goal that while still dangerous isn't quite as threatening. However, if you phrase the treaty as an agreement (a la the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA), then it can pass the Senate with a simple majority vote. In fact, this is precisely why the Clinton Administration introduced NAFTA as an agreement and not a treaty, even though the effect is similar.

Both of these factors are something to keep in mind when making your vote for President or Senator. The 2006 UN Small Arms Conference is going on right now and during the week of July 4, 2006 (ironic eh?), they will make another attempt to push an internationally binding agreement on the United States. Because of our efforts in 2004, that push will be met with a President who will not sign this agreement and a Senate that will not have 50 votes to pass such an agreement; but 1/3 of the Senate is up for reelection in 2006. We need to grow our lead there. If you know of a strong pro-gun Senator we need to keep or an anti-gun Senator we can get rid of, let's start working on it now!

Reading the timeline for the original UN Small Arms Conference, it suggests that one of the goals of the Clinton Administration was to pass just such an agreement. The initial UN small arms study was started in 1995 and it was the United States (under Clinton) and Canada who pushed the UN to accelerate negotiations so that a treaty could be reached before the end of 2000. The negotiations stalled though and by 2001 - the new administration stopped such talk. Think of what we might have now if it weren't for small favors like slow bureaucrats at the UN...

It was often criticized RKBA groups like the NRA that foresaw this threat and became a UN non-governmental organization at the UN in 1996 (one year after the initial agenda study on small arms was requested). Because of the NRAs foresight, the new administration had the information necessary to stop that threat in its tracks.

 

[beerslurpy]

Bill Nelson (D-FL) is solidly anti-gun probably running against Katherine Harris who is intensely pro-gun.

The constitution trumps treaties and agreements. The United States lacks authority to agree to things which it cannot do itself. That being said, any congress that would ratify such an agreement would already be an enormous danger to gun rights without IANSA's help.

 

[K-Romulus]

yeah, we are close

No matter how many times the anti-gun-owner crowd says "no one wants to ban all guns in the US, and it could never happen, anyway," the facts do not bear them out.

Something scary to keep in mind:

I guess I am new to this whole issue (went pro-RKBA in 2001), but I just "discovered" that, at least in 1998, BATFE does not consider IDPA/USPSA-type competitions to be "sporting uses" of firearms! This seems to date back to 1986, when ATF refused to allow importation of the USAS-12 shotgun, and successfully defended a court challenge to its "sporting use" determination that specifically EXCLUDED practical-shooting sports. To top it off, a Federal Appeals court affirmed the ATF's win.

ATF compiled a report in 1998 laying out its reasoning for a proposed ban on all imports of firearms that were otherwise complying with the 1994 AWB. This ban would be against all firearms that could accept regular-capacity magazines. This report was commissioned by Bill Clinton after he got a letter signed by Diane Feinstein and 30 other senators who were complaining that these imports were not properly allowed under the "sporting purposes" test.

Here is the report, and related documents like Clinton's letter to ATF asking for the study:
http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/treas_pub/assault_rifles/index.htm

Here is the importation part re:"sporting uses":
http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/treas_pub/assault_rifles/typscope.pdf

. . .Finally, the 1989 report determined that the term sporting purposes should be given a
narrow reading incorporating the traditional rifle sports of hunting and organized
competitive target shooting. In addition, the report determined that the statute's reference
to sporting purposes was intended to stand in contrast with military and law enforcement
applications. This is consistent with ATF’s interpretation in the context of the Striker-12
shotgun and the USAS-12 shotgun. It is also supported by the court’s decision in Gilbert
Equipment Co. v. Higgins (K-Rom: cite is 709 F.Supp 1071 (S.D. Ala. 1989), aff'd without opinion 894 F.2d 412 (11th Cir. 1990)) .


We received some comments urging us to find "practical shooting" is a sport for the
purposes of section 925(d)(3).48 Further, we received information showing that practical
shooting is gaining in popularity in the United States and is governed by an organization
that has sponsored national events since 1989. It also has an international organization.
While some may consider practical shooting a sport, by its very nature it is closer to
police/combat-style competition and is not comparable to the more traditional types of
sports, such as hunting and organized competitive target shooting. Therefore, we are not
convinced that practical shooting does, in fact, constitute a sporting purpose under section
925(d)(3) (K-Rom: the "sporting purposes" import restriction).49 . . .

Footnotes:

48 Practical shooting involves moving, identifying, and engaging multiple targets and delivering a number of
shots rapidly. In doing this, practical shooting participants test their defensive skills as they encounter
props, including walls and barricades, with full or partial targets, "no-shoots," steel reaction targets,
movers, and others to challenge them.

49 As noted earlier, ATF has taken the position that police/combat-style competitions do not constitute a
“sporting purpose.” This position was upheld in Gilbert Equipment Co., 709 F. Supp. at 1077.

 

[para.2]

:banghead: :banghead: The Second Amendment is not about "Sporting Purposes"!!!:banghead: :banghead:
It's about leaving the ultimate tool in the tool box for redress of grievances.

 

[grimjaw]

· Develop controls on civilian possession and use. Ban civilian possession of military assault weapons,

One of the more odious provisions of this treaty. Another was the destruction of all surplus weapons, rather than their sale to 'unaccountable' parties.

Smelly agreement, bad agreement!

jmm

 

[AirForceShooter]

Harris is Intensly Pro Gun??

not hardly.
she's my Congress person and I won't vote for her for Senate.

Now Jeb could be an interesting choice.

AFS

 

[MechAg94]

Has there ever been a court challenge on the legality of agreements? Seems to me that it should not be legally enforceable (theoretically). It's not a law and not a treaty so what is it?

 

[Sam Adams]

The constitution trumps treaties and agreements. The United States lacks authority to agree to things which it cannot do itself.

This is absolutely correct. However, getting the Supreme Court to override such an action, especially with a Shrillary type as President and an Upchuck Schumer type as AG both saying that this is "absolutely necessary" and "our obligation to assure world peace," blah, blah, blah...well, let's just say that it'd not be the easiest thing to do, nor would it be done very quickly.

That being said, any congress that would ratify such an agreement would already be an enormous danger to gun rights without IANSA's help.

This is the reason for the 2nd Amendment - affectionately known as "RULE .308" by some of us - in the first place. It is also why the Creator made tall trees and inspired someone to come up with the idea of lampposts - these are creative places to use excess rope.

In all seriousness, I honestly can't see so blatant an attempt to disarm the public. The antis have been fairly successful since 1934 in gradually stripping away our rights. Think about it: none of us at our respective ages can buy things that our fathers could have bought at the same age, and they couldn't buy what their fathers could've at that age. Anyhow, a blatant attempt to outlaw guns, or even to disallow future sales or transfers, would be akin to setting off a flare to signal the start of a battle...because that is exactly what would happen. There would be MASSIVE non-compliance, and when the gov't (on any level) started to enforce the (unconstitutional and immoral) law, people would resist. This resistance would cause the use of greater and greater force (fairly rapidly IMHO) which would, in turn, cause more and more resistance. Pretty soon, you'd have some citizens (esp. those with a special forces background) hunting various pols and police chiefs, and it'd be a similar situation to Unintended Consequences.

While I decline to say on the Internet what I'd do in such a case, let's just say that I wouldn't shed too many tears if some antigun types - especially those responsible for bringing such a law to this country and those who would willingly enforce it - stopped stealing our oxygen a little sooner than the life expectancy tables would predict.

 

[jondar]

Quoted by Beerslurpy: "The Constitution trumps agreements and treaties."

Beerslurpy, have you seen this documented? I'm not disagreeing with you; I have heard it the other way around (on treaties) and would simply like to get it correctly in my mind one way or the other. Thanks. Jon

 

[Waitone]

While I admire adherence to constitutional provision in governing the US, reality is our elected officials and various garden variety bureaucrats and straphangers routinely violate the provisions and intentions of the constitution. "Free Trade" agreements are the most obvious examples. NAFTA, CAFTA and eventually FTAA are introduced as agreements because chances of passage are higher with a simple majority in both houses than 2/3's majority in the senate. The ruling class wants these agreements in place come hell or high water.

Please note not one agreement has ever been challenged in courts. If another administration decides to challenge gun laws in the US with an international agreement, it will most certainly be done. The constitution no longer provides cover.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Get Some Body Bags

If this ever does come to pass, get some body bags. Clear ones - with enough room for the blue helmets.

Woody

"Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom: Magic elixirs of life brought to you courtesy of the Constitution for the United States of America. Terrorism, Poverty, and Subjugation: World dominating poisons of life; brought to you courtesy of the United Nations".

 

[Sam Adams]

The Second Amendment is not about "Sporting Purposes"!!!

Damned right! The "sporting purposes" test of the '68 GCA is, IMHO, unconstitutional on its face. Those who support it must believe that the same Founding Fathers who had just finished fighting a brutal, bloody war against the most powerful nation on earth less than a decade before (a war ignited by England's attempt to confiscate arms and powder in Lexington and Concord, let's not forget), who had just finished crafting a Constitution that clearly limited the power of the federal government and split that power between separte branches, and who - still fearful of the potential future abuse of power by the central government that they just created - proposed and ratified a Bill of Rights which specifically protected such lofty things as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, trial by jury, etc. from the purview of federal action, felt so strongly about the "right" to shoot deer that they enshrined that right in our fundamental law.

In short, I'd like to know what color the sky is on their planet.

 

[Sam Adams]

AirForceShooter

Harris is Intensly Pro Gun??

not hardly.
she's my Congress person and I won't vote for her for Senate.

So you'd rather have Nelson re-elected? Will he vote for originalist Supreme Court nominees? Against internationalist and Socialist type legislation? For tax cuts and a sensible foreign/defense policy? I'm not terribly familiar with Nelson, being that I'm from Texas, but something tells me that as a pretty liberal senator he is voting the wrong way at least 80% of the time. So if Harris isn't perfect, and will vote the wrong way 30% of the time, do you vote against her? If so, I'd expect that you are already missing your nose, having cut it off the first time your face got an ugly zit. (OK, maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but I think you understand my point).

Bottom line: In the primaries, vote for the person you'd really like to see representing you. In the general election, vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[antarti]

Harris is Intensly Pro Gun??

Now I'm no big fan of Harris', but I don't think the State was ever more efficient in getting out CCWs than when she was SecState (before that responsibility moved to Agriculture, and the wonderfully named "Charles Bronson" who signs them now).

She may be an RNC-toadie/do-nothing, but she signed an awful lot of CCWs, that much is hard to refute.

 

[longeyes]

Yep, probably exactly what the antis will try to pull off.

Now what we will do in response?

 

[MudPuppy]

Laws are routinely rejected as being unconsitutional--would a treaty not also be tossed out on same grounds?

(I mean, assuming the SCOTUS didn't have a policy on not taking a 2nd Ammendment case before the court)

From the aforementioned plan:
"Develop controls on civilian possession and use. Ban civilian possession of military assault weapons"
So...no civilians, ie Jews, can own guns, but police and militaries, ie Gestapo and Waffen SS in the gas chamber, can own guns. Wonder why they don't say in a practial, real-world sort of way?

 

[Hawk]

Warning: long winded.
But I've had some small success in raising the eyebrows of an anti or two with the following exercise and figured it was time to bounce it off a tougher audience.

While I would never suggest we relax the vigil, I was engaged in a conversation with a UK buddy right after the '94 AWB passed. He didn’t see much value in such laws for a settler country unless accompanied by a general confiscation. After I picked my jaw up from the floor I put the pencil to it and came away mildly comforted if not complacent.

I submit that the horse has left the barn.

Cultures differ. The UK ban was not promoted as a crime control measure. Americans generally have a hard time grasping how that can be. A general confiscation might just flush that little tidbit out making it a harder sell for the fence sitters. Domestic antis have built a house of cards around connecting gun control with crime prevention and this might prove uncomfortable for them. UN "agreement" is a disconcerting end-around but I'd hope there'd be lot of hollering prior.

Then there’s the numbers. Great fun.

Let’s don’t let anybody forget this was a "compensated" confiscation (at least so I've heard)

That old email that makes the rounds on the Australian experiment wraps me around the axle due to the egregious post hoc ergo propter hoc observations. Still the numbers might be right: 640,000 firearms destroyed at a cost of 500,000,000 A$.

Estimated US firearms in private hands: 192,000,000. Dang, there just might be 640,000 in the DFW metroplex alone.

A little simple extrapolation and we get a cost of 150 billion dollars. California may routinely sign legislation "fiscal impact unknown", but even Sarah might get a little breathless over that tab.

2003 domestic production:
1.1 million handguns, 1.4 million rifles, 0.7 million shotguns. Imports? Handguns look to be around 750,000 mostly from Brazil and Austria.

Unless I miss my guess, we add more handguns every 6 months than the total arms given over in the whole Australian shebang, even taking a wild guess at adjusting for LE purchases.

Let’s just for giggles assume a 100% willing compliance rate. I’d bet there’d be more firearms retained by accident than IANSA could easily enjoy. One third of one percent comprised of Grandpa’s war chest in the attic, uncle’s .22 in the shed, Grandma’s revolver in the drawer and whatever amount we might find under seat cushions and in tackle boxes would exceed the total number in the Australian example.

I can see an entire cottage industry springing up to assist in the appeals process for those thinking their Parker SxS is worth more than Chuck says it is.

Cost too high? Well, I guess they could think in terms of an uncompensated confiscation, but then I’d suspect the cost would be considerably higher. Don’t even have to invoke tin foil or fertilizer hitting ventilators. Something as mundane as a 2% non-compliance (shucks, I'll sell it later) rate would leave a supply pool good for a couple of centuries.

Like so many things thought of by the uplifters, they just haven’t calculated the monetary and other costs associated with their dream. And an oddly large percentage of them will admit that half-way measures are as good as none.

Horse has left the barn. I don't think what worked on 600,000 scales easily to deal with 200,000,000. The 200 million is likely only a historical footnote. Industry figures are showing domestic production totals of 75 million for 1984 through 2003, inclusive. Keep up the good work folks, should be at 300 million before you know it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Laws are routinely rejected as being unconsitutional--would a treaty not also be tossed out on same grounds?

It would be an agreement most likely and not a treaty, since they are unlikely to get the votes in the Senate otherwise.

Whether it would get tossed out seems to depend a lot on whether the Supreme Court views the Second Amendment as an individual right or a collective right. If it is viewed as an individual right, then much of what IANSA proposes must be found as unconstitutional. If it is viewed as a collective right, then most of what IANSA proposes is acceptable.

Personally, I don't think we have had much luck relying on the Supreme Court in the past. On the other hand, we added 5-6 pro-gun votes to the Senate in 2004 and have had better luck there... we should continue to work where we have been most successful.

 

[madmike]

There would be MASSIVE non-compliance, and when the gov't (on any level) started to enforce the (unconstitutional and immoral) law, people would resist. This resistance would cause the use of greater and greater force (fairly rapidly IMHO) which would, in turn, cause more and more resistance. Pretty soon, you'd have some citizens (esp. those with a special forces background) hunting various pols and police chiefs, and it'd be a similar situation to Unintended Consequences.

Like the massive noncompliance in rounding up Nissei? In fighting seizure of property without due process? The taking of cash as "evidence" and not returning it?

You're dreaming.

People smart enough to know whether or not there are records of their purchases, or to be able to grin a stupid grin and claim they sold it will not comply. Everyone else will whine and bitch and be good little boys and girls.

The salvation on confiscation is the COST. Canada's up over a billion on their amusing little attempt to shovel the ocean back against supply and demand.

Of course, banning new sales bit by bit to drive the cost up, "reasonable" license fees that keep going up, increasing enforcement of "The laws we have on the books"(if you own a gun) and related schemes will make them all as expensive as Class III, where a $600 M16 costs $15,000.

Nope, the solution is to buy more guns. Cheap stuff like Hi Point, pricey stuff, whatever you can afford. So when compensation comes to the table, the first calculation is 500,000,000 guns times $1000 = and the knowledge that any attempt to try to claim guns are worth $50 will be met with tens of thousands of court challenges on 5th Amendment grounds that will tie it up in courts for DECADES. Meantime, the guns in circulation will be increasing in market value.

I still remind everyone that we'll win the same way our opponents win--by making outrageous demands, calling them "reasonable" and "compromising" for a part of it.

Now, who's with me on demanding our individual right to own nuclear weapons?

(Okay, I'll settle for new machine guns with a $200 stamp.)

 

[Sam Adams]

Like the massive noncompliance in rounding up Nissei? In fighting seizure of property without due process? The taking of cash as "evidence" and not returning it?

All of those affected very limited numbers of people. A gun confiscation would affect upwards of 75 million adults in this country, not to mention those whose spouses don't own guns (their doors will get busted down, they'll get their cats stomped on, pregnant bellies rifle butted, etc.) and their kids. Not to mention that this violation of Constitutional rights would affect the most basic right of all, that of self defense.

No, you won't get 90% of gun owners out there taking potshots at cops and SWAT teams sent out to confiscate guns, but you don't need that to have a huge impact. 1% is 750,000 gun owners, presumably armed well. They'll do appreciably more to stop commerce than 2 incompetent Beltway shooters. That's GOT to enter into the calculations of the gun grabbers.

Nonetheless, I agree that more guns is better. The more there are beforehand, the higher the cost.

 

[Chrontius]

Bill Nelson (D-FL) is solidly anti-gun probably running against Katherine Harris who is intensely pro-gun.

she's also the same person who purged Florida's voting rolls of black people with the same birthday as a convicted felon, or who had similar names... I trust her about as far as I can throw her. You may find her useful; 'potentially useful and potentially unstable' seriously worries me.

 

[bg]

I agree 100% that the movement to ban private gun
ownership is alive and well. The Dems have done a
marvelous job of doing it here in Ca. How ? By the back
door and the "chisel a bit at a time" blueprint.

For instance a new bill was just introduced here in
Ca by Assembly Member Torrico. It is here and
the subject is ammo. Read how it's worded and
how if passed will require that ALL ammo sales
be done in person in order to verify age !

AB 2714 AMMUNITION SALES - This bill would provide that no ammunition or reloaded ammunition may be delivered pursuant to a retail transaction unless the purchaser personally presents clear evidence of his or her identity and age to the seller of the ammunition. Violation of these provisions would be an offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not to exceed six months, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both imprisonment and that fine, with increased penalties for second or subsequent violations.


03/21/06 - AB 2714 would make it a crime to sell any amount of ammunition to another party without verifying age even in private party transactions. Currently assigned to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, hearing dated undetermined.

Oh the ones who are out for our weapons are well versed in
the never wavering plan for an out & out ban.

 

[madmike]

I think those of you in CA need to demand access to artillery, full auto, silencers and armor piercing ammo.

Compromise on just silencers because of the "noise pollution."

 

[Third_Rail]

So, what, they're going to just try to peacefully collect many millions of firearms bought by private sale, made by the owners, or kept in the family since before the 1968GCA? I could understand some real dolts giving their firearms up, but what about the rest of us?


EDIT: Just finished reading Sam's posts. Good stuff.

 

[MarkDido]

she's also the same person who purged Florida's voting rolls of black people with the same birthday as a convicted felon, or who had similar names... I trust her about as far as I can throw her. You may find her useful; 'potentially useful and potentially unstable' seriously worries me.

I assume that you have a link support this allegation?