alan
Member
US Election Didn’t Put an End To Global Gun Control Threat
by Joseph P. Tartaro, Executive Editor
January 20, 2005
A lot of gunowners in American are relaxing, believing that the Nov. 2 election brought a respite in their continuing struggle to preserve the right to keep and bear arms for recreation and personal defense. But before anyone gets too cozy, it might be wise to remind everyone the continuing threat of global gun control is still very real, very alive and very imminent.
At the same time, we should be aware that if America’s anti-gunners continue to be frustrated at the federal level, they will shift their focus to states and localities where they believe they can take smaller but equally nourishing bites out of our traditional rights when they can’t get the whole loaf. Of course, they will also exploit at every level of government and public opinion any new random acts of violence to keep pressure on the Bush White House and Republican-controlled Congress.
But this column is intended to remind readers that the international gun control threat continues and poses the prospect of American citizens being someday subject to new laws and regulations established by global treaties rather than the democratic lawmaking process. Lest anyone forget, under the US Constitution a treaty approved by the Senate and signed by the President can become the law of the land.
The Bush Administration State Department has made it clear at the United Nations (UN) that while our government will pursue discussions on reductions in the illicit traffic in small arms, we will not compromise on the Second Amendment. Undersecretary of State for Disarmament John Bolton spelled it out for the world body at the UN’s 2001 meeting on smallarms control in New York.
However, some proponents of global gun control believe they can still get an international treaty written in spite of opposition to some of their talking points by the US government. Indeed, some who pursue this utopian scheme consider the US and individual Americans as the principle stumbling block to the successful attainment of their agenda.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), made the global gun control threat the centerpiece of his address at the 19th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference near Washington, DC, at the end of September.
LaPierre had just come from a debate at King’s College in London with Rebecca Peters, who heads the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), an internationally funded non-governmental organization (NGO) at the UN. (George Soros is one of IANSA’s chief benefactors.) IANSA, which was successful in obtaining an international treaty on land minds, morphed into the leading coalition of disparate voices pressing for a binding global compact on civilian disarmament.
The King’s College debate was broadcast on pay-per-view television and featured an electronic survey by viewers and the audience. I have since watched the entire debate on DVD and could not help but share LaPierre’s concerns with the level of vitriol Peters heaped on Americans and American gunowners in particular.
LaPierre noted that Peters was the architect of the Australian law which removed hundreds of thousands of firearms from civilian ownership in that nation of some 20 million people. He was appalled and so was I by Peters’ total disregard for legitimate reasons for civilians anywhere in the world to possess firearms.
Clearly, she said “single-shot rifles and shotguns†are all anyone needs to go hunting, one of the few lawful uses of firearms which she recognized. During the debate, she showed little concern for the Britons who had lost their right to compete with modern rifles and handguns.
That’s just too bad, Peters said. “So get another hobby,†she advised.
During her debate with LaPierre, Peters failed to recognize any moral or lawful concept of self-defense for anyone. Ignoring LaPierre’s example of women being able to defend themselves from violent predatory males, Peters said: “Women need to live in societies that respect their human rights.â€
When LaPierre brought up examples of genocides that were abetted by gun control, such as in Rwanda or Cambodia, Peters brushed it aside.
While pursuing the skyline story on Page 1 of this issue about New Zealand’s rejection of gun registration, I spoke with Thomas L. Mason, executive secretary US for the World Forum on the Future of Shooting Sports Activities (WFSA), an NGO involving the firearms rights interests of gunowners in several countries.
Mason noted that Peters and her allies in the international gun control community are quite dedicated and clever.
He noted that the term “gun registration†does not appear anywhere in any of the UN protocols on smallarms control currently under consideration. But he stressed that the documents keep referring to record keeping and databases which would essentially be the same thing.
“Bear in mind,†Mason stressed, “the UN does not operate as a deliberative lawmaking body that we in America would recognize. Up or down votes are rare. The process is one of accretion.
“They keep at an issue, adding a little here and a little there over many years. Sometimes the process can appear to be so slow you’d think you were monitoring a rock. But it does move forward, and people like Peters will keep pushing the global civilian disarmament scheme.â€
Mason saw the decision in New Zealand as a major step forward. He has hopes that the Canadian government will soon abandon their incredibly costly and long-delayed long gun registry scheme.
And he sees some of the work of the WFSA and its various experts, like Don B. Kates who has address the UN twice on firearms rights and the genocide question, beginning to make a dent. He said that even the concept of self-defense, which is totally foreign to the government philosophies of many countries, is now generating some discussions.
In an effort to help international scholars, academics and policy makers to understand the positive values of firearms ownership, the WFSA hosted in May 2003 an international scholars’ symposium entitled “A Question of Balance: The Legal, Economic and Human Rights Implications of Civilian Firearms Ownership and Regulations†in the Royal Armouries Education Center at the Tower of London. Featured speakers included: James A. Swann, PhD, author and psychologist; David B. Kopel, attorney, author and policy analyst at the Independence Institute; David Penn, curator, Imperial War Museum; Robert Glock, Glock Arms Co.; Don B. Kates, constitutional attorney and author; Stephen P. Halbrook, PhD, attorney and author; Mary Stange, PhD, author and college professor; and Guy Wilson, former director of the Royal Armouries.
Many of the participants at that symposium have also made additional presentations on different aspects of the issue of gun rights, self-defense and genocide before other meetings of UN panels or working groups within the UN sphere.
In its continuing international education efforts, the WFSA will host another symposium in Leeds, England, on May 21. The symposium, which will feature a number of authors, academics and experts, will be entitled, “Perspectives on the Right of Self-Defense and Genocide.â€
Mason also reminded me that the UN has a number of meetings scheduled on the gun control issue, including one on the question of marking (serializing) guns to show country or origin and identify individual arms, which was scheduled to take place in New York City soon.
The global gun control campaign continues and has a 2006 target date. Even if Sens. Schumer and Feinstein can’t get much traction on Capitol Hill, Rebecca Peters will continue her work at the UN.
You can obtain a copy of “The Great UN Gun Debate†on DVD or VHS by donating $5.95 to the NRA. For complete details, log on to: www.nra.org or phone: 877-672-2000.
“A Question of Balance†is available in a one-hour DVD (the actual program ran eight hours), including graphics and charts for $14.95 plus $2 shipping and handling (CA residents add 7.5%) from Snow Goose Productions, PO Box 2460, Dept. GWK, Mill Valley, CA 94942.
by Joseph P. Tartaro, Executive Editor
January 20, 2005
A lot of gunowners in American are relaxing, believing that the Nov. 2 election brought a respite in their continuing struggle to preserve the right to keep and bear arms for recreation and personal defense. But before anyone gets too cozy, it might be wise to remind everyone the continuing threat of global gun control is still very real, very alive and very imminent.
At the same time, we should be aware that if America’s anti-gunners continue to be frustrated at the federal level, they will shift their focus to states and localities where they believe they can take smaller but equally nourishing bites out of our traditional rights when they can’t get the whole loaf. Of course, they will also exploit at every level of government and public opinion any new random acts of violence to keep pressure on the Bush White House and Republican-controlled Congress.
But this column is intended to remind readers that the international gun control threat continues and poses the prospect of American citizens being someday subject to new laws and regulations established by global treaties rather than the democratic lawmaking process. Lest anyone forget, under the US Constitution a treaty approved by the Senate and signed by the President can become the law of the land.
The Bush Administration State Department has made it clear at the United Nations (UN) that while our government will pursue discussions on reductions in the illicit traffic in small arms, we will not compromise on the Second Amendment. Undersecretary of State for Disarmament John Bolton spelled it out for the world body at the UN’s 2001 meeting on smallarms control in New York.
However, some proponents of global gun control believe they can still get an international treaty written in spite of opposition to some of their talking points by the US government. Indeed, some who pursue this utopian scheme consider the US and individual Americans as the principle stumbling block to the successful attainment of their agenda.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), made the global gun control threat the centerpiece of his address at the 19th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference near Washington, DC, at the end of September.
LaPierre had just come from a debate at King’s College in London with Rebecca Peters, who heads the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), an internationally funded non-governmental organization (NGO) at the UN. (George Soros is one of IANSA’s chief benefactors.) IANSA, which was successful in obtaining an international treaty on land minds, morphed into the leading coalition of disparate voices pressing for a binding global compact on civilian disarmament.
The King’s College debate was broadcast on pay-per-view television and featured an electronic survey by viewers and the audience. I have since watched the entire debate on DVD and could not help but share LaPierre’s concerns with the level of vitriol Peters heaped on Americans and American gunowners in particular.
LaPierre noted that Peters was the architect of the Australian law which removed hundreds of thousands of firearms from civilian ownership in that nation of some 20 million people. He was appalled and so was I by Peters’ total disregard for legitimate reasons for civilians anywhere in the world to possess firearms.
Clearly, she said “single-shot rifles and shotguns†are all anyone needs to go hunting, one of the few lawful uses of firearms which she recognized. During the debate, she showed little concern for the Britons who had lost their right to compete with modern rifles and handguns.
That’s just too bad, Peters said. “So get another hobby,†she advised.
During her debate with LaPierre, Peters failed to recognize any moral or lawful concept of self-defense for anyone. Ignoring LaPierre’s example of women being able to defend themselves from violent predatory males, Peters said: “Women need to live in societies that respect their human rights.â€
When LaPierre brought up examples of genocides that were abetted by gun control, such as in Rwanda or Cambodia, Peters brushed it aside.
While pursuing the skyline story on Page 1 of this issue about New Zealand’s rejection of gun registration, I spoke with Thomas L. Mason, executive secretary US for the World Forum on the Future of Shooting Sports Activities (WFSA), an NGO involving the firearms rights interests of gunowners in several countries.
Mason noted that Peters and her allies in the international gun control community are quite dedicated and clever.
He noted that the term “gun registration†does not appear anywhere in any of the UN protocols on smallarms control currently under consideration. But he stressed that the documents keep referring to record keeping and databases which would essentially be the same thing.
“Bear in mind,†Mason stressed, “the UN does not operate as a deliberative lawmaking body that we in America would recognize. Up or down votes are rare. The process is one of accretion.
“They keep at an issue, adding a little here and a little there over many years. Sometimes the process can appear to be so slow you’d think you were monitoring a rock. But it does move forward, and people like Peters will keep pushing the global civilian disarmament scheme.â€
Mason saw the decision in New Zealand as a major step forward. He has hopes that the Canadian government will soon abandon their incredibly costly and long-delayed long gun registry scheme.
And he sees some of the work of the WFSA and its various experts, like Don B. Kates who has address the UN twice on firearms rights and the genocide question, beginning to make a dent. He said that even the concept of self-defense, which is totally foreign to the government philosophies of many countries, is now generating some discussions.
In an effort to help international scholars, academics and policy makers to understand the positive values of firearms ownership, the WFSA hosted in May 2003 an international scholars’ symposium entitled “A Question of Balance: The Legal, Economic and Human Rights Implications of Civilian Firearms Ownership and Regulations†in the Royal Armouries Education Center at the Tower of London. Featured speakers included: James A. Swann, PhD, author and psychologist; David B. Kopel, attorney, author and policy analyst at the Independence Institute; David Penn, curator, Imperial War Museum; Robert Glock, Glock Arms Co.; Don B. Kates, constitutional attorney and author; Stephen P. Halbrook, PhD, attorney and author; Mary Stange, PhD, author and college professor; and Guy Wilson, former director of the Royal Armouries.
Many of the participants at that symposium have also made additional presentations on different aspects of the issue of gun rights, self-defense and genocide before other meetings of UN panels or working groups within the UN sphere.
In its continuing international education efforts, the WFSA will host another symposium in Leeds, England, on May 21. The symposium, which will feature a number of authors, academics and experts, will be entitled, “Perspectives on the Right of Self-Defense and Genocide.â€
Mason also reminded me that the UN has a number of meetings scheduled on the gun control issue, including one on the question of marking (serializing) guns to show country or origin and identify individual arms, which was scheduled to take place in New York City soon.
The global gun control campaign continues and has a 2006 target date. Even if Sens. Schumer and Feinstein can’t get much traction on Capitol Hill, Rebecca Peters will continue her work at the UN.
You can obtain a copy of “The Great UN Gun Debate†on DVD or VHS by donating $5.95 to the NRA. For complete details, log on to: www.nra.org or phone: 877-672-2000.
“A Question of Balance†is available in a one-hour DVD (the actual program ran eight hours), including graphics and charts for $14.95 plus $2 shipping and handling (CA residents add 7.5%) from Snow Goose Productions, PO Box 2460, Dept. GWK, Mill Valley, CA 94942.
