Obama's International Gun Control Ploy

Our President continues on his world apology tour, this time blaming all the ills of South America on the USA. From drugs to guns and through poverty, it's all America's problem. Not the problem of the despots and communists who run the countries of South America. Nope it's America's problem.

Drugs coming across your border, guns coming across your border, illegals coming across your border? Then why isn't the simple fix, close the border. WOW, well we couldn't have that, then what would we do about the loss of money we get from ... never mind.

Statement By NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox Regarding the Organization of American States Treaty on Firearms Trafficking

Thursday, April 16, 2009

The NRA is well aware of the proposed Organization of American States treaty on firearms trafficking, known by its Spanish initials as CIFTA. The NRA monitored the development of this treaty from its earliest days, but contrary to news reports today, the NRA did not "participate" at the meeting where the treaty was approved.

The treaty does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict "lawful ownership and use" of firearms . Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners.

---

Obviously, gun control has got the Democrats in Congress spooked, so they do what they normally do, try for an International solution. This crap treaty has been around since BJ Clinton signed in in 1998. One of it's most onerous requirements is licensing of gun owners.

San Francisco Loses Gun Ban Suit

Looks like stupid gun bans are getting costly:

The City of San Francisco itself legally stipulated that its ordinance banning gun possession on county owned or controlled property cannot be applied to the public housing properties, even though Mayor Gavin Newsom announced at a May 2007 press conference that the new city ordinance would ban gun possession there. By excluding the application of the ordinance and removing the lease provision, the right of public housing residents to choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families has been restored.

The settlements bring a successful conclusion to the lawsuit, filed June 2008. The decision to repeal SFHA’s lease provisions banning firearms came despite initial claims by Mayor Newsom that the lawsuit would be “absolutely defended,” and comes after initial claims by the San Francisco City Attorney that the lawsuit was “frivolous” and that the City would seek sanctions. No sanctions were sought, nor could they have been.

The San Francisco concessions follow similar gun ban repeals by several Illinois towns that also faced NRA lawsuits filed immediately after the Supreme Court confirmed in late June that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

NRA-ILA and CRPA will continue to pursue other cases to resolve the incorporation issue. In fact, a California case challenging a gun show ban ordinance that has been partially funded by the NRA for years (Nordyke v. Alameda County) was recently argued before the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a decision is forthcoming.

Now that it has firmly established by the "Heller decision" that firearms ownership is an individual right, incoprporation, which applies the complete Bill of Rights to the States is needed to make the cirlce complete. It's good to see tha the NRA is fianlly joining the cause and driving that point home. $800,000 in court costs and attorney's fees is expensive for a losing proposition.

NRA Closing Argument

NRA, Right All Along?

JONATHAN TURLEY: A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right.

Read the whole thing. And you might want to read my survey of Second Amendment thinking, as well as this piece on what it would mean to take the "states' rights" argument seriously. As Tom Lehrer said, we'll all stay nice and calm, when Alabama gets the bomb.