LaPierre Adresses UN

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by RunningOnMT, Jul 15, 2011.

  1. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,719
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    All and all a pretty good speech. However I would call your attwention to the emboldened phrases in the text. LaPierre seems to either intentionally or unintentionally blur the distinction between two very different things; civilian ownership of firearms and ownership of civilian firearms. The way I read parts of his address it sounds as if he is not objecting to a ban on civilian ownership of military style firearms. How do you all read it? Is laPierre willing to throw the right to own AK's and AR's, etc, under the bus?


    NRA Delivers Remarks at U.N.
    Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty



    National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership. LaPierre said in his remarks, "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind."



    United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

    Preparatory Committee - 3d Session

    New York, July 11-15, 2011



    Statement of the National Rifle Association of America



    Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.



    The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.



    This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced. We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.



    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.



    We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government.



    Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.



    We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the

    proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.



    We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.



    We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.



    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.



    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.



    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.



    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.



    Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned.

    Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.



    are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.



    It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.



    Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss if I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.



    To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.



    So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.



    The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.



    Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.



    Thank you.
  2. Juker

    Juker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,871
    Location:
    Land of Lincoln
    It's a speech (and a nice one, methinks), not an actual piece of legislation. I don't read anything into it regarding black rifles, etc.

    I'm not that concerned, as I'd never give up my guns no matter who passes what piece of paper. Not that I have any guns ...
  3. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    11,038
    Location:
    North Florida
    Thanks for posting this. I was trying to post it out of my e-mail and it failed. This is exactly why I continue to support them.
  4. RedHawk

    RedHawk Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    177
    Why does he need to address the UN in the first place ? The UN is not a legislative body (of the US) ,YET!!!
  5. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,151
    I hope someday a President has enough common sense to boycott the UN unless they stop passing pieces of paper that challenge the sovereignty of a nation. I mean it isn't just the United States. Their "resolutions" challenge the sovereignty of any nation's laws.

    As said, I don't care what piece of paper they pass, the Second Amendment is guarunteed by our Constitution, no legislative body except 2/3 of the states in the US have the right to take it away.

    And even at that, the right to defend oneself with a weapon is a human right that nobody should have to tell us we do or don't have.

    The Constitution simply exists to ensure our human rights are protected, nothing more.

    Screw the UN.
  6. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,719
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    Hogger, I hope so too. Maybe Rand Paul would introduce legislation that would resign us from the UN. That group has opposed the U.S. at every turn. I propose we tell the rest of the world to go to hell and deal only with our true allies; the english speaking nations of the british commonwealth and Israel.

    That said, it is a fact of law that an international treaty to which we are part, trumps any federal, state, and local law; and yes even the constitution. A very good reason not to do treaties.
  7. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,719
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    Yeah, I may have to reconsider my boycott of the NRA.
  8. Juker

    Juker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,871
    Location:
    Land of Lincoln
    I know BHO thinks he's a king, and that like Peter Pan, whatever he wishes will magically occur; but such is not the case.

    The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article IV, paragraph 2, reads as follows:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    It's a slippery slope and has been long debated by minds sharper than mine.

    Pulled this off a legal forum - the main defense to our Constitution is the case of Reid v. Covert, and the ruling states that no treaty can trump the Constitution:

    ........................................

    In the Reid v. Covert case, it was an executive agreement (not a
    treaty) between the United States and Great Britain that was in
    question. However, in Part II, we find:
    “MR. JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and
    delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE
    DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join.”

    Significant excerpts include:
    “At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement
    was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which
    permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive
    jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American
    servicemen or their dependents.”

    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who
    created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for
    the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history
    and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States
    to exercise power under an international agreement without
    observing constitutional prohibitions. ... In effect, such construction
    would permit amendment of that document in a manner not
    sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were
    designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and
    they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the
    Senate combined.”

    “There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court
    has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
    Constitution over a treaty. ... For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133
    U.S. 258, 267, it declared: The treaty power, as expressed in the
    Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which
    are found in that instrument against the action of the government or
    of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the
    government itself and of that of the States. It would not be
    contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution
    forbids, or a change in the character of the [p*18] government, or in
    that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory
    of the latter, without its consent.”

    “This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of
    Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity
    with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is
    inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders
    the treaty null. ... It would be completely anomalous to say that a
    treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an
    agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that
    instrument.”
  9. cycloneman

    cycloneman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    8,382
    Location:
    Louisiana
    "someday" we dont have that kinda time

    "hope" I wish everyone would remove this word from the english language. I dont use it anymore. I hate the word hope as much as i hate bummer. hope means you dont have a plan.

    We need a man with balls to stand up to our enemies. We need to get rid of a few of our enemies.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2011
  10. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,719
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    Thanks Juker, that gives us some ammo, no pun intended.:D However I have seen cases cited before where an international treaty did seem to trump federal law, at least in international courts of law. I guess it comes down to a treaty or law being only as good as the willingness of affected parties to abide by it.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2011
  11. hunterfisher

    hunterfisher New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    270
    Please, I don't want anyone getting mad at me, but......... I believe in the, NRA, but I don't believe in, La Pierre. He talks out of both sides of his face. And he's held his seat to long. He has a multi-million dollar home, a Rolls Royce, and numorus hunting trips to Africa for him and his wife. As far as his wording about, Civilian Firearms,..... I don't see anything in the, 2nd. Amendment, that says we can only have Civilian Arms. Actually, it says; ''To form a more perfect militia. Hmmmmmm. To me that means we can have the type firearm we choose to do the job that needs doing. To hell with the, UN.
    JMO.
  12. Juker

    Juker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,871
    Location:
    Land of Lincoln
    "A more perfect militia"? :D

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    And yes indeed, not everyone has a LaPierre Fan Club card in their wallet...
  13. graehaven

    graehaven Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,956
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    So the fact that I cannot bear certain arms right now (which is constitutionally illegal) will be FURTHER infringed upon when they define the term civilian firearms.

    This is another compromise that seeks to infringe even MORE on my rights.

    Now they will seek to define what a civilian firearm is. What qualifies as a civilian firearm?

    You watch. Now they will begin to tear down the ability of civilians to own semi auto repeating rifles that hold more than 5 rounds, etc. Say goodbye to your ARs and AKs and the like.

    This is ridiculous and a HUGE mistake.

    Truly a sad, sad day. And yet another reason why I will NOT support the NRA.
  14. Juker

    Juker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,871
    Location:
    Land of Lincoln
    I have the worst luck. Mine got sucked up in a tornado, officer. I know, I know, I should have reported the loss, but I've been too busy campaigning for Obama 2012.
  15. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,719
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    but see, law abiding citizens like us shouldn't have to lie in order to exercise fundamental rights.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum LaPierre at CPAC Mar 16, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum LaPierre goes to DC today Jan 30, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Thank You Mr. Lapierre. Jan 26, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Wayne LaPierre on Hannity tonight. Jan 18, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum NRA's Wayne LaPierre sums it up in 09 Jun 20, 2010

Share This Page