Global gun control
Looks like the US and others are saying not to the UN’s arms control nonsense:
As the United Nations prepares to host a review conference on curbing trade in small arms and light weapons, disputes over the extent of such measures and whether they should be legally binding are hampering progress. The disputes have helped block participants from even agreeing on an agenda, raising the possibility of a repeat of a 2001 conference that ended without an agreement on binding measures.
More than 50 countries met at a Jan. 9-21 New York preparatory meeting for the June 26-July 7 UN review conference. At the conclusion of the preparatory meeting, Chairman Sylvester Rowe of Sierra Leone compiled a document of possible policy options for the conference, including consideration of legally binding measures. But the lack of consensus on the document brought the meeting to a close without an agreed agenda.
A number of countries, including the United States, resisted any attempt to discuss legally binding measures and also rebuffed efforts to address limits on civilian ownership, legal trade and manufacture, and transfers to nonstate entities.
These views track those the United States put forward in July 2001 when UN members gathered in New York for the first global conference on the illicit international trade of small arms and light weapons. The 2001 conference was unable to agree on le gally binding measures, instead producing the voluntary Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. This document outlined a series of voluntary measures to stem the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons, which range from grenades, pistols, and rifles to machine guns and man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS.
Good. Seems Bolton ain’t so bad after all.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:31 am
You kidding? Stuff like this is the only reason the liberals ever thought he was bad in the first place.
March 16th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I wonder how such “legally binding” resolutions would affect the US. I’m especially disturbed by the thought that they would try to curtain civilian ownership.
Wish I knew some constitutional lawyer type who could make a comment on just how binding such resolutions are compared to the constitutional bill of rights. I’ve heard odd statements that make it sound like international agreements have at least equivalence to federal law, but they don’t make statements to the level of constitutional protections.
March 16th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
A treaty ratified by the Senate is federal law, superceding state and federal legislation. The Constitution is clearly superior to any legislation, but does not clearly state that it is superior to treaties. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to have the deliberately difficult process for Constitutional Amendments, which requires supermajorities of the Senate, House, and the States, be circumvented by a foreign nation, the President, and the Senate alone.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
The Bill of Rights added further declaratory (declaring our rights) and restrictive (of the government’s DELEGATED POWERS) clauses to prevent abuse of its powers in the Constitution–which would include treaties previouSLy mentioned in Article VI. Obviously no treaty could supercede or violate our rights, which the founders considered “inalienable” and pre-existing–hence the subsequent addition of the Bill of Rights to “PREVENT ABUSE OF ITS POWERS AND INSURE THE BENEFICIENT ENDS OF ITS INSTITTUTION.”