Just published on-line this morning is the above Backgrounder from the Heritage Foundation. My coauthors are Theodore Bromund and Ray Walser, of Heritage. We argue that the CIFTA gun control convention, which was drafted by the Organization of American States, and which President Obama has urged the Senate to ratify, would harm First and Second Amendment rights. We suggest that the convention offers no practical benefits to the United States.
Hans Bader says:
One more reason to ignore “international opinion,” rather than embracing it the way the Supreme Court did on Monday in blocking life sentences without parole for juvenile rapists and torturers.
The U.N. Human Rights Committee has denied there is any human right of self-defense (contrary to what Professor Volokh has argued at this blog), and has claimed that “very severe gun control” is required by international law (as Paul Horowitz noted at this very blog).
And, of course, foreign laws and court rulings are often hostile to free speech, freedom of religion, and the right of homeowners to defend themselves against intruders.
All reasons not to rely nebulous notions of “international law” to decide Supreme Court cases.
May 19, 2010, 12:59 pmgeokstr says:
Yes, but they are quite friendly to free stuff paid for by other people, which puts them in lockstep with Democrats here at home.
May 19, 2010, 1:10 pmMartinned says:
Ceterum Censeo Cartaginem Esse Delendam…
May 19, 2010, 2:03 pmJoseph S says:
Odds of this getting a 2/3 majority in the Senate: almost nil.
Does anyone seriously believe that a single one of the Republicans or rural-state Democrats would even consider voting for this?
May 19, 2010, 2:13 pmAllan Leedy says:
Not as long as the NRA is funding their re-election campaigns.
May 19, 2010, 2:56 pmBear says:
Or they place any faith or fealty into their oath of office. You know, the support and defend constitution stuff…but if the NRA boogie man makes you feel better about reality, run it with it.
May 19, 2010, 3:19 pmLarryA says:
Right. It couldn’t be 80,000,000 gun-owning voters making the difference.
Remember, 80% of the Senate was elected by right-to-carry states. That leaves the anti-gun side a tad short of two-thirds.
All the NRA has to do is get the word out. That pesky old First Amendment gets in the way again.
Oh, and what was it, yesterday? Someone was saying “No one wants to take away your guns.”
May 19, 2010, 4:13 pmFederal Farmer says:
The NRA doesn’t fund any campaigns. Their primary tool is motivating a large voting bloc.
May 19, 2010, 6:16 pmjeff says:
“Does anyone seriously believe that a single one of the Republicans or rural-state Democrats would even consider voting for this?”
Shame on them for representing the wishes of the people who put them in office.
May 19, 2010, 9:38 pmsvi says:
almost $20,000 in six years is the biggest contribution that cbs news was able to find? and this is supposed to show that NRA is funding senatorial election campaigns?
May 19, 2010, 10:45 pmmack says:
Well, more d****d if you do and d****d if you don’t. The reason gun control isn’t getting a big wet kiss from the current administration and the party in power in the congress is because of the long hard work done by the evil gun lobby.
The politicians still remember 1994 when they paid for passing the so called assault weapon ban. The power of the NRA and the evil gun lobby comes from the grass roots – being able to mobilize a large block of voters. The NRA has supported and worked with gun rights affiliate organizations in fifty states – to pass CCW laws, hunting reform, and to block egregious gun bans and restrictions – that cooperation with state affiliates has made the grass roots stronger.
The NRA not the NRA-ILA (which is the political part of the NRA) has also continued working hands on with law enforcement through training and support programs, hunters, sport shooters, CCW advocates by providing training, programs structured specifically for women who want to hunt or CCW, the military and veterans though specific support programs, and child and adult safety programs – all of which and more they do because the members, (who are police, women, veterans, etc…) want them to.
Because of all that hard work and building real world relationships the tide has turned and gun rights advocates are mostly winning – (excluding some NE states such as NY and on the west coast CA or in IL a stalemate).
The NRA-ILA sends out alerts and news on issues – and they also score candidates on their committment to the RKBA though questionaires and legislative history. They do provide some monetary support – but not near as much money as some of the gun control advocates can – like Soros and Bloomberg and their buddies. If the NRA’s influence was commensurate with the money they provide or the adds they run – then they would not be a big player at all. It is all about the grassroots and the votes.
The most recent NRA convention had 70,000 people show up for it – if that many people will actually spend the time, money, and effort to come to a convention – how many more will vote.
Lastly – I get fatigued with all the President Obama is a friend to gun owners. He signed legislation he wanted/needed that had attachments or add-ons that were progun – he didn’t want or support the add-ons. Prior to being president he voted for and supported a lot of gun control and gun ban legislation in Illinois – and he also served on the board of directors of anti-gun Joyce Foundation. He has stated that he would like to see a national law banning concealed carry. The only thing stopping him from openly pushing gun control is the current political situation. And if one looks, Lautenberg is busy right now promoting gun control under the guise of anti-terrorist legislation. President Obama was on the gun control side in Heller and should he serve two terms he will most likely appoint a non-gun friendly majority to the USSC.
But I guess it is just easier to call people names and demonize gun rights advocates and their organizations than to honestly address the issues – I hope gun control advocates don’t figure out that their name calling and labeling the NRA and with it many members as extremist gun nuts does more to turn people away from their cause than anything. Ironically, the NRA in the gun rights community is generally seen as to willing to compromise and too risk adverse.
May 19, 2010, 10:57 pmrmd says:
As I read it, the gist of the article is that politicians with whom the NRA agrees (as evidenced by campaign contributions) tend to agree with the NRA on laws affecting guns and gun owners. Shocking.
May 19, 2010, 11:12 pmRobinGoodfellow says:
Wouldn’t be the first time.
May 20, 2010, 12:42 amPeteP says:
There’s a couple of shockers – Obama values the laws of other countries over the Constitutino, and Obama wants gun control.
May 20, 2010, 1:21 amRoger the Shrubber says:
Now now. You don’t want to ruin good scare-mongering with reality.
May 20, 2010, 4:23 pmLarryA says:
You might also note that the article was from 5/22/1999. Gun control politics have shifted since then.
May 21, 2010, 12:39 am