Obama Bans More than 100,000 American-Made Rifles
by Greg FarberSeptember 2, 2010
Opinion by The Volokh Conspiracy
By David Kopel
According to The Korea Times, the Obama administration has blocked efforts by the South Korean government to sell over a hundred thousand surplus M1 Garand and Carbine rifles into the United States market. These self-loading were rifles introduced in 1926 and 1941.
As rifles, they are especially well-suited to community defense in an emergency, as in the cases of community defense following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Along with AR-15 type rifles, the M1 rifles are the quintessential firearms of responsible citizenship, precisely the type of firearms which civic responsibility organizations such as the Appleseed Project teach people how to use.
According to a South Korean official, “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.”
Regarding the second objection, any firearm lawfully imported into the United States would eventually be sold by a Federal Firearm Licensee who, pursuant to the background check system imposed by Congress (and endorsed by the NRA) would have to contact federal or state law enforcement to verify that the gun buyer is not prohibited from possessing firearms.
Accordingly, the risk that the South Korean surplus guns might fall into the hands of gangsters or other bad people is exactly the same as with the sale of any other retail firearm in the United States. Notably, neither the M1 Garand nor the M1 carbine are concealable, and the M1 Garand is long, heavy, and bulky. Accordingly, the criminal utility of such guns is relatively low.
The second Obama administration objection is accidents. But in fact, increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents. In 1948 there were .36 guns per person. (That is, about one gun for every three Americans.) By 2004, there was nearly one gun for every American. In 1948, there were 1.6 fatal gun accidents per 100,000 persons. By 2004, the rate had fallen by 86%, so that there were .22 fatal accidents per 100,000 persons. (For underlying data, see Appendix B of my amicus brief in Heller.)
Legally, it is indisputable that the guns are importable. Being over 50 years old, the rifles are automatically “Curios and Relics” according to federal law. 27 CFR section 478.11. Accordingly, they are by statutory definition importable. 18 USC section 925 (e)(1). Notwithstanding the law, the Obama administration has the ability to pressure the South Korean government to block the sale of the guns.
President Obama was elected on the promise that he supported individual Second Amendment rights. His administration’s thwarting of the import of these American-made rifles is not consistent with that promise.
Firearms and the Constitution Versus Treaties
by Greg FarberSeptember 2, 2010
“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 that 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.” – Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution
By Leslie Swann
Recently I attended a gun show, where I handed out information material and answered questions on the Tenth Amendment Center. Several people were concerned about the U.S. making a treaty that would gut the U.S. Constitution and potentially take away firearms from law abiding citizens here in the U.S. They argued that the paragraph above from the Constitution places treaty law above the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Our Founders very clearly stated the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution could be amended, or changed, in Article 5. It is quite illogical to conceive that our Founders would write such a brilliant document to be the foundation of our union, only to create a giant backdoor for foreign governments to come in and destroy the liberty we had worked so hard to achieve. In fact, our Founders themselves said otherwise.
“The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” – Alexander Hamilton
“I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.” – James Madison
“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson
So, when I began re-reading this section of the Constitution I realized that they didn’t leave a backdoor, but in fact were expressly forbidding this type of maneuver in Article VI. The answer to the riddle that confuses many people isn’t to be found in an indecipherable tome on constitutional law, but instead in simple English grammar and a little attention to detail.
In reading through the entire Constitution, you will notice that whenever the Constitution refers to itself the verbiage “this Constitution” is used. The only exceptions to this are the President’s Oath of Office, where the phrase “the Constitution of the United States” is used, and here in the latter part of Article VI. In every other place where you find the word Constitution written in the Constitution itself, it is preceded by the word “this” making it clear that the Constitution is referring to itself. In the President’s Oath of Office the phrase “Constitution of the United States” makes it perfectly clear that the phrase is referring to this Constitution as well.
The Founders were very clear and precise with their use of language in the Constitution, so why do we have “the Constitution” in this case (“any Thing in THE Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”), and “this Constitution” in all other cases where the word is written. The simple answer is that in this case, they were not referring to the United States Constitution at all.
The humble preposition is the key to solving the intent of the Founders in this statement. A prepositional phrase – such as of, to, or in – is a word that can modify and indicate relationships. Prepositional phrases can also modify more than one object. In this case, the prepositional phrase “of any State” refers to both the words “Constitution” and “Laws” that precede the phrase. This means that the final phrase of this clause could rightly be read to mean “any Thing in the Constitution of any State or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Founders weren’t saying that treaties were to be supreme over the U.S. Constitution, but that they could and would take precedence over the state constitutions and laws.
It is clear with a little analysis of the details of the language and grammar used to construct this clause that our Founders were placing treaty law in its rightful place – beneath the supreme law of the land in the form of our U.S. Constitution, but above the laws and constitutions of the states. There is no loophole that can allow international interests to trump the U.S. Constitution, but the treaty must be made in pursuance of our Constitution, just as all laws that Congress makes must be in pursuance of the Constitution.
While some well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) politicians may claim that they can legislate via treaty, this clearly was not the intent of our Founders. Will this knowledge stop those who would seek to take our freedoms from shredding the Constitution by attempting to pass such treaties? Probably not. But we can rest firm in the knowledge that our Founders did not give the Federal government the power to usurp the Constitution by treaty, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not treaty law. More importantly, we can use this knowledge as intellectual firepower to stop the enemies of liberty and the Second Amendment from doing so. —Leslie Swann.
Hurricane Earl Used To Steal Second Amendment Right
by Tom RemingtonSeptember 2, 2010
When will these negligent, idiot, elected officials get it in their thick skulls that they don’t have the authority to suspend the Constitutional rights of Americans due to a perceived state of emergency? North Carolina’s Governor, acting as any good Marxist dictator would do, declared a state of emergency due to hurricane Earl and as such bars lawful citizens the right to self protection.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
MY kind of bank!
by GunRights4USAugust 23, 2010
Gun control is evil
by Greg FarberAugust 7, 2010
Introducing another blog to the daily fare…
by GunRights4USJuly 30, 2010
My sincere apologies to MikeH for having missed his excellent blog. One look and I knew it was a new addition to my list of places I must regularly peruse.
Go have a look at BEHIND THE PARAPET and get motivated!
Quotes of the Day!
by GunRights4USJuly 29, 2010
"It is the privilege of all immature creatures to be protected by their parents, to the extent possible. It is the absolute right of all mature creatures to be protected by themselves."
And again...
"Look, I don't care about the Constitution. This predates and supersedes the Constitution, or any other writing of man."
Joel over at The Ultimate Answer to Kings (who goes on to say a whole lot of other cool stuff about guns and rights that I wholeheartedly agree with!)
Police steal mans guns in America
by Greg FarberJuly 28, 2010
Call The SLO County Sheriffs Department – (805)781-4550 – For Complaints
(KCCN.TV) – SLO County Sheriff’s deputies illegally search the home of Matt Hart and openly discuss how they will get away with it. To date, Matt Hart has not received all of his firearms back from the department, including one that the deputies expressed interest in owning.
This cannot be swept under the rug. Help spread this around to help gain attention so Mr. Hart can push his lawsuit against this blatant violation of his civil rights by those deputies. We cannot allow these people to shred the Constitution just because they feel like it.
THE ONLY GOOD THING THESE LOUSY EXCUSE FOR POLICE OFFICERS DID WAS THEY FORGOT TO BLOW AWAY THIS MANS BLACK LABRADORS… THANK GOD ABOVE FOR THAT..
Part 1 of 3
Judge Orders Iowa Sheriff To Take In-Depth Course In U.S. Constitution After Deny Man Concealed Carry Permit
by Tom RemingtonJuly 18, 2010
This is a sad story but ends in what goes ’round, comes ’round. An Iowa sheriff had denied a man a concealed carry permit because he was an activist, and had “activated” against the Sheriff spending too much money. The denial was obviously retaliatory.
The case ended up in court and U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett, overturned the case to allow the man his permit and finished up by ordering the Sheriff to take a course to learn the U.S. Constitution.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Like Washington, D.C. Chicago Thumbs Nose At SCOTUS Gun Ban Ruling
by Tom RemingtonJuly 14, 2010
McDonald v. Chicago ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and as such defines that states, counties and local municipalities must guarantee individuals their right to self protection and be allowed to own a gun(s). The ruling also makes it clear that states, counties and local municipalities cannot create gun laws that supersede federal laws……or can they?
The city of Chicago threw together a gun ordinance after McDonald v. Chicago, which is nothing more than an in-your-face scoffing of the United States Supreme Court, much the same way that Washington, D.C. did after District of Columbia v. Heller. Why wouldn’t Chicago do similar things? D.C. has not really been tested as to the Constitutionality of their restrictive gun laws. After all, District of Columbia v. Heller only ruled that the District’s gun ban was unconstitutional. It did not define what can and cannot be used for gun restrictions.
Chicago’s continued gun ban ordinance – because that’s what it is – requires everyone to register their guns. The city has 120 days in order to process an application (in six months that is reduced to 45 days). A person cannot purchase and register more than one gun every 30 days and there will be restrictions of the type of guns allowed. But this “gray” area concerns me.
Guns deemed “unsafe” because of safety recalls or poor quality can’t be registered.
A safety recall on guns might be a bit more clear cut but who is going to make the determination that a gun is “poor quality”? By many people’s standards, there are a lot of “poor quality” guns readily available to purchase. This reeks of manipulation. Also don’t be fooled by this statement. If a gun cannot be “registered” it cannot be purchased and possessed within the city.
So, for those living in Chicago, once you’ve jumped through the hoops of registering your firearm, which will take up to 6 months to do, you can keep it in your house but not be allowed to have it outside, including on your porch or in your garage.
So, tell me what you think. Do you think the McDonald v. Chicago ruling provides that states cannot create any gun laws that exceed those of the Federal Government? Obama and his administration are suing the state of Arizona claiming that Arizona does not have the authority to eclipse the immigration laws of the Federal Government. Does this also mean that Illinois and specifically the city of Chicago, doesn’t have the authority to transcend Federal gun laws?
If and when this all gets sorted out, will it be determined that the Federal Government determines what gun laws will exist? And will this open the door for Federal Government to intrude further into our inalienable rights and craft stricter gun laws?
How does this all align with those states pushing back against the Federal Government in attempts to reaffirm state sovereignty?
Tom Remington
