Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Arizona legislative moves | Main | Incarceration, committment and homicide rates »

A bit ghoulish....

Posted by David Hardy · 24 April 2007 05:38 PM

"Hopes That Massacre Will Spark Treaty"

· antigun groups

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Letalis | April 24, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply

You mean a binding international treaty like Kyoto? The one that most of the signatories are now ignoring (can you say "China" or "the EU"?) or getting ready to vote to violate (can you say "Canada"?)?

Yeah. That's the ticket. Rrriiiggghhhtttt.

Don Hamrick | April 24, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply

Can you say, "U.N. Charter?"

U.N. CHARTER

ARTICLE 2

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

COMPARE THAT with the VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES 1969.

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 49 Fraud - If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 53 Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (“jus cogens”) - A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

SECTION 3. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION
OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

Article 60 Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach - (lengthy paragraph)

Article 62 Fundamental change of circumstances

Article 64 Emergence of a new peremptory norm of general international law (“jus cogens”)

Article 65 Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity, termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the operation of a treaty.

Article 66 Procedures for judicial settlement, arbitration and conciliation

QUESTION: Did the United Nations breach its own Charter by initiated their "Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons
in All Its Aspects (UN Document A/CONF.192/15)?

QUESTION: Is the Second Amendment jus cogens in customary international law? If not, why not, and can it become jus cogens under Article 64 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties? I think it should, if it has not already become so. Doesn't the U.N.'s failure to reach a consensus on their Programme of Action last year establish a point of international law that the Second Amendment as, in fact, become jus cogens to which it becomes ergo omnes for the Member States of the United Nations?

COMMENTARY: If only the U.S. State Department would apply the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 to the Second Amendment and shove it down the United Nations throats! But that would take backbone to stand up for our constitutional rights.

JUST MY OBSERVATION.

But that is why I am litigating the Second Amendment case in federal courts trying to drag the United Nations into federal court for breach of the U.N. Charter over the global gun control as violating the Genocide Convention.

HAMRICK v UNITED NATIONS, PRESIDENT BUSH, MICHAEL CHERTOFF Secretary of Homeland Security, Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant of the Coast Guard, et al. Case No. 1:06cv0044. Trial date is set for November 13, 2007 while Motion to Dismiss is still pending. I just filed an Emergency Motion to Deny the Motion to Dismiss based on the Virginia Tech Massacre as evidence proving gun control is a failure.

I also filed my Objection and my Addendum to my Objection to the U.N. letter to the Court claiming privileges and immunities. I will have to wait to see how the judge will rule.

I am am pushing my case without an attorney. I emailed Theodore Olson (form Solicitor General of the U.S. Department of Justice) about representing me pro bono or on a contingiency fee bases but it is to soon to expect a reply from him.

I am fighting the good fight for the Second Amendment and the NRA is nowhere to be seen.

Don Hamrick | April 24, 2007 6:45 PM | Reply

P.S.

If my case beats the Motion to Dimiss I will be going to trial at the U.S. District Court in Batesville, Arkansas.

Remember! UNITED STATES v. MILLER began at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith. My case is in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

My case has the potential to overturn MILLER because I am pushing for National Open Carry Handgun (inclusive of concealed carry) as a matter of right and NOT as a matter of privilege in a fraudulent licensing scheme promoted by the NRA's National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry.

That is pretty much why the NRA refuses to help my case. But I keep telling them to forget about their pet agenda and take up the greater cause for the Second Amendment: National Open Carry!

Go figure!

Jim W | April 25, 2007 1:18 AM | Reply

Dude, you are batshit insane.

Earl Harding | April 25, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply

Well,

If anyone was in any doubt that the UN small arms treaty is intended to disarm us, that doubt must now be removed.

All it takes is a short press realease to undo all their previous weasel words on the matter. Thank heavens for John Bolton.

Dave | April 25, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply

I'm not sure that such a treaty would meet Constitutional muster. I'm not a lawyer, but there appears to be some existing case law:

In the case of Geoffroy v. Riggs (133 U.S. 258, 1890) the Court stated: It would not be contended that it (the treaty power) extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the Government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.


In Reid v. Covert (354 U.S. 1, 1957) the Court stated:
[No] agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
[There] is nothing in [the supremacy clause] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.
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 are other cases, dating back to 1836.

Leave a comment