Second Amendment Case Going to the U.N. International Court of Justice?

October __, 2006
Written Application to Bring a Case
Before the International Court of Justice

I will rewrite my letter and mail it to the
U.S. Department of State at next opportunity!

Condolezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Madam Secretary,

I hereby present my case as an American merchant seaman in defense of the Second Amendment for the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 40, Clause 1, to the Statute of the Court.

Your natural governmental knee-jerk reaction to seeing the “Second Amendment” is to ignore this letter. And most likely you will. Please don’t. That will be negligence and an abuse of power under my First Amendment’s right to petition the government for redress of grievances. This letter is an individual American citizen’s attempt to contest the actions of the United Nations from shoving gun control measures onto domestic matters of the Member States under the fraudulent guise of peace and security. The U.N. gun control agendas violate the Ninth Amendment rights and Tenth Amendment powers reserved to the People of the United States.

The subject of the dispute is the United Nations 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); the International Maritime Organization’s Maritime Safety Committee Circ. 623/Rev. 2; 20 June 2001 “Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships: Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators, Shipmasters and Crews on Preventing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships” and other assorted United Nations gun control agendas.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a Second Amendment case since 1939 United States v. Miller is translatable into violations of human rights laws in the face of growing international pressure to destroy our Second Amendment in its entirety through customary international law alleging that “non-possession” of firearms is the international norm. This is the classic “piling on” method of international dispute resolution.

The U.S. Department of State could, on its own authority, bring a case to the International Court of Justice or to the U.N. General Assembly attacking the U.N. gun control agenda but, to my knowledge, these options have not, as yet, been taken by the State Department. Therefore, in light of this and of the federal courts blocking my cases (Hamrick v. President Bush, U.S. District Court for DC, No. 02-1434 and No. 02-1435; No. 03-2160; and now U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Northern Division, No. 06-0044) at every step from proceeding to trial with my Second Amendment case I must now bring my case to you so that you can file my case with the International Court of Justice on my behalf as an American citizen with just cause.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is the only practical preventive mechanism that protects the People of the United States of America from genocide and other abuses of power by a United States Government and by the governments of their individual states.

The following law review articles provide a backgrounder supporting my letter:

● Margaret E. McGuinness, “Medellin,” Norm Portals, and the Horizontal
Integration of International Human Rights
, Legal Studies Research Paper Series,
Research Paper No. 2006-36, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 82, 2006

● Eric A. Posner, The Decline of the International Court of Justice, The Law
School of the University of Chicago, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working
Paper No. 233 (2d Series), Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 81,
December 2004

● Linda Gorman and David B. Kopel, Self-defense: The Equalizer, Forum for
Applied Research and Public Policy, Winter 2000 (Experiments in tightening
gun-control laws have eroded the right of self defense and failed to stop
serious crime.)

● Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner, A Theory of Customary International
, The Law School and the University of Chicago, John M. Olin Law &
Economics Working Paper No. 63 (2d Series),

● Joseph Bruce Alonso, International Law and the United States Constitution
in Conflict: a Case Study on the Second Amendment
, Houston Journal of
International Law Vol. 26:1 (2003)

● William S. Dodge, Bridging Erie: Customary International Law in the U.S.
Legal System after Sosa v. Alvarez-machain

● Thomas Healy, Stigmatic Harm and Standing

Article 2, Clause 7 of the UN Charter:

The United Nations is violating its own Charter under Article 2, Clause 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.”

by intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States and the domestic jurisdiction of the other 190 Members or by requiring the United States by coercion to submit their Second Amendment to settlement under the present Charter through the 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) and through the International Maritime Organization’s Maritime Safety Committee Circ. 623/Rev. 2; 20 June 2001 “Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships: Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators, Shipmasters and Crews on Preventing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships” and other assorted United Nations gun control agendas from the United States’ perspective of a Republican form of Government.

Chapter IV: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression, of the U.N. Charter is being used as a nexus to proclaim that mere possession of firearms for the purposes of personal protection and security from genocide, murder, maiming, rape, and other violent attacks is itself a breach of the peach. This is twisting and flipping Natural Law and Human Rights Law into a severe contortion of international law and customary international law.

Articles 7 of the UN Charter:

The International Court of Justice is a principal organ of the United Nations.

Articles 8 of the UN Charter:

Article 8 of the UN Charter states, “The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.”

Article 42, Clause 1, of the Statute of the Interntional Court of Justice.

I cannot afford the cost of legal representation and must therefor proceed with my case unrepresented.

Article 22, Clause 1, of the Statute

“The seat of the Court shall be established at The Hague. This, however, shall
not prevent the Court from sitting and exercising its functions elsewhere
whenever the Court considers it desirable.”

Due to the fact that I cannot afford the cost of travel to the Hague I respectfully request that if my case is approved that all proceedings be held at the United Nations in New York, United States of America. Travel to New York is far more affordable for me as a low income merchant seaman.

Article 52 of the UN Charter:

I reserve the right to file a separate case in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the United States for human rights violations committed me and against the American People.

Chapter II Competence of the International Court of Justice
Article 38 of the Statute of the Court

1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law
such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as aw;

c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.

Article 39 of the Statute:

Language: English.

Choice of Law

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ex aequo et bono as:

according to what is equitable and good : on the merits of the case — used
especially in international law when a case by agreement of the principals is to
be decided on grounds of equity and reason rather than specific points of law.

Article 38 of the Court is comparable to “Choice of Law” for United States Constitutional Law. I hereby advise the Court that my case challenges certain treaties, conventions, international law, customary international law, and general principles of law that are wrongfully recognized by member states of the United Nations relating to private possession of firearms by individual citizens primarily of the United States for the purposes of this case and secondarily by citizens of member states whose government is characterized as a dictatorship for purposes of Natural Law and Human Rights Law for the human race.

Therefore, I have certain concerns on whether the International Court of Justice can be impartial. In conducting research on the impartiality of the Court I present the conclusion of Eric A. Posner and Miguel de Figueiredo, Is the International Court of Justice Biased? The Law School of the University of Chicago, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 234 (2D SERIES), December 13, 2004:

The data suggest that national bias has an important influence on the decisionmaking of the ICJ. Judges vote for their home states about 90 percent of the time. When their home states are not involved, judges vote for states that are similar to their home states—along the dimensions of wealth, culture, and political regime. Judges also may favor the strategic partners of their home states, but here the evidence is weaker because of multicollinearity; if they do, the magnitude of the bias is probably low.

We have not shown in a straightforward way that judges are consciously biased. All that we have shown is that the judges, on the margin, don’t vote impartially in the manner prescribed by the null hypothesis. The motivation for their vote may be psychological or cultural; the judges do not necessarily consciously choose to favor a state that is strategically aligned with the judges’ own state.

The evidence also does not prove that the ICJ is dysfunctional, though it gives one pause. For one thing, judges may vote dispassionately when the applicant and respondent are both very similar to their own state; they may also vote dispassionately when the applicant and respondent are both very different from their own state. In these cases, there is no reason for the judges to be biased, although they may be outvoted by judges who are biased. How often such cases arise is hard to say.

In addition, even biased judges may sometimes swallow their biases and vote in an unbiased manner. Judges who vote 90 percent in favor of their home state vote 10 percent against their home state, and so in this small fraction of cases they may be voting sincerely. It is also possible that they are voting strategically, of course—they may vote against their own state on occasion in order to help maintain the appearance of impartiality. But the possibility of sincere voting in some cases cannot be dismissed on the basis of our data set.

Whether this level of bias matters depends on what the ICJ is supposed to ccomplish. According to one study, compliance with ICJ judgments hovers around the 60 percent level. It may be that states are aware that the ICJ judges are sometimes but not always biased, and that the states are more likely to use the Court and comply with judgments when they believe that the judgments are not biased. When a state’s
own judge votes against his home state, or when judges from a given bloc vote against a party from that bloc, it may take the judgment more seriously than otherwise, and be more inclined to comply with it. If so, the ICJ may play a useful role, albeit under narrow conditions and for limited purposes.

The founders of the ICJ did anticipate the problem of judicial bias. Some people thought that judges should not be allowed to hear cases involving their home states precisely because they feared that such judges could not decide the cases impartially; for the same reason, the ad hoc system was anathema. Our evidence vindicates the premise of these critics but not their remedy. For our evidence suggests that even nonparty judges would be influenced by legally irrelevant factors.

The designers themselves appeared to think that party judges would ensure that each state would get a fair hearing during deliberations. It is certainly possible that judges could not be made to understand the claims of a state whose perspective they do not share, unless one of their number was a national or representative of that state. Our evidence does not reveal whether the cases were decided more impartially than they would have been if party judges had been prohibited.

Much to the objections of myself, the American people and the U.S. Congress the United States Supreme Court is looking to the opinions of courts from other countries on a more frequent basis for use as precedent in their own opinions, even in cases of no international importance. In the interest of justice I ask the Court to include United States Constitutional Law as part of its competence under Article 38 of the Statute of the Court. The basis of my request is due to the fact that the judges of the Court are members of States of the United Nations who do not share the same ideals of individual freedom that are embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. To accentuate this point I include a transcript of an interview that directly addresses the bias of the United Nations against individual freedom:

Jon Caldera of
Interview with
Dave Kopel of Independence

July 6, 2006


Audio available online at

CALDARA: Welcome to I’m John Caldara live in the studio. Research Diector and the Director of the Second Amendment Project, Dave Kopel.

KOPEL: Thanks for having me.

CALDARA: I wanted to ask you a little bit about the international issue of Second Amendment issues. Bad way to put it. Let me try it again. I want to talk about gun issues outside America. It seems as though the gun debate which is being solved here in the United States is having larger, larger, worldwide implication.

KOPEL: Well, its partly the result of the end of the Cold War when a lot of the groups put their focus on, say, moral equivalents on nuclear disarmament, on, you know, the nuclear freeze, that whole crowd that said the main problem about the Cold War, of this conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, that the problems is that they both have nuclear weapons rather than the problem that one is an aggressive dictatorship which wants to spread is tyranny worldwide. After the Soviet Union went out of business the disarmament groups needed new things to work on and the Left needed new programs to work on. And one of the things that they picked up in the 90’s and have very successfully pushed onto the United Nations’ agenda over the last decade has been worldwide gun prohibition.

CALDARA: Here in the United States we have always equated Second Amendment rights with true freedom. The idea that power resides in the People. The old saying that the Second Amendment insures all the other amendments because power resides with the People. In places like Israel we see that an armed civilian population helps deter terrorism, deters bad things from happening then why is it that other people see that taking away citizens’ guns in other countries promotes democracy? Promotes individual rights?

KOPEL: Well, first of all I think there is some of the disarmament groups make the very accurate put that there are places in the world where guns are very frequently misused. One that’s difficult for a traveler to go, to drive around Africa because he’s going to get accosted as he goes along by various gangs of teenagers with surplus AK-47s who are going to try and rob him or extort him as he drives around. That there are lots of terrorist groups or organized crime groups masquerading as political groups that use small arms, including firearms, for terrible purposes and a lot of people are victims of that. So, there is a problem that is accurately identified. But the problem in some countries such as India and the United States, for example, recognize that problem and want to work at the United Nations to address that. To say let’s find ways to stop, for example, the supplying of Sudanese government guns to the terrorist organizations of the Janjaweed in Western Sudan and Darfur that are perpetrating the genocide there or terrorists groups like the Lord’s Resistance Army which operate in Southern Sudan and Northern Uganda, another terrorist organization that kidnaps people. So everybody agrees on that but the problem is there is also a whole international gun control movement that says in order to solve that problem, the problem of the Janjaweed militias, so called militias, the Janjaweed having weapons in Western Darfur, we’ve got to just take guns away from every law abiding citizen of the world. That’s why they, for example, promoted a complete gun prohibition referendum in Brazil in October 2005.

CALDARA: Which was soundly defeated.

KOPEL: Defeated by nearly a 2-to-1 vote after have originally 80% support in the polls.

CALDARA: Let me ask you about the United Nations getting involved in this. Now all it seems as though gun rights experts, like yourself, are getting involved in these national, international issues, and right in the center of every international issue seems to be the United Nations. What’s there motivation for disarming citizens around the globe.

KOPEL: Well, the United Nations is not really the united “Nations” in the sense of the people of the world. The United Nations is the – – might be called the Federation of Governments. And the fact is there is a large majority or there is roughly half the governments in the world are dictatorships. So you have lots of support at the United Nations for disarming the public just from that base right there. At the United Nations gun control conference in the last week and a half we have seen tyrannies like China, Iran, Zimbabwe, Uganda, come forward and talk about disarmament. Actually I would put Uganda in not quite as bad a category in some sense as those. There’s lots of countries that have essentially no freedom and want to keep it that way and they view total gun prohibition as a very effective way of staying in power.

CALDARA: Lets take a couple of cases in point. You just put about a new issue of Backgrounder for the Independence Institute, Human Rights Atrocities: The Consequences of the United Nations Gun Confiscation in East Africa. Lets talk specifically about Kenya. What’s going on in Kenya.

KOPEL: Kenya and Uganda are, in practice, dictatorships. But they have, to some degree, the forms of democracy which puts them ahead of a lot of the other African countries. And they are also countries that have a relatively free press. So, what Joann Eisen, senior fellow at the Independence Institute, and Paul Gallant, another senior fellow at the Independence Institute, and I did, was, really, relying on the mainstream media of Kenya and Uganda, report on the terrible atrocities that are taking place in both of those countries as the governments carry out, in their words, the United Nations Programme of Action from 2001, the Nairobi Protocol, a United Nations treaty negotiated a couple of years after, to totally disarm the cattle-herding tribesmen, the pastoralist of the border lands.

CALDARA: Are these terrorists they are disarming? Is the U.N. putting forward these ideas and the Kenyan army going out and disarming terrorists, bad guys, drug dealers?

KOPEL: No. Not at all. There has been a history among the pastoralist of these borderlands of cattle raiding each other. They all have their cattle. And they go around and steal cattle from each other.

CALDARA: Sounds like the Wild West here.

KOPEL: In the olden days they used to do it with spears and bows and arrows. It’s done more often with firearms now. And that’s a real crime problem and it’s legitimate for governments to solve that. But the way they go about that has been not by trying to take guns away from cattle theives, cattle rustlers as we would have called them in the West but disarming entire populations, or sometimes just terrorizing. The terror you talked about is really perpetrated by the Kenyan and Ugandan armies where they go into villages, burn the village down, steal all the cattle, kill a bunch of men, women, and children, they have turned tens, maybe over a hundred thousand people into refugees by these terrorist tactics carried out in the name of gun confiscation.

CALDARA: This is under the name of an order via the United Nations. Now the United Nations is not running over there with guys with blue helmets on confiscating peoples guns, right?

KOPEL: No. The United Nations in 2001 passed the Programme of Action for international gun control which wasn’t binding but lots of countries decided they liked it a lot anyway and started using that as a pretext for gun confiscation. The Ugandan government had actually given up on gun confiscation after some failures in the past. And in 2002 the U.N. put the bug in its ear and said, No, get back into the gun confiscation business. And recently there was a treaty negotiated under United Nations leadership called the Nairobi Protocol by Nairobi being the capitol of Kenya by which about a dozen East African countries, the majority of which have records of genocide, either currently or in recent years, or at the most, a couple of decades ago. All these countries under the Nairobi Protocol agreed to completely eradicate unlicensed gun ownership in their own country, among other controls they’ll impose. And so, Kenya and Uganda say, Hey! You know! We’re going in killing all these tribes people while they had unlicensed guns. This is are obligation to the Nairobi Protocol.

CALDARA: Did Kenya actually have a Shoot to Kill Directive?

KOPEL: There is a national shoot to kill directive by the Kenyan police basically against everybody in the country of Kenya again supposedly as part of their gun control program.

CALDARA: So the army there can shoot to kill in order to get the guns back.

KOPEL: Because you might have a gun. That’s right. Because the fact that some widow of some pastoralist might have a gun in her house to protect herself against predators and rapists she is the subject of a shoot to kill order from the Kenyan police.

CALDARA: Has the United States signed on to any of these protocols or U.N. actions?

KOPEL: No it has not. But the United Nations does give military aid, I think, to both Kenya and Uganda. So to some degree the United States, and the United States also gives other kinds of aid, as you know, money is fundable, So by giving any aid to these governments at all we are unfortunately directly supporting these terrible programs. It is also true that Kenya especially is a frontline state against Islamic terrorism and is on the side of the U.S. in trying to resist Arab imperialist Islamic fascism.

CALDARA: Let me ask you what I think is an obvious question. I’m a gun owner. I’m a life member of the NRA. I care about my Second Amendment rights. Why the hell should I care what goes on in Kenya and Uganda. If the U.N. wants to have a pre-text to allow these guys to disarm some other country that’s not like California passing some sort of sweeping gun ban. That’s not an immediate threat to me. I don’t have any control what happens in Kenya. I don’t have any control what happens in Uganda. Lord knows I have very little control at the U.N. Why is this a threat to me?

KOPEL: Well, there is two things. One is even if there weren’t a threat to you any decent human being would want to stop these abuses just like you want to stop the violations of human rights anywhere in the world. The principle that’s affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, which we’re named for is that human rights are fundamental and universal. They don’t rise out of some context in North America. They belong to everyone by the Grace of God and it’s our duty to help protect that. But the other thing is to say that it’s an advance thing that American gun owners now say, “Oh what happens in New York City, or what happens in California, that might ultimately affect me.” Because back in, say 1969, there were a lot of gun owners who didn’t think that. They thought gun control was only something that happens in New York City. They didn’t realize it was a contagion that spreads around the whole body politic that endangers them. And that same point is true about what is going on in other countries. It’s just foolish to think that if the United Nations succeeds in wiping out gun ownership everywhere in the world other than the United States that somehow the United States gun culture is going to be able to survive. And remember, all it takes is one new president, say a Hilary Clinton, a John Kerry, an Al Gore, or Rudy Giuliani, or for that matter a John McCain who likes the idea of the United Nations being used to circumvent the Second Amendment. All you need is a presidential signature on the treaty. You don’t need Senate ratification. Once you get the presidential signature on the treaty there’s a whole variety of ways in American law that a president, without congressional approval, can start imposing international gun control.

CALDARA: Is there any other nation that has a Second Amendment, individual right to keep and bear arms?

KOPEL: Oh sure! Mexico and Guatemala just to name a couple of our neighbors. Although I would say in both countries it’s, in practice, not respected as much as ours is.

CALDARA: The issue paper, Human Rights Atrocities, available on the Independence web page, you also have a terrific news letter that goes out via the email and people ought to get involved on the Second Amendment Project email list. How do they do that?

KOPEL: They just come to the Independence site and they’ll find the link for the newsletter. Sign up. And they will get a free Second Amendment newsletter sent out roughly once a month by email. And we’ve also got plenty of other newsletters on health care, education, and other issues that they can sign up for if they’d like.

CALDARA: Research director Dave Kopel. Thank you much.

KOPEL: Thank you.

The U.N. Wants Your Gun

July 8, 2006; Page A11
Wall Street Journal

Yesterday the United Nation’s Review Conference on Small Arms ended, barely noticed by the media. That’s too bad, because this meeting, and the initiative of which it is a part, deserves much more public attention — and censure — than it gets.

To be sure, the conference did attract the hostile attention of the National Rifle Association, thanks to which some 100,000 letters and postcards flooded into the U.N. In response, the conference chair, Prasad Kariyawasam of Sri Lanka, stoutly insisted that the conference “does not in any way address legal possession,” while Secretary General Kofi Annan promised that “we do not wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with national laws.” Both statements are disingenuous.

The U.N. has long urged that firearms must never be transferred to “non-state actors” — that is, entities which are neither governments nor government-approved. Only John Bolton’s intransigence prevented the “non-state actors” rule from being inserted into the Program of Action at the previous U.N. small arms conference in 2001. But the U.N. continues to insist on the “non-state actors” rule — which would, if adopted, make it a violation of international law to sell arms to Taiwan (according to the U.N., not a state). It would also make illegal arms sales to any and every current group resisting tyranny or genocide.

Last year Unesco and Unicef funded the supporters of a Brazilian referendum to outlaw citizen firearms possession. It was rejected by a resounding 64% of the voters. A few months ago, in a warm-up meeting for this year’s small arms conference, Rubem Fernandes, head of Viva Rio (the U.N.-funded prohibition group) explained what he had learned from the experience: “First lesson is, don’t trust direct democracy.”

The spearhead of the U.N. gun prohibition campaign is an NGO by the name of Iansa (International Action Network on Small Arms). This London-based consortium of gun prohibition groups, including American lobbies such as the Million Mom March and the Brady Campaign, sent a large staff to the small arms conference, some of them serving as national delegates. Iansa’s head, Rebecca Peters, does not mince words: “We want to see a drastic reduction in gun ownership across the world.”

Iansa member Barbara Frey has been appointed by the U.N. as “Special Rapporteur on the Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons.” Ms. Frey, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, believes it is a human rights violation if a government does not require gun owners to have a restrictive license, under which “Possession of small arms shall be authorized for specific purposes only; small arms shall be used strictly for the purpose for which they are authorized.” Were this doctrine accepted, it would instantly turn the U.S. government and every American state into international law-breakers.

Nevertheless, the U.N. does not talk about the extreme human rights violations being perpetrated on behalf of U.N. gun control. In the borderlands of Kenya and Uganda, joint military operations are burning villages, confiscating cattle from the pastoral tribes, torturing, murdering, pillaging and turning over 100,000 people into refugees, many of them starving. These atrocities are being perpetrated pursuant to the Nairobi Protocol, a U.N.-led regional treaty which obligates the signatory governments to eradicate unlicensed gun possession.

In practice, the Nairobi Protocol has been a justification for ethnic cleansing. On June 26, after five years of such atrocities, the United Nations Development Program itself finally cut off funding for Ugandan disarmament (the U.N. was funding voluntary gun surrender, not the military campaign). So far no steps have been taken regarding disarmament abuses in Kenya.

Similarly, the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) has under U.N. leadership banned the import of all firearms, except those for government use. Although human rights groups have warned that two Ecowas countries — Ivory Coast and Guinea — are on the brink of genocide, the U.N. seems determined to keep the potential genocide victims as helpless and defenseless as the genocide victims in Darfur.

The U.N. bureaucracy and the gun prohibition lobbies knew that they would not be able to get everything they wanted from the 2006 conference. Accordingly, they aim to keep the “small arms” process going, with more conferences in upcoming years — when a new U.S. administration might welcome rather than resist international efforts to end-run the Second Amendment. There is a precedent for this: During the 1990s, as the U.N. campaign against small arms was building, the Clinton administration was an enthusiastic supporter — refusing even to join with the Latin American delegations which stated that some countries had traditions of legitimate sporting gun ownership.

Moreover — and this is a subtlety that Americans are only beginning to understand — no “Program of Action” from this or any future small arms conference needs to be legally binding in order to make it legally binding. The gun prohibition lobbies are already working to claim that there is an international “norm” against citizen gun possession. (An international “norm” is similar to common law — as opposed to international law created by formal treaties.)

Evidence of the norm, of course, comes from the gradual accumulation of international pronouncements, confiscations and national restrictions that the gun prohibition lobbies and their government allies labor so assiduously to institute. The U.S. Supreme Court has, meanwhile, recently cited unratified treaties as evidence of international norms which should guide the interpretation of our Constitution.

The U.N. gun control program, of which this week’s small arms conference is a part, has already caused massive suffering and the loss of civil liberties in many nations around the world. Americans would be foolish to imagine that they will always be immune.

Excerpts from the U.S. Constitution


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offences against the Law of Nations;

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to
execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers
, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Excerpts from the Bill of Rights

The legislative Preamble to the Bill of Rights include these remarks:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, [1789]

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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Second Amendment:

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

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people

The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights prohibit the United States, the States and the political subdivisions thereof from abolishing, restricting, or otherwise infringing upon the rights of the American people from possessing firearms for their natural and human right to personal safety and security from the criminal element of society and from a government becoming tyrannical. However, history proves that government always tends to move for greater power and there always comes a time when the government breaks the prohibitive bindings of its found documents (i.e. the Constitution) for the sake of greater power. So it is with President George W. Bush’s regard to the Constitution of the United States. The United States of America was founded on the principles of individual freedom with true and ultimate sovereignty resting in the People, not in the Government. To secure the freedoms of the individual the Bill of Rights was included with the Constitution of the United States of America.

The United States has not done all it can to protect the rights of the People from United Nations. On the contrary, the United States has, in fact and law, aided and abetted the United Nations in shifting sovereignty from the People of the United States to the United States Government and subsequently to the United Nations through treaties, conventions, and customary international law that violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Citing David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, & Joanne D. Eisen, Firearms Possession by “Non-state Actors”: The Question of Sovereignty, 373 Texas Review of Law & Politics, Vol. 8, No. 2, the Introduction at 374-376, and the Conclusion at 435-436:


At United Nations conferences and in other international fora, many diplomats and NGOs have called for prohibiting or severely limiting firearms possession by “non-state actors.” Use of the phrase “non-state actors,” however, reveals a profound misunderstanding of the nature of sovereignty. While the phrase implies that sovereignty belongs to the government, sovereignty properly belongs to the people and is merely delegated by them to the government. In this article, we examine the connection between arms possession and sovereignty and we detail the horrible violations of human rights that have so often resulted from the prohibition of guns to “non-state actors.” From ancient Athens to modern Zimbabwe, weapons bans for “non-state actors” have often led to human rights abuses by illegitimate governments; these abuses are perpetrated against the legitimate sovereigns: the people of the nation.

When Confucius was asked what would be the first step if a government sought his advice, he answered that “[i]t would certainly be to rectify the names. . . . If the names are not correct, language is without an object.”

The modern push for civilian gun prohibition—for banning gun ownership by “non-state actors”—is based on the faulty premise that “the government” is equivalent to “the state.” To the contrary, as the Declaration of Independence teaches, it is a self-evident truth that governments are created by the people of a state, in order to protect the human rights of the people. As sovereigns, the people have the authority to change the government when they determine that the government is no longer fulfilling its function of protecting the people’s rights. The people are the only true and legitimate rulers of a state, and the government is only their instrument and servant. To the extent that a government is not founded on the consent of the governed, it is illegitimate. As a United States federal district court put it, “the people, not the government, possess the sovereignty.”

At the 2001 United Nations Small Arms Conference, Iran took the lead in promoting a ban on weapons supplies to “non-state actors.” The “non-state actors” clause would require vendors “to supply small arms and light weapons only to governments, or to entities duly authorized by government.” The clause would make it illegal, for example, to supply weapons to the Kurds or religious minorities in Iran, even if Iranian persecution or genocide drove them to forcible resistance. The clause would have made it illegal for the United States to supply arms to the oppressed Kurds and Shia of Iraq before the Saddam Hussein regime was toppled.

Had the “non-state actors” provision been in effect in 1776, the transfer of firearms to the American patriots would have been prohibited. Had the clause been in effect during World War II, the transfer of Liberator pistols to the French Resistance, and to many other resistance groups, would have been illegal.

At the U.N. Conference, the United States delegation stood firm against the “non-state actors” clause, rejecting compromise efforts to revise the language or to insert it into the preamble of the Program of Action. Although Canada pushed hard, the U.S. would not relent.

U.S. Under-Secretary of State John Bolton pointed out that the proposal “would preclude assistance to an oppressed non-state group defending itself from a genocidal government.”

U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette (of Canada) explained that in some parts of the world, an AK-47 could be obtained for $15 or a bag of grain. Small-arms “proliferation erodes the authority of legitimate but weak governments,” she complained.

U.S. delegate Faith Whittlesey replied that the U.N. “non-state actors” provision “freezes the last coup. It favors established governments, while taking away rights from individuals. It does not recognize any value higher than peace, such as liberty.”

According to the United Nations, any government with a U.N. delegation is a “legitimate” government. This U.N. standard conflicts with the Declaration of Independence’s standard that the only legitimate governments are those “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Mao Zedong once observed that “[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” American Federalist Noah Webster would have agreed. Arguing in 1787 for adoption of the proposed American Constitution, Webster urged Americans not to worry that the new federal government could become a military dictatorship, for “[b]efore a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.” Not all governments that have disarmed the people have become dictatorships, but dictatorship is rarely present without an attempt by the government to obtain a monopoly of arms. Let us study some examples.
. . .

VII. CONCLUSION (of Kopel, Gallant, and Eisen)

Like Saudi Arabia’s global funding and promotion of Wahabist indoctrination and concomitant intolerance of all other religions, the United Nations’ disarmament campaign springs from a sincere belief that some restrictions on civil liberties are in the best interests of the people being restricted. The Wahabis do not trust the world’s people to make religious choices, and the disarmament lobby does not trust the world’s people to make choices about owning a firearm. The result of the Wahabbi campaign and the disarmament campaign is widespread murder by governments and by terrorist groups, and the suppression of human rights.

The explicit principle that sovereignty inheres in the people, not in the government, is at least as old as the great Confucian philosopher Mencius. In contrast to the Legalist philosophers popular in the imperial palaces, Mencius considered the people more important than the state. Mencius wrote: “Heaven sees as the people see; Heaven hears as the people hear.” Accordingly, the dissatisfaction of the people could remove the mandate of Heaven from a ruler, and place it on another ruler. The Encyclopædia Britannica notes that Mencius believed that revolution in severe cases is not only justifiable, but is a moral imperative.

The American political philosopher Theodore Schroeder explained that removing tyranny is not illegitimate rebellion. Rather, tyrannical “government is in rebellion against the people.”

In the years leading up to the American Revolution, Patriots and Tories alike began to use the term “Body of the People” to mean “a majority of the people,” and eventually, “the united will of the people.” Legitimate sovereignty, Americans said, flowed not from “the Crown,” but from the “Body of the People.” Locating sovereignty in the People, and not in the Crown, meant locating the power to enforce the law in the People as well.

Removing arms from “non-state actors” is too often a formula for removing the sovereignty of the people, placing them at the mercy of whoever happens to be running the government. Some of these governments may be benign, but many are not. The Thirty Tyrants of Athens were not benign, nor is Robert Mugabe, nor are the many other dictatorships whose illegitimate power would be strongly enhanced by prohibition of firearms for “non-state actors.” The people are the only legitimate sovereigns of a nation. An international agenda for the protection of human rights should work to ensure the widespread ownership of firearms by the lawful rulers of a state (that is, the people) while seeking to deprive the real “non-state actors” (that is, the dictatorships) of their monopoly of force.

It is because certain conferences and conventions of the United Nations threatens to disarm the American people at large through compulsory allegiance to Customary International Law. The fallacy of Customary International Law is the purpose and motivation behind a particular international custom, i.e., disarming the population of a sovereign nation of small arms. For the purpose of my civil action now before the Court the conferences and conventions that threatens the Second Amendment rights of not only United States seafarers, but the Second Amendment rights of all United States citizens are listed here for reasons of specificity:

● UN Report: Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons, Final Report submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur.

● United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects;

● United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention) and its Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Fire Arms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition;

● United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of a Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime

● United Nations General Assembly, Twenty-fourth Special Session OEA/Ser.P, Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials, AG/RES. 1 (XXIV-E/97), November 13, 1997, Washington, D.C.

● The International Criminal Court & the International Court of Justice;

● International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee MSC/Circ. 623/Rev. 2; 20 June 2001 Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships: Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators, Shipmasters and Crews on Preventing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships, page 8, paragraphs 44 and 45:

44. The carrying and use of firearms for personal protection or protection of a ship is strongly discouraged.

45. Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms thereby escalating an already dangerous situation, and any firearms on board may themselves become an attractive target for an attacker. The use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. In some jurisdiction, killing a national my have unforeseen consequences even for a person who believes he has acted in self defence.”

Did the U.S. Coast Guard Violate My Human Rights?

It is my claim that the U.S. Coast Guard letter dated April 19, 2002 denying my application for the National Open Carry Handgun endorsement for my Merchant Mariner’s Document claiming “that it would not be in the best interest of marine safety or security to initiate the endorsement” is evidence that the U.S. Coast Guard displays an unlawful allegiance to a foreign governing body in usurpation to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights in matters where the Second Amendment has direct application in the absence of any federal law or regulation. The U.S. Coast Guard admitted as much in that same letter stating:

I am impressed with your scholarship and zeal in formulating arguments in support of your application for a “National Open Carry Handgun” endorsement on your Merchant Mariner’s Document, but I am not persuaded to agree with you. As you have noted, the laws and regulations do not provide for such an endorsement nor do they prohibit it. Instead, the matter is left to my judgment.

Although, the U.S. Coast Guard relied on “personal judgment” the closest and directly applicable international authority for such a denial of an otherwise constitutional right resting in the Second Amendment is found in paragraphs 44 and 45 in IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee MSC/Circ. 623/Rev. 2; 20 June 2001 Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships: Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators, Shipmasters and Crews on Preventing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships.

I further claim that the action of the U.S. Coast Guard in denying my application for Second Amendment rights as an American seafarer is an act of affirmation for a Customary International Law that voids and nullifies the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And since said action is detrimental to the Second Amendment the cascading consequence of such government action is an unlawful and an intolerable weakening of the Common Defence as noted in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

I further claim that because such government action that denigrates the Common Defence of the United States, the individual States, any political subdivision thereof, and/or the rights and duties of the American people to provide for their own personal safety and security and for others in society, that the U.S. Coast Guard, in fact and law, committed an act of treason in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2381 and I hereby report to the Court such act of treason in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 2382 in order to remain innocent of any criminal charges for Misprision of Treason.

Fighting Disarmament of Second Amendment Rights
of American Seafarers & the American People at Large
by International Bodies

Citing the American Conservative Daily (blog), Twisted UN Logic: No Right to Self-Defense, September 2, 2006

Thanks to RRG for pointing this out to me and sending me a link to this UN Report: Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons Final Report, submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur.

This report is a dangerous look into the eyes of the enemy to liberties. The entire report is a validation of laying a ground work to disarm the people which our founding fathers warned us about.

Some of the most startling conclusions are as follows:

41. States must take effective measures to reduce the need for people to arm themselves by ensuring an atmosphere of public safety supported by law enforcement that is committed and trained to protect the rule of law and to prevent illegal acts.

Problem with this is that the reason we are armed is to protect ourselves against the state and usurpations of power. To claim that if the state can provide an aura of public safety for the people that therefor the people can be disarmed, totally ignores the real threat to liberty – government.

43. Other effective measures consistent with due diligence include the prohibition of civilian possession of weapons designed for military use; the sponsoring of effective amnesty programmes to decrease the number of weapons in active use; requirement of marking and tracing information by manufacturers; and incorporation of a gender perspective in policies regarding small arms. States have an affirmative duty under international human rights law to protect groups that are most vulnerable to small arms misuse, including victims of domestic violence.

Yes, let’s only let the benevolent government
has the really powerful guns. Makes it SO much easier to control the peons when
that is the case.

Comrad Frey writes as justification for this

20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a ?right?. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.

And this is what I mean by “twisted” logic.

She admits you have a right to life in point 21

the right to life is recognized in virtually every major international human rights treaty but you do not have a right to defend your right to life? Huh? So then sweetie how do I ensure my “right to life” if I do not also have a “right” to shoot the man drawing his pistol at me? Are you going to suggest that we have one police officer with every person on the planet? Kind of like our “official” bodyguards? Are you suggesting that they should be quartered in my home? That’s about the only solution your “logic” leads to.

And of course that means a police state where everyone has law enforcement officials living with them so that if anyone tries to infringe upon their “right to life” they can be right there to spring into action!

No thanks. There is a simpler and better solution. Let the people be armed and
simply admit that if we do not have a “right” to defend our life we do not have a “right” to that life.

You know, us silly commoners here in America must be doing something right seeing as how we have maintained the same government for over 225 years! Maybe you should study what we have done and learn from it rather than trying to rehash failed ideologies?

Now for the American seaman’s perspective on this matter I excerpt from Nick Paton Walsh, Crews Take Up Guns To Fight Pirates, The Observer, UK, February 10, 2002:

For years they were the preserve of eighteenth-century novels. But pirates rule the high seas again with attacks on British vessels reaching record levels.

Armed hijacking and piracy has become such a major threat to the multi-billion pound shipping industry that crews are carrying arms to ward off attacks.

The pirates carry weapons ranging from kitchen knives to AK47 rifles. Last year, 21 people were shot dead in raids from the Mediterranean to Malaysia.

Sea-workers’ unions have launched a campaign to force the Government to take the threat of piracy more seriously. A record seven British ships were attacked by pirates last year and another 15 attacked were managed or controlled by UK firms, according to the International Maritime Bureau (IMB).

‘Crews need more protection,’ said Andrew Linington, of sea-worker’s union, Numast. ‘Owners have resisted moves towards greater security. Seafarers should not have to defend themselves against AK47s.’

In October, a British skipper was forced to fire a shotgun at raiders who had attacked him with automatic rifles when they boarded his freighter off the coast of Sierra Leone.

John Bailey, 52 from Hornsea, East Yorkshire, chased a gang of pirates around the 5,200-tonne Cape Georjean. After one of his shots hit an intruder, they fled.

‘I knew my crew mates were in trouble, so I had to open the door,‘ he said. ‘I was about to turn the handle on my cabin door when I heard the click of automatic weapons, so I took the shotgun with me. When I opened the door, I saw a gun pointing at me from a yard or two away, but as he pulled the trigger the gun seemed to jam. Someone was certainly keeping an eye on me.

A hijack can last 30 to 40 minutes’ said Captain Pottengal Mukundan, director of the IMB. ‘This is often done by the criminals who on land would rob a home. In comparison, attacking a ship at anchor is risk-free. A few people can take millions of dollars of freight easily.

There were 335 incidents of piracy last year, he said, and reports were still coming in. ‘The overall trend is for them to rise steadily year on year,’ he said.

He added piracy had become highly organised in some instances: ‘In an organised attack, the pirates will come in waves. The first group come in a fast, small ship and neutralise the crew, by blindfolding and binding them, or even killing them.

‘The next wave take charge of the ship. They change the name on the hull and have false documents. They then pilot it to a prearranged buyer. They net millions from the freight a ship carries.’

He added there were eight ‘phantom ships‘ in the world at present – boats that have disappeared with their identities changed.

The quote from Friedrich von Schiller on the cover page is most appropriate in light of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, and the United Nations Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and their threat to the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

“The voice of the majority is no proof of justice.” Friedrich von Schiller (German Poet, Dramatist, Philosopher and Historian. 1759-1805)

Citing William S. Dodge, Bridging Erie: Customary International Law in the U.S. Legal System After Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, Tulsa Journal of Comparative & International Law, Forthcoming:

Sosa v. AlvarezMachain, [2124 S. Ct. 2739; 542 U.S. 692 (2004)], has built a bridge between international and domestic law. The decision reaffirmed that “the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations” and characterized customary international law as “federal common law” for purposes of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). But Sosa’s is also a distinctive bridge, and worth examining further for clues about where it might lead.

The conclusion to the above article states:

The relationship between international and domestic law is a complex subject, made more complex by changes in the U.S. legal system since the 18th century. Sosa is a landmark modern case charting that relationship. In one sense, the holding of Sosa is narrow – that federal courts may apply customary international law as to a limited set of claims under the ATS without further congressional authorization. But Sosa’s approach of proceeding issue by issue and of considering both historical and modern arguments has much broader implications. Sosa has built a fascinating bridge, and only time will tell precisely where it leads.

I contend that Sosa will lead us toward the nullification of the Second Amendment through customary international law as noted by, Is Gun-ownership a Right or a Privilege? by Staff Reports, Friday, September 29, 2006:

After being stymied in recent years of curtailing small arms ownership in the U.S., Brazil, and elsewhere, groups like the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) – a network of more than 700 NGOs – have taken their agenda to the United Nations. They have also attempted to establish that non-possession of firearms by the public is the norm, rather than the other way around.

Once achieving UN recognition of this concept, it would then be possible to argue that, since most countries do not allow their citizens to possess firearms, non-ownership is the norm.

In David Horowitz’s, Joseph Klein demonstrates just how the gun-banners are attempting to achieve this, saying: Peter’s (IANSA Director) strategy, with the help of the chairman of the UN review conference and the Parliamentary Forum, is to enshrine international norms against civilian gun possession in an interpretive document that gun prohibitionists can label ‘customary international law.’ Such a document would legitimize Peters’ dogma that ‘gun ownership is not a right but a privilege.’ IANSA can then use the international norms in our own courts to attack the notion that an individual right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment.” – DS

Citing Bobby L. Scott, The U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons: An Exercise in Futility, 31 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 681, Spring, 2003

D. Small Arms Control, Oppression, and Genocide

The Conference’s most obvious failing is that it can be used by oppressors and tyrants to commit genocide and other violations of human rights. The Conference seeks to curb and eliminate all “illicit” transfers of small arms and light weapons, where “illicit” refers to international transfers which are “contrary to the laws of states and/or international law.” Member states to the Conference who approve of the Programme of Action are to undertake various measures to “prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.” These measures can then become one of the many implements of oppression in the tyrant’s toolbox; the despot can merely declare that his constituents are forbidden under national law to possess “small arms and light weapons,” which includes a vast range of firearms, from the common revolver, to AK- 47s and anti-aircraft missile systems. Once unarmed, any portion of the populace that is deemed undesirable, including ethnic groups or political opponents, could become easy targets for oppressive regimes.

Although many would characterize such a scenario as a conspiracy theorist’s fantasy, oppression, genocide, and political disappearances have become sc nes a faire of human civilization. The twentieth century has been particularly violent; some have suggested that it should be referred to as “the age of genocide, since the genocides of this century have killed more than four times as many people as all the wars and revolutions of the same time period combined.” Governments or other authoritarian regimes have been the predominant perpetrator of genocides and mass murder during the same period. While the exact numbers of deaths may still be at issue, one commentator has stated that “during the first eighty-eight years of this century, almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, . . . buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed” by governments. Combining war casualties, the estimated deaths attributable to governments in this century is approximately 203 million. To put this number in perspective, if these victims “were laid out head to toe, assuming each to be an average of five feet tall, they would reach from Honolulu, Hawaii,” across the Pacific and the continental United States to Washington D.C., “and then back again almost twenty times.”

The relevance of these grim figures to the Conference is obvious. Governments are presumably responsible for ensuring the safety and security of their citizens. Many existing governments thus pass weapons control measures to ensure safety from harm. With the exception of some states, such as the United States and Switzerland, “gun control” is a popular trend, and has received almost unanimous support in international circles. However, gun control laws, including those urged by the Programme of Action, can become fatal or oppressive when administered by tyrannous governments.

A few examples can illustrate the tragic consequences that could result from states’ adherence to the policies and measures contained in the Programme of Action. First, consider the small arms/light weapons controls employed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Prior to the Nazi rise to power, the Weimar Republic instituted a comprehensive gun control law which instituted strict licensing, registration, and marking regulations. Thus, although “law-abiding firearms owners were known to the authorities,” the “authority” in Germany was, unfortunately, the Nazi Party. Once the Nazis were firmly in power, on March 18, 1938, Germany passed the Weapons Law, which introduced further controls on civilian ownership of firearms; the Law specifically prohibited Jews from operating businesses involved in the manufacture of firearms and weapons, and explicitly prohibited the issuance of firearms permits “to Gypsies, or to persons who are itinerant like Gypsies.” Moreover, issuance of permits to acquire or carry firearms was highly discretionary in that they were only granted to “persons of undoubted reliability, and only if a demonstration of need [was] set forth.” Of course, [*705] Nazi Party members were exempt from these requirements. It is not unreasonable to infer, therefore, that Jews were likely excluded from firearms ownership as the strength of the Nazi party grew. In the end, the Nazis exterminated at least six million Jews and 258,000 Gypsies.

Germany’s quest for a “final solution” took an interesting turn with Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. In 1918, Vladimir Lenin passed into law a decree of the Council of People’s Commissars, which required that all firearms and ammunition were to be surrendered to the government. As in Germany, members of the Communist Party were exempt. Later, in 1920, Lenin signed a decree imposing
severe restrictions on firearms possession. As Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin,
gained power, penalties for unauthorized possession of firearms were increased
significantly, and penalties for unauthorized possession of knives were introduced. Article 58 was soon thereafter passed, imposing the death penalty for a wide range of infractions: these included actions considered “counter-revolutionary” (Art. 58(1)); rendering assistance to any opposition to communism (Art. 58(4)); or distributing “propaganda or agitation containing an appeal to overthrow, undermine, or weaken the Soviet authority or to commit individual counter-revolutionary crimes” (Art. 58 (10)). While Article 58 was in effect, the Communist regime was seizing property from farmers and eliminating any political opponents that frustrated Stalin’s industrialization plans to finance the Communist experiment.

The interesting interaction between the oppressive regimes of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany occurred during the German invasion of the U.S.S.R. As the Nazis invaded, special units called einsatzgruppen were devised for the sole purpose of eliminating undesirable persons (i.e. Jews and Gypsies). Although the einsatzgruppen units were small, their Soviet Jewish and Gypsy [*706] victims (who sometimes outnumbered their captors by ten to one) provided little resistance as the victims were “unarmed, bewildered, and followed orders.” Given the widespread oppression and strict weapons control statutes existing in the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that these victims were unarmed and unable to defend themselves, not only against home-grown tyrants, but also against foreign invaders.

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are only convenient examples, as information relating to their brutal regimes and their genocidal and political murders have been researched thoroughly. Other examples of government-perpetuated mass murder include Turkey under the Ottoman Empire, Communist China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda. These examples relate only to twentieth century genocides; this list does not include regimes that oppress their people in other forms.

The policies and measures contained in the Programme of Action would have disallowed any arms transfers to any of the above-mentioned states for groups who are resisting their oppressive governments. While there are many mitigating statements contained in the Programme of Action’s preamble regarding “inherent rights to individual or collective self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter” and the “reaffirmance of the right of self-determination of all peoples,” the protection of these rights is illusory. It is unavoidable that if these measures are enacted as national law, or even established as international norms, international arms transfers to individuals or groups seeking to fight oppression in a state which has outlawed their possession would be contrary to law. Any arguments to the contrary would either be unrealistic, or would expose the Conference’s fundamental faults. [*707] Further, to argue that arms embargoes would rectify a state’s oppressive practices misses the point; the embargoes would come too late to curb the violence. By the time the oppression has occurred, the tyrannous state will most likely be already armed, its citizens unarmed, and the damage already inflicted. This is a most unsatisfactory approach to curbing violence.

In sum, the prevalence of enocide and politicide as methods of state policy in the twentieth century show that summarily disarming the public could prove costly. Until the international community can employ methods that reduce or eliminate the occurrence of these crimes, a more humane approach would be to at least give victims a fighting chance; access to small arms and light weapons not only give victims a defense, but may also end oppression before widespread warfare ever takes place.

. . .

IV. Conclusion

The United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects represents true progress by the international community in addressing the serious concerns of indiscriminant violence, crime and oppression that plague modern society. As the twentieth century has been particularly violent, it is comforting to realize significant thought and deliberation has been devoted to this subject. Yet there are significant flaws [*712] with the product of this deliberation, the Programme of Action. First, the Programme of Action is not a binding principle of international law. It is conceded that the Conference’s policies could at some point in the future become the basis of binding customary international law, or alternatively, become the basis of a binding treaty. However, this concession cannot mitigate the fact that years of effort and study have produced a document that does very little to prevent small arms from reaching the hands of oppressors, criminals and the like. Secondly, there is crucial ambiguity within the Programme of Action, specifically in the definition of what constitutes a “small arm” or “light weapon,” and what realistically constitutes an “illicit transfer.” The terminology provided in the Programme of Action and other developmental documents is unsatisfactory. Regarding the definition of small arms and light weapons, the apparent ambiguity underscores the fact that the international community cannot focus on the core of the problem, that of military-style weapons. Further, this ambiguity may cost necessary political capital in any future attempt to limit arms transfers in binding treaties.

The problem of what constitutes an “illicit” transfer poses a similar dilemma. The Programme of Action gives a brief and succinct definition of the term “illicit”; yet, such a definition cannot remain given the breadth and diversity of problem areas and their underlying characteristics. Some transfers that may, under the Programme of Action, be adjudged as illicit may not be undesirable. Such a dry definition must be enlarged or qualified to confront dissimilar situations.

Third, impediments to implementation will render the Programme of Action brilliant on paper, but useless in practice. While stable states will have little difficulty in enacting and enforcing the suggested provision, the problem areas the Conference seeks to remedy face prohibitive conditions of corruption, high profitibility, and the high value of the world-wide arms industry in general.

Finally, and most importantly, the policies and provisions within the Programme of Action, if ever enacted as binding law, would allow the disarmament of citizens, exposing them to the whims of oppressors and tyrants. With the prevalence of genocide and government-sponsored killings, it is inhuman to prevent potential victims from protecting themselves against such arbitrary threats. Disarming the public absolutely prevents citizens from the ability to protect their life, rights, and
property, and effectively reduces the rights of self-defense and self-determination to mere verbiage. As the enjoyment of these rights can never be fully guaranteed, the protection of human rights depends on just resistance to oppressors and criminals, and armed resistance may sometimes be the only option. To render a human being [*713] defenseless under the guise of law would be unconscionable in such circumstances.

To achieve the goals espoused by the Conference, several measures are suggested. First, the international community should reconsider blanket disarmament as an effective method of achieving peace and tranquility. In particular, the act of making all arms transfers contrary to the laws of states or international law “illicit” cannot be sufficient. What must be done is not to reduce arms, but reduce the need for using arms. This can be accomplished by advocating democratic-style institutions to properly protect human rights and keep governmental power contained. Further, efforts to investigate and prosecute unscrupulous arms brokers that supply small arms and light weapons to oppressors and terrorists should be placed at the forefront. Until such measures are pursued, mankind’s status naturalis will remain consonant with Kant’s somber description.

Joseph Bruce Alonso, International Law and the United States Constitution in Conflict: a Case Study on the Second Amendment, Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 1, (2003), a law review article of 51 pages, presents the best argument I can find that supports my constitutional argument for National Open Carry Handgun (and even Small Arms and Light Weapons to counter the United Nations agenda and in the “Common Defence” context of the Constitution of the United States). I include this law review by reference herein as though it were an appendix. The article is available online at:

Undoubtedly, the right to bear arms effects political power in a variety of situations. Instead of the theory being “insurrectionist,” it is perhaps a recognition of the balance that is achieved through an armed citizenry. As stated previously, these situations include cases of self-defense; right to bear arms as a counter-weight to governmental oppression; in situations between competing sovereigns; tension between political factions; and between political factions and individuals. Guns shape the dynamic of human oppression, whether it be individual encounters or revolutions. “Any use of military force, however, depends upon a calculation of both the benefits and costs of its use.” The same reasoning applies to any use of force—whether it be that of an individual, government, political faction, or lynch mob.

Striking examples of the effects of gun ownership arise out of major societal struggles occurring over the last two hundred years: the experience of African-Americans during slavery, Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era, the Civil Rights Movement, and the experience of Jews in Nazi Germany.

Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond trace the history of African-Americans in the United States from the Revolution through modern day in The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration. They argue that “[t]his right [to possess arms], seen in the eighteenth century as a mechanism that enabled a majority to check the excesses of a potentially tyrannical national government, would for many blacks in the twentieth century become a means of survival in the face of private violence and state indifference.” For African-Americans, the threat of violence came not only from the federal government, but also from state governments, private groups, and individuals. Perhaps worse was the fact that the government did not protect African-Americans from racial violence. In Colonial America, an elite, armed, white population maintained political and social control over a diverse cultural landscape through sheer force. Shortly after the ratification of the Second Amendment, Congress passed the Uniform Militia Act which “called for the enrollment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five into the militia.” Throughout the Antebellum experience, gun control laws in the southern states limited free African-Americans and slaves’ access to guns. In the northern states, during this time, African-Americans were subjected to acts of aggression in the form of “race riots and mob violence.” Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 African-Americans were lynched.

In a limited number of cases, African-Americans were successfully able to use firearms in self-defense. In fact:

[A] case can be made that a society with a dismal record of
protecting a people has a dubious claim on the right to disarm them. Perhaps a re-examination of this history can lead us to a modern realization of what the framers of the Second Amendment understood: that it is unwise to place the means of protection totally in the hands of the state, and that self-defense is also a civil right.

Active governmental gun control, even when exercised to fight crime and regulate hunting, always shifts political power to a degree—even if only creating a need for additional police officers. As Blackstone suspected of the English government: “. . . prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to the government, by disarming the bulk of the people . . . is a reason oftener meant than avowed . . . .”


. . . The ways that the rights of private gun owners in the United States could be infringed upon are endless. The ability of domestic entities—such as executive administrations, legislative bodies, or individual legislators—courts, and even the Constitution to protect rights is weakening in the face of international attack.

Clearly, a final goal of eliminating private gun ownership would violate the Second Amendment. Criminal enforcement of data collection and the sharing of this information with other sovereign states, private organizations, supranational organizations, and international organizations, uniform marking and licensing of all transfers, present constitutional dilemmas. Measures that are acceptable domestically, if taken internationally, would be unacceptable. If domestic, traditional, sovereign states are kept in check by a right to self-protection, that right is only more essential to protect against a world government or political entity. Lack of a separation of powers and a representative international government brings this dangerous reality into sharp focus.

The popularity of global gun control measures to sovereign states other than the United States is increasingly evident. The vigor for gun control remains strong. Global gun control measures will go into effect in sovereign states that adopt the treaties implementing gun control laws. The United States has not adopted any of these treaties and is unable to do so because they call for the enactment of laws that conflict with the United States Constitution.

The possibility of conflict does not stop there. There are a variety of ways that gun control laws could affect the rights and obligations of parties in the United States. If the President signed a treaty on gun control, it would indicate to the international community that the United States intends to abide by gun control laws, with or without ratification from the Senate. To avoid this situation, no United States President should sign either of these treaties.

A second way gun control laws could affect U.S. parties is in the event that gun control becomes a customary international law. Even if the United States did not sign either agreement, the United States may inadvertently lead to the agreements’ acceptance as customary international law by abiding by them, even if only as a matter of convenience. In the eyes of an international court, the United States, by following the agreement mandates, consents to be bound by the agreements in the future. To avoid accidental consent, the United States must expressly state that, as a nation, it does not consent to the gun control agreements, and that any activity consistent with the agreements is not in recognition of the agreements’ legal status. If the United States does not make such an express statement to the international community, it may be expected to maintain any and all gun control measures adopted.

A third and more abstract manner that gun control measures could affect U.S. parties is through nonconsensual customary law. Nonconsensual customary international law may arise as a result of international practice. International practice may be evidenced by events not recognized in the United States, but eventually held binding on it. For example, the Small Arms Conference and the Palermo Convention have placed international gun control in the consciousness of the international community. In many ways, the international community is in agreement on gun control, with the exception of the United States. The respect and adherence by numerous countries to strict gun control adds weight to the notion that a common understanding of how sovereign states must deal with private gun ownership can be established—with or without every country’s consent.

The issues above have yet to come before a court and there does not appear to be an analogous situation that lends itself to analysis. Nevertheless, any conflict between international law and the United States Constitution should be anticipated, scrutinized, and avoided.

My situation as an American seaman whose Second Amendment rights were denied by the U.S. Coast Guard provides the analogous situation that lends itself to analysis. A proper analysis of my civil case for Second Amendment rights for American seamen at the international level, whether academic or judicial, with will provide a means to anticipate, scrutinize, and avoided any customary international law that threatens the Second Amendment and the Bill of Righs from being created or evolve into established international or maritime law.

For the sake of discussing future scenarios if the United Nations succeeds in global governance and succeeds in nullifying the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution I can only speculate on a future of political, religious, and cultural oppressions in the aftermath of the establishing of the so called New World Order or One World Government.

It is highly speculative but very possible (or even probable) that there will someday in the epic of world tyranny that the brutalized and oppressed people of the world will rise up in revolt precipitating World War IV of the Fourth Generation Warfare type under the “Law of Internal Armed Conflict.” If we are to have a “One World Government” of what the UN envisions shoved down our throats, then it stands to reason that there may be or perhaps will inevitably be an eventual cause to rise up in an armed revolt in the name of freedom worldwide. But this is extrapolating current events for the purpose of debating what may be in our near or distant future. For background information on this topic see the following Internet articles:

● Defense and the National Interest, Fourth Generation Warfare, December 24, 2005. (It has been said that “fourth generation warfare” (4GW) includes all forms of conflict where the other side refuses to stand up and fight fair.)

● Global Guerrillas (blog) Networked tribes, infrastructure disruption, and the emerging bazaar of violence. An open notebook on the first epochal war of the 21st Century. By John Robb, May 8, 2004 (The rise of 4GW is both a product and a driver of the following: (1) The loss of the nation-state’s monopoly on violence. (2) The rise of cultural, ethnic, and religious conflict. (3) Globalization (via technological integration).

● William S. Lind, Understanding Fourth Generation War, January 15, 2004 (We must recognize that in 4GW situations, we are the weaker, not the stronger party, despite all our firepower and technology.)

● Harold A. Gould and Franklin C. Spinney, Fourth Generation Warfare Is Here! University of Virginia, Center for South Asian Students, Fall 2001 Newsletter. (Fourth generation warfare is a self-organizing art form that, in a certain sense, enables the self-proclaimed victims of oppression to transform their alleged oppressors into victims. As we have just seen, this emergent breed of warriors feeds off the assets of their designated target.)

QUOTING: Frederick Douglass (c. 1818 – 20 February 1895; an American abolitionist, editor, orator, author, statesman and reformer; born a slave as Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey)., in an address on West India Emancipation (4 August 1857) is quoted here saying:

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must pay for all they get. If we ever get free from all the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and, if needs be, by our lives, and the lives of

Anyone with a passing knowledge on experimental future weapons like the Israeli’s Tavor T.A.R.-21 Assault Rifle and its variants, and the Israeli’s Corner Shot, and the United States aging M-16 is slated to be replaced with the XM29, the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW). However, the U.S. Army last year “temporarily suspended the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the acquisition of a new family of small weapons – Objective Individual Combat Weapon Increment 1 (OICW-1) – in order to incorporate joint requirements. The Army’s proposal has received interest from the other military services, and is further supported by several internal reviews reinforcing the increase in the potential for joint use.”

Unfortunately the Alliant Techsystems Corporation/ H&K XM29 OICW had a weight problem (it was pushing 18 pounds), which forced a split. At 18 pounds, the XM29 OICW it was too heavy as a personal weapon, and lightening it to the objective of 14 pounds would have made it too fragile for combat conditions.

So, the dual-firing OICW was split into the XM8 and the XM25, which was modified to use the 25mm smart shell for the XM307 (the Objective Crew-Served Weapon). The XM25 will now have a five-round clip for the 25mm grenades (with an optional ten-round clip). Ironically, the XM25 weighs about as much as the XM29 did (about 18 pounds). The XM8 was scheduled to begin entering service within the year, and the XM25 was scheduled to enter service in 2007. Clearer timelines should begin to re-emerge after the JROC meeting.

In doing research on the development of firearms technology I place on the Court’s lap my Presumption in General under Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence that there is a public interest in and need for a new definition for “separation of powers” under the Tenth Amendment, “checks and balance,” “slavery” and a “free citizen” that incorporates the impact on freedom by modern advancements in computer science and technology on civil liberties and freedoms; an expansive thesis on the scope of the People’s rights, civic duties, and responsibilities to enforce the constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of Government in light of government agendas that tend to transform our Republican form of Government into some other form of undesirable form of government, i.e., an open borders agenda toward a universal government envisioned by the United Nations. All this as subject matter beyond the immediate scope of the case before the Court but it is nevertheless closely related to the need for a National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on my Merchant Mariner’s Document or any future rendition of such an identification card that the U.S. Coast Guard sees fit to implement through the regulatory rulemaking process.

The U.S. Supreme Court, the circuit courts, and the federal district courts can no longer rely on United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), under the stare decisis doctrine, because the advancement of firearms technology renders Miller obselete and inapplicable even though 12-ga. shotguns still exist. It is the creation and addition of new high-tech, lethal and nonlethal, firearms that imposes a public policy demand on the federal courts to cease their judicial tyranny of oppressive opinions on the Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms and expand on the Common Defence aspect of the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing and in addition to Stigmatic Harm against law-abiding gun-owning American citizens caused by the United Nations international gun control agenda, I hereby submit my Letter of Application to File my Case against the United Nations with the Court.

Respectfully submitted.

Don Hamrick


Appendix A

The UN Challenge to the Second Amendment

By Joseph Klein
June 26, 2006

As our Independence Day celebration approaches, the United Nations is holding a global conference in New York, starting on June 26th and lasting through July 7th, whose real agenda is to begin a backdoor process of interference with our constitutionally protected right to individually bear arms. The UN denies this, of course. It says that the only purpose of the conference is to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects that was adopted in 2001. Faced with over 100,000 letters of protest about the review conference from American citizens concerned about holding on to their freedoms, the conference chairman – Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka’s U.N. ambassador – said that this year’s review conference will deal only with illegal arms and “does not in any way address legal possession.” The review conference’s website says that “it is not the wish of nations attending the Conference to discuss outlawing the legal manufacture or trade of these weapons, nor their legal ownership.” (emphasis in the original).

The review conference’s backers blame the National Rifle Association, whose executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, came out recently with a book entitled “The Global War on Your Guns”, for inflaming passions by distorting what the review conference is intended to accomplish. Unfortunately for American citizens, however, the NRA is right. The United Nations and its well-heeled backers are playing word games to cover their true intentions, as they always do. This is the typical ‘stealth’ strategy that I discuss at length in my book, “Global Deception.” Here we find Chairman Kariyawasam, and the gun prohibitionist crowd who are pulling the strings for the review conference from behind the scenes, caught in a web of deception of their own making.

In his so-called “non-paper for informal consultation purposes” dated May 18, 2006 (yes folks, only the United Nations can call a document of 10 pages of recommendations a ‘non-paper’), Chairman Kariyawasam recommended as one concrete measure that “States that have not already done so” should “adopt adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to regulate the possession of small arms and light weapons.” This ‘non-paper’ is intended to
serve as the basis for an eventual ‘Outcome Document’ approved by the review committee. The Outcome Document, in turn, will no doubt be characterized as the UN’s official implementing interpretation of the Programme of Action. Note that the reference to the regulation of the possession of small arms had been proposed and rejected when the Programme of Action itself was adopted in 2001, but its backers are seeking to restore the idea through the back door of the review conference’s Outcome Document.

Predictably, the anti-gun possession fanatic Rebecca Peters, who is Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) – a network of more than 700 non-governmental organizations working in 100 countries against the individual’s right to bear arms – has seized on this opening. IANSA is the official coordinator of non-governmental organizations’ involvement in the UN small arms process. Its sources of funding include the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute. IANSA is already guaranteed to have a seat at the table, but it is pressing for a fuller partnership with the member state delegations in the review conference’s deliberations.

In her response to Chairman Kariyawasam’s ‘non-paper’, Peters wrote that IANSA welcomed “the reference to regulating the possession of small arms and light weapons” but urged that it be expanded. She also raised the gun prohibition specter explicitly, recommending the outright prohibition of semi-automatic and automatic rifles and declaring that “(M)any States already prohibit the civilian possession of light weapons, and this should be recognised in the paragraph devoted to light weapons control.

Peters knows that the United States will block any legally binding treaty that contains a reference to regulation of possession of small arms. However, she is doing all that she can to get a UN-sponsored international norm against individual gun possession on the record somehow – what IANSA in the past has referred to as “norms of non-possession.” She claims that many member states are calling for the review conference’s Outcome Document to recognize the critical importance of national gun laws and to suggest guidelines or standards for such laws. Indeed, IANSA has the backing of an inter-governmental organization known as The Parliamentary Forum on Small Arms and Light Weapons which, according to its website, was created to serve as an international platform for parliamentarians interested in small arms related work, to contribute to the advancement of the small arms agenda, and “to provide space for parliamentarians and civil society to meet and join forces”. The Parliamentary Forum is in complete synch with Rebecca Peters’ IANSA agenda. It proposed a ‘Model Parliamentary Resolution on Small Arms and Light Weapons’ that resolved to “strongly recommend that governments prohibit the civilian possession and use of all light weapons and automatic and semi-automatic rifles and machine guns.”

Peters’ strategy, with the help of the chairman of the UN review conference and the Parliamentary Forum, is to enshrine international norms against civilian gun possession in an interpretive document that gun prohibitionists can label ‘customary international law.’ Such a document would legitimize Peters’ dogma that “gun ownership is not a right but a privilege.” IANSA can then use the international norms in our own courts to attack the notion that an individual right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment. They are counting on sympathetic federal judges, right up to the Supreme Court, to interpret the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections by deferring to ‘international norms’ against individual gun possession. In short, the stealth strategy here is for IANSA to drive the UN review conference’s agenda, obtain the wording they seek on curtailing private gun possession in the review conference’s official Outcome Document that they can point to as an ‘international norm’, and then argue that this ‘international norm’ should be incorporated into our courts’ interpretation of the Second Amendment — converting a constitutionally protected individual right into a government-bestowed privilege.

Ironically, IANSA is headquartered in London. One of its UK-based member organizations called International Alert showed no compunction at all in boldly declaring that “the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee individuals the right to possess or carry guns.” Apparently some British folks have forgotten from whom we won our freedom -and why we sought it in the first place. We should as a nation celebrate our Declaration of Independence by telling the gun prohibitionists who are assembling in New York from all over the world during our Independence Day holiday to either stay out of our business or stay out of our country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s