Uncategorized

SAAMI’s Statement At The Arms Trade Talks

July 13, 2012 by 2 Comments

SAAMI – the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute – delivered an official statement at the Arms Trade Treaty talks going on at the United Nations in New York. SAAMI is a registered UN non-governmental organization (NGO) with roster status. Earlier this year, they took steps to withdraw any reference of SAAMI association from the U.N. agency project to create International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) because they found the process tainted by the anti-gun forces.

Richard Patterson, Managing Director of SAAMI, delivered the following statement on Wednesday to the UN in New York. Mr. Patterson made some very good points that unfortunately will probably be ignored. I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting them.

Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Richard Patterson and I’m the Managing Director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, also known as SAAMI. SAAMI was created in 1926 at the request of the US government to create safety and reliability standards in the design, manufacture, transportation, storage and use of firearms, ammunition and components.

The true success of this conference requires a focus on the big picture. Guns are tools, and like any tool can be used for great good and great harm. We all know the tragedy caused by those few who choose the path of violence, regardless of the tools they use. But you must also remember that hundreds of millions of citizens regularly use firearms for the greater good. Regulated hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance with healthy ecosystems and is a major contributor to economic stability—and thereby promotes peace—in rural areas and developing countries. Target shooting has its roots in the very beginnings of civilization. This is an Olympic year, and shooting events attract the third largest number of participating nations of any sport at the Olympic Games. And people in every nation in this room—including the UN itself—use firearms to protect the law abiding and enforce peace. A well-meaning treaty that does not support the positive use of firearms is doomed to cause more harm than good. A simple step in the right direction is to focus on the fully automatic weapons of war and exclude sporting firearms.

There are some who want to see the inclusion of small arms ammunition in this treaty. As the UN’s Group of Government Experts has determined, the shear numbers involved in ammunition—the US alone produces more than 8 billion rounds of ammunition per year and there are potentially hundreds of billions of rounds in stockpiles around the world—prevent any sort of realistic marking and tracing scheme. But even if the treaty includes a general requirement for shipments, what will that do? The US has some great legal and technical points supporting their position, but let me focus for a minute on the practical side of the equation. Millions of dollars would be spent creating and implementing an export and import authorization process for ammunition. Even more money must be spent for a system of verification. As an example, let’s say a shipment of 1 ton of small arms ammunition goes through this bureaucratic process and is approved. An expensive follow-up system results in a trained inspector showing up at the intended point of delivery. The inspector sees there is far less than 1 ton of ammunition and says “Where’s the rest of the shipment?”

And the answer is “we shot it.”

Now what does the inspector do? Millions of dollars would have been wasted—diverted into a system that cannot work. This money could otherwise have been used to fight those who choose violence.

Just as you cannot be all things to all people, this treaty can’t either. Focus on the real problems, that can be managed—focus on military weapons, and avoid being distracted by topics like ammunition, which are laudable in their idealism, but completely lacking in their practicality. Be focused, be specific, and draft a treaty with precise definitions that minimize the loopholes of “creative interpretation.” This is the path to a successful Arms Trade Treaty.

Thank you.

Uncategorized

Vanderboegh And Codrea On Lou Dobbs Tonight

July 13, 2012 by 4 Comments

I’m glad to see Lou Dobbs give Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea the credit they deserve for breaking the story on Operation Fast and Furious. They were interviewed this evening on his Fox Business show about their ethics complaint against Eric Holder as well as what they see coming next for the investigation.

Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com

A bit off topic but I think Mike looks good given his recent surgery and the attendant complications. You can tell he’s lost some weight. I hope and pray that his recovery continues without any further complications.

Uncategorized

Bar Ethics Complaint Against Holder Makes Fox News

July 12, 2012 by 2 Comments

The formal ethics complaint filed with the DC Bar by Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea got some airtime today on Fox News.

William LaJeunesse of Fox discussed the complaint with Brian Darling of the Heritage Foundation and Michael Frisch of Georgetown Law Center. Frisch was formerly senior assistant bar counsel to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. As might be expected, they differed in the seriousness of the ethics complaint and how it would be treated by the DC Bar.

Darling, who is a Senior Fellow for Government Studies at Heritage, thought the complaint was on solid ground. However, he didn’t expect them to take it up until next year.

“It is clearly a reasonable basis for a complaint against Eric Holder to say ‘you are in charge of the Justice Department, the Justice Department is refusing to produce documents that were subpoenaed by Congress and as a result you were held in contempt to Congress not once, but twice’,” he said.

Frisch, who is an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown, didn’t think the DC Bar would take the complaint seriously and would likely dismiss it.

“Because this particular complaint is written as if the attorney general had already been convicted of a crime, I think it will likely be rejected on its face,” said Michael Frisch, former member of the D.C. Bar Counsel and current Georgetown Law School professor.

Frisch goes on to add that the DC Bar has the option of deferring any action until such time as a parallel proceeding such as a civil proceeding is completed.

Mike and David fired a shot across the bow and it was a brilliant strategic move. Whether it is squashed or not by the DC Bar is actually irrelevant because it has kept the issue of Holder and contempt alive in the mainstream media.

Uncategorized

Chris Cox On The Arms Trade Treaty

July 12, 2012 by 1 Comment

Ginny Simone of NRA News interviewed Chris Cox, head of the NRA-ILA, about the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty yesterday. This interview was after Wayne LaPierre spoke to the delegates of the ATT talks and presented the NRA’s position.

Chris made some good points in this interview. Perhaps the best was when he said that “our freedoms shouldn’t be dumbed down to an international standard; the truth is that international standards need to be brought up to United States (levels).” Given that the ATT has countries like Iran in a leadership role I don’t see this happening. That said, Chris is correct.

Another important point that Chris made was that treaties hang around forever until such time as there is a President and Senate willing to ratify it. Unlike a bill passed in one house of Congress that dies at the end of that Congressional session if the other house doesn’t pass it, an international treaty hangs around like a Zombie.

Uncategorized

Why Is ATF Promoting Brady Campaign Numbers?

July 12, 2012 by 7 Comments

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has produced a series of public service announcements encouraging people to report “gun crime”. They appear to be aimed at reducing gangs and gang violence.

The first two videos produced feature former Green Bay Packer Antonio Freeman and actor Clifton Powell. The video with Freeman entitled “Game Over” is below.

The video starts with these statements:

“Gun Violence Killed 31,593 People in One Year”

“Gun Violence Killed 2,966 Children (Aged 19 and Under)”

“Gun Violence Kills 87 People Every Day in the U.S.”

And the source for these numbers? The Brady Campaign and this “report”.

These raw numbers come from the CDC’s WISQARS database for 2009. If you go deeper, you find that 59% of the deaths using a firearm are suicides. Only 36% are homicides or what the average person would call a result of violent crime.

Of the 87 people that “gun violence” kills per day, 56 are self-inflicted. Only an average of 31 per day nationwide (or a few weekends in Chicago) are the result of crime.

Looking at the “children” killed by “gun violence”, we find that 2,420 out of the 2,966 deaths are for those aged 16 or older. This would include self-inflicted deaths, gang violence, legal interventions by police, accidents, and murders. Given that a 16 year old can be tried as an adult in most states, I think that is a more appropriate age cut-off than those under age 20.

The data is out there and it is available from reputable government sources. Given that, why is the ATF using skewed statistics from the Brady Campaign? Moreover, why are they using the term “gun violence” when as the chief Federal agency charged with the regulation of firearms they should know better?

These videos are nothing but propaganda and the ATF should be ashamed of themselves. I think Congress should be asking just how much was spent to produce these pieces of propaganda. They should also be asking why they used the Brady Campaign talking points.

Uncategorized

LaPierre Addresses Arms Trade Treaty Talks

July 11, 2012 by

The pro-gun NGOs have been jerked around by the organizers of the Arms Trade Treaty talks going on this month at the United Nations. First, they were supposed to speak at the end of the conference and then at the beginning. It appears that they have struck a happy median and are having them speak this week.

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA was finally able to present his brief remarks today to the ATT talks. They have just been posted by the NRA-ILA and appear below:

Mr. President, thank you for this brief opportunity to address this conference. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 21 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world, with four million members who represent 100 million law-abiding Americans who own firearms.

On behalf of those 100 million American gun owners, I am here to announce NRA’s strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens’ right to self-defense.

No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteed to us.

We will not stand idly by while international organizations, whether state-based or stateless, attempt to undermine the fundamental liberties that our men and women in uniform have fought so bravely to preserve – and on which our entire American system of government is based.

For six years, the NRA has closely monitored this effort for an Arms Trade Treaty.

We have watched with increasing concern and, one year ago, I delivered to the Preparatory Committee our objections to including civilian arms in the ATT. I said then … and I will repeat now … that the only way to address NRA’s objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty.

That is the only solution. On that there will be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment freedom. Period.

Our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment so Americans would never have to live in tyranny.

For any foreign entity to attempt to encroach on that great freedom is offensive to every American who has ever breathed our free air, or who has ever used a firearm to fend off an evil attacker – whether a criminal breaking into their home, or in defense of their family against a tyrant halfway around the world.

Our Second Amendment is freedom’s most valuable, most cherished, most irreplaceable idea. History proves it. When you ignore the right of good people to own firearms to protect their freedom, you become the enablers of future tyrants whose regimes will destroy millions and millions of defenseless lives.

Without apology, the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms.

Let there be no confusion. Any treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership in its scope will be met with the NRA’s greatest force of opposition.

Mr. President, there are those who believe that merely excluding civilian firearms from the ATT preamble will be sufficient.

Let me state – in the clearest possible terms – that it is not. A preamble to a treaty has no force of law. We know that, and a strong bipartisan majority of the United States Senate and House of Representatives know it as well.

Any Arms Trade Treaty must be adopted by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, which has 100 members. Already, 58 Senators have objected to any treaty that includes civilian arms, and a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives also opposes such a treaty.

The NRA represents hundreds of millions of Americans who will never surrender our fundamental firearms freedom to international standards, agreements, or consensus.

America will always stand as a symbol of freedom and the overwhelming force of a free, armed citizenry to protect and preserve it.

On behalf of all NRA members and American gun owners, we are here to announce that we will not tolerate any attack – from any entity or organization whatsoever – on our Constitution or our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Thank you.

UPDATE: Here is the video from Wayne’s speech before the ATT talks. 

Uncategorized

Oral Hearings In Jennings v. BATFE Were Held Yesterday

July 11, 2012 by 2 Comments

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments yesterday in the NRA’s appeal of Jennings et al v. BATFE. This case, originally known as D’Cruz v. BATFE, challenges the Federal law that bars 18-20 year olds from purchasing handguns at retail from a licensed firearms dealer.

This case was heard originally in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas before Judge Sam Cummings. He ruled for the BATFE and the NRA appealed a few days later. Judge Cummings found that the rights of 18-20 year olds were not violated as they could always buy a handgun privately and that it was within the purview of Congress to set the age at which someone could purchase a firearm from a dealer.

The NRA released this on the case:

Fairfax, Va. – Oral arguments occurred today in the United Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, in which the National Rifle Association is appealing a decision by a federal court in Texas which held that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the right of young adults to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers.

“The NRA has been engaged in this ongoing fight — not just in Congress and in state legislatures, but also in the courts — for the right of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. All Americans deserve for their Second Amendment rights to be fully respected. If the law says you’re old enough to fight for your country, it should allow 18-20 year old adults to purchase and own a handgun for any lawful purpose,” Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued the ruling that is being appealed. The plaintiffs are a group of law-abiding 18- to 20-year old adults who are challenging the federal ban on dealer sales of handguns to persons under 21, who are treated as adults for virtually every other purpose under the law. The lower court wrongly compared the ban to other restrictions the Supreme Court has said would be “presumptively lawful,” such as the ban on sales to convicted felons.

The NRA filed a brief on behalf of these law-abiding young adults pointing out that nearly a decade before the U.S. Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, the Fifth Circuit itself had held (in the 2001 case of United States v. Emerson) that Second Amendment claims should be decided based on the amendment’s history and text. The history of the Founding era makes clear that 18-year-olds were considered adults for purposes of the right to keep and bear arms; for example, the Militia Act of 1792 required 18-year-olds to “be enrolled in the militia” and to arm themselves accordingly.

A parallel case, challenging the state of Texas’ age limit of 21 for issuance of concealed handgun licenses, is also pending in the Fifth Circuit.

The oral hearings can be heard here. Arguing for the NRA was Charles Cooper and for the United State was Anisha Sasheen Dasgupta.

The case was heard before Judges Carolyn King (appointed by Jimmy Carter), Catherina Haynes (appointed by George W. Bush), and Edward Prado (appointed by George W. Bush). 

Uncategorized

At Least The Canadians Get It

July 11, 2012 by 4 Comments

Most of the developed world seems to be living in la-la land when it comes to the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty. I would include the Obama Administration in that category despite any reassurances that they might give regarding the Second Amendment. Not so out in la-la land are the Canadians whose statement at the opening of the Arms Trade Treaty talks has some realism in it.

For example, the Canadians insist that it is important for the ATT to recognize the legitimacy of lawful trade in firearms as well as that it recognize “the lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for personal and recreational uses.” They propose adding the following two paragraphs to the Preamble of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Recognizing that the purpose of the ATT is to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit and irresponsible transfer of conventional arms and their diversion into the illicit market, including for use in transnational organized crime and terrorism;

Noting that the ATT acknowledges and respects responsible and accountable trans-national use of firearms for recreational purposes, such as sport shooting, hunting and other similar forms of lawful activities, whose legitimacy is recognised by the State Parties.

I would also add in there the self-defense of individuals but it seems that the United Nations concept of lawful self-defense extends only to nations and not to individuals.

Given the recent experience with their own Firearms Registry and what a colossal and expensive failure it ended up being, it is no surprise that the Canadians say any additional reporting commitments be practical and realistic. They note for large importers and exporters maintaining detailed records of each and every transaction would overwhelm “virtually any administrative system now in existence.”

They go on to add that any reporting requirements must not contain so much details as to impair the national security of individual states nor compromise “the legally-protected information of private companies or the personal information of private individuals.”

I love their last point where they insist that if any new administrative unit is needed to implement and administer a new ATT then its funding should come out of the existing UN budget. Moreover, any new personnel would come from existing UN agencies and be located within existing UN institutions.

The points that the Canadians make notwithstanding, I still think the best treaty is no treaty and that the US should have told the UN to stick their ATT just like it did when John Bolton was the Ambassador to the UN.