Sen. Moran Introduces Bill to Protect Rights of American Gun Owners- JUST SAYS NO TO THE UN

Kansas Senator Jerry Moran says that any United Nations Treaty reaching the Senate for ratification is Dead on Arrival if it infringes on US citizens 2nd Amendment rights or other Constitutional freedoms. Here's his statement.

May 17 2012

Sen. Moran Introduces Bill to Protect Rights of American Gun Owners

U.N. Arms Trade Treaty would restrict lawful private ownership of firearms in America

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) spoke to his colleagues in the Senate today about legislation he introduced, S. 2205, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, to protect the rights of American gun owners from the effects of a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.

In October of 2009, at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama Administration voted for the United States to participate in negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty – a reversal of the previous administration’s position. This treaty is supposedly intended to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms,” including tanks, helicopters and missiles. However, by threatening to include civilian firearms within its scope, the Arms Trade Treaty would restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in our country.

In July, the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty will take place in New York, during which time a treaty will be finalized for adoption.

Excerpts from Sen. Moran’s remarks can be found below, along with links to audio and video downloads.

“More than two centuries ago, our founding fathers wisely amended the United States Constitution to guarantee a Bill of Rights for its citizens. Since then, our democracy has stood strong as Americans have enjoyed liberties unparalleled in the world – including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

“Today, our freedoms and our country’s sovereignty are in danger of being undermined by the United Nations. To ensure our liberties remain for our generation and future generations, I am offering legislation to protect the rights of American gun owners from the effects of a U.N. arms treaty.”

“Given where the process stands today, I am gravely concerned this treaty will infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners. I am also concerned it will be used by other countries who do not share our freedoms, to wrongly place the burden of controlling international crime and terrorism on law-abiding American citizens.”

“Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt this commonsense legislation. On July 22 of last year, fifty-seven U.S. Senators joined me in reminding the Obama Administration that our firearm freedoms are not negotiable. We notified President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton of our intent to oppose ratification of a treaty that in any way restricts Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Our opposition is strong enough to block the treaty from passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require two-thirds approval to be ratified.”

“As the treaty process continues, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act seeks to further reinforce to the Administration that our country’s sovereignty and firearm freedoms must not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights. America leads the world in export standards to ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes and my bill will make certain that law-abiding Americans are not wrongfully punished.”

“In the days ahead, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure an Arms Trade Treaty that undermines the Constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival in the Senate.”

See Senator Moran standing up against the United Nations in the U.S. Senate as he spoke to his colleagues in the Senate on May 17, 2012, about legislation he introduced, S. 2205, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, to protect the rights of American gun owners from the effects of a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty:

Federal Appeals Courts Say Illegal Aliens Have No 2nd Amendment Gun Rights

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the Fifth Circuit Court this week in ruling that Illegal aliens have no right to own or possess a firearm while being here. The Firth Circuit had said earlier that illegal immigrants are not part of the "people" protected by the Second Amendment and have no constitutional right to bear arms.

Emmanuel Huitron–Guizar entered a conditional guilty plea to being an illegal alien in possession of firearms. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison, and then will be deported when he finishes the sentence.

According to the Court's opinion, “Mr. Huitron–Guizar was born in Mexico and brought to Wyoming at age three. In March 2011, officers executed a warrant on his home and discovered three firearms—a 7.62x39mm rifle, a 12–gauge semi-automatic shotgun, and a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol. They learned from his sister that Mr. Huitron–Guizar, now 24 years old, was, unlike her, not a U.S. citizen.”1

He argued to the Court that his conviction for illegal possession of firearms violated his “Second Amendment Rights” as interpreted by the Heller decision that the, “Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, like self-defense within the home.”1

The Court pointed out to Mr. Huitron-Guizar that, “…no right is absolute. The right to bear arms, however venerable, is qualified by what one might call the “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” and “why.” For instance, it is unlawful to knowingly receive guns with obliterated serial numbers… A juvenile, with some exceptions, cannot possess a handgun…. An airline passenger may not carry aboard a concealed firearm …Nor may a drug dealer use or carry a weapon to protect his stash…” 1

The Court then turned its attention to the Gun Control Act of 1968 saying, “…amended Gun Control Act of 1968, forbids gun possession by nine classes of individuals: felons, fugitives, addicts or users of controlled substances, the mentally ill, illegal and non-immigrant aliens, the dishonorably discharged, renouncers of their citizenship, those subject to court orders for harassing, stalking, or threatening intimate partners or their children, and those convicted for misdemeanor domestic violence. No Second Amendment challenge since Heller to any of these provisions has succeeded.” 1 They then informed him that the illegal alien firearms prohibition was upheld by the 5^th Circuit last year.

Huitron–Guizar agreed that, “… those guilty of serious crimes and the mentally ill are sensibly stripped of firearms they might otherwise lawfully keep. Yet he wonders what it is about aliens that permits Congress to impose what he considers a similar disability?”1

The Court said this about Alien’s rights. “Mere lawful presence in the country creates an implied assurance of safe conduct and gives him certain rights; they become more extensive and secure when he makes preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and they expand to those of full citizenship upon naturalization.

This ascending scale of constitutional rights is elaborate. An alien outside the country has fewer rights than one within, e.g., an alien held at the border has no right to a deportation hearing. ..An unlawfully present alien has fewer rights than one lawfully here; an illegal alien generally has no right to assert a selective-enforcement claim to thwart deportation. A lawful alien here fewer than five years can be denied enrollment in Medicare, unlike one here for, say, a decade... A temporary resident alien has fewer rights than a permanent resident alien; the former, for example, may be barred from making campaign contributions…Likewise, a lawful permanent resident has fewer rights than a citizen, since a state can form a citizens-only police force. ..Finally, one right is limited to natural born citizens: eligibility to run for president.”1

What it came down to was, “The line separating lawful and unlawful aliens is often as bright as that between aliens and citizens.” That, and the fact that, “Federal statutes that classify based on alienage need only a rational basis; they flow from plenary powers over admission, exclusion, naturalization, national security, and foreign relations.”1

Finding the law denying gun rights to Illegal Aliens Constitutional on a "Rational Basis" simply meant that the Government had to show to the Court that the law was rationally connected to its objective. This is the least strict way to interpret a law’s Constitutionality.

The Court closed the door completely on Illegal aliens’ gun rights here by saying,

“That Congress saw fit to exclude illegal aliens from carrying guns may indicate its belief, entitled to our respect, that such aliens, as a class, possess no such constitutional right.”1

1  

UNITED STATES v. HUITRON GUIZAR

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Emmanuel HUITRON–GUIZAR, Defendant–Appellant. No. 11–8051.-- May 07, 2012

VISIT OUR OTHER BLOG:
armedselfdefense.blogspot.com

Mindless Destruction Is The Name Of The Game On May Day, 2012

Florida Governor Rick Scott Just Says "NO" To Tampa Gun Ban

Florida Republican Governor, Rick Scott responded to Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn's letter requesting him to put the Florida Concealed Weapon Permits in Tampa "on hold" during the Republican National Convention that will take place in Tampa. Mayor Buckhorn wanted an Executive Order from Scott that would prohibit transportation of firearms in downtown Tampa during the Convention. 


Tampa's Mayor also wanted a "gun free zone" adjacent to the  "Safe Zone" area where the Secret Service has already banned firearms. In a letter that will make anti firearms rights groups apoplectic, Scott wrote to the Mayor that his request amounted to a disarming of citizens "in all of downtown Tampa." That would include areas across the river and distant from the Convention Center. 


Scott's letter then quoted the pesky Second Amendment of the US Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution. He wrote, "These provisions guarantee that the government may not infringe the peoples' right to keep and bear arms." He also reminded the City fathers that the United States Supreme Court has explained that those rights have real force, and that government bans on firearms are generally impermissible. He added that while the government can enforce longstanding prohibitions on carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, an absolute ban on possession in entire neighborhoods and regions "would surely violate the Second Amendment."


While the Governor shared the concern of "violent anti-government protests or civil unrest," and the "threat of substantial injury or harm to Florida residents and visitors to the state," it wasn't clear to him how disarming law abiding citizens would better protect them from dangers and threats from those who would "flout the law." The Governor added that "It is at just such times that the Constitutional right to self defense is most precious and must be protected from government overreach." 


The Governor was confident that the many Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies that were focused on the RNC would adequately protect Floridians and visitors without sweeping infringements on "our most sacred constitutional traditions." He closed the letter admonishing the Mayor by saying, "We have had political conventions in this country since the dawn of the country, They are an essential means of furthering our constitutional rights to free speech and to vote. Our fundamental right to keep and bear arms has coexisted with those freedoms for just as long, and I see no reason to depart from that tradition this year."