Battle of the Bilge

Please Note: The commentary in this article is not meant to imply an official MOAA position on the Gun Control debate.  While this is not a military specific issue, many of our members have contacted us and showed considerable concern.  From time to time, we will address topics that are outside of our official scope to help provide factual information as best we can.

Summary

The election of Barack Obama and the increases in majorities in both the House and Senate of the Democrats, a great deal of chatter has been transmitted across the web regarding gun control and the Second Amendment.  Because there are so many emails, blogs and websites devoted to this issue, we’re going to use a slightly different format for this article.

Fear and Advertising

The most outspoken and influential party to the gun control debate is obviously the National Rifle Association.  The NRA began their fight against Obama once he became the Democratic candidate by setting up the website GunBaNObama http://www.gunbanobama.com/ which was paid for by the NRA Political Victory Fund.  This site highlighted the then candidate’s past voting record as both a state senator and in the national senate.  Nobody mobilizes grassroots support like the NRA, so the site became the rallying point for gun control advocates in opposition to Obama.

In response to the NRA’s actions, FactCheck.org reported that ‘The NRA announced it will spend $40 million during this year’s elections, including $15 million to portray Sen. Barack Obama as a threat to gun rights’.  In the same article, FactCheck disputed the NRA’s ’10 Point Plan to Change the Second Amendment’ on the majority of the powerful lobbyist’s points.

A History of Gun Control Advocacy

Barack Obama has a long history of voting for the restriction of assault weapons and other firearms prior to becoming President.  A good unbiased history of his statements on gun control issues and his voting record can be found here but below are the important ones:

• Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
• FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
• Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
• Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
• 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
• Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
• Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
• Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
• Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
• Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Of course, all of this was before he became President.  The official statements and actions that have come out of the Office of the President since the election have shown that gun control is not a top priority.  There are two major issues that are being promoted on the net currently and both can be seen as bellwethers of future positions on the subject.  The re-imposition of the 1994 assault weapons ban and the possibility of a ‘backdoor’ control measure.  Let’s examine both individually.

Assault Weapons Ban

In 1994, Congress, controlled by a majority of Democrats, imposed a ban on assault weapons, but made a compromise with Republicans that set the ban to expire unless re-authorized in 2004.  By the time the expiration date came around, the Republicans were in control of the White House and Congress and the ban expired.  Now that majority control is back in the hands of the Democrats, the fear is that the ban will be re-introduced and made permanent.

The White House website states that ‘President Obama and Vice-President Biden support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent’, echoing statements that Obama made during his campaign.  But the political reality of this desire is that there is very little support for the ban in Congress, and the Administration seems to be taking that into consideration.  Recently, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stated that ‘I don’t know of any plans’ to get the ban going through Congress.

It appears that the strategy is to go with the ‘enforce the existing laws’ position.  Given the lack of support from Congress, it would be nearly impossible for Obama to push the ban through.  During a press conference at his recent trip to Mexico, the President stated ‘None of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy’ and ‘What we’re focused on now is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws’.

‘Backdoor’ Gun Control

For those opposed to gun control, a more concerning threat is that of President Obama’s support of getting the U.S. to sign on to the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials treaty.  This treaty, thankfully shortened to the more readable acronym CIFTA, was signed in 1997 but never ratified by the Senate.  The Clinton Administration never actually submitted the treaty to Congress for ratification because it knew there was no chance it would be passed.  Today, 33 of the 37 nations of the western hemisphere have signed on to the treaty.  The full treaty language can be found here:

Chuck Baldwin, from NewsWithViews.com lays out the worst case scenario if the treaty were enacted (although we could hardly call the source unbiased):

Should the Senate ratify CIFTA, Americans who reload ammunition would be required to get a license from the government, and factory guns and ammunition would be priced almost out of existence due to governmental requirements to “mark” each one manufactured. Even the simple act of adding an after-market piece of equipment to a firearm, such as a scope or bipod, or reassembling a gun after cleaning it could fall into the category of “illicit manufacturing” of firearms and require government license and oversight.

In addition, CIFTA would authorize the U.S. federal government (and open the door to international entities) to supervise and regulate virtually the entire American firearms industry.

It is highly doubtful that the treaty implications would be so drastic as to destroy the firearms industry in the U.S. and the treaty contains clear language that it would not restrict ‘lawful ownership or use of firearms’.  Despite not presenting the treaty for ratification in 1997, the U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States at the time, Harriet Babbitt, recently testified before the Senate that ‘Ratifying [CIFTA] would simply show the U.S. commitment to cooperating with our OAS partners’ and that ‘CIFTA is essentially modeled on U.S. law, and imposes no new requirements on this nation’.

Despite the testimony of Ambassador Babbitt, the NRA opposes the ratification of the treaty.  They state that proponents of gun control will use it as a backdoor justification for pushing through tight restrictions on ownership rights.  However, President Obama reaffirmed his desire to get the treaty ratified during the same press conference in Mexico:

In addition…I am urging the Senate in the United States to ratify an inter-American treaty known as CIFTA to curb small arms trafficking that is a source of so many of the weapons used in this drug war.

Treaties are not like laws, and do not need to pass through both houses of Congress to become reality.  Only the President’s signature and ratification from the Senate is needed.  But again, the political realities that are keeping the Assault Weapons Ban from being reintroduced are firmly in place here, and this is one fight the White House will be reluctant to push with any force in the near future.

Conclusions

Given President Obama’s voting history and personal ideology it is hard to imagine that the issue of gun control will not come into play at some point in his presidency.  That being said, the fear of a concentrated effort to remove or restrict gun rights at this time is simple hyperbole.  The American people, especially in rural districts, on both sides of the political spectrum, do not support such restrictions and there are far too many other problems facing the new administration.  A move to bring back the AWB or ratify CIFTA would cost political points that the Democrats need to focus on those problems.  The reaction from firearms dealerships and gun enthusiasts in some cases has been to buy more guns. And despite the abundance of blogs and websites insisting that the end is nigh, there are no real indications in Congress that restrictions are on the way.

You Can Help
Remember that forwarding a message you read but are unsure of without checking the available resources helps contribute to the Bilge. Help us battle it, and if you haven’t seen us write one of them up, email it to us here.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS