Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

U.N. says the Bill of Rights is a human rights violation

Recently, I mentioned the U.N.'s interesting assertion that there is no human right to self-defense. Not being as sharp or knowledeable as Dave Kopel, it escaped my notice that the U.N.'s position is even more extreme than that--they're actually claiming that a lack of gun laws even more insanely draconian than those in Washington DC constitutes a violation of human rights.

The U.N. report contains the following passage, showing the degree to which they believe nations should be compelled (by international law) to restrict private ownership and use of firearms:

It is reasonable for international human rights bodies to require States to enforce a minimum licensing requirement designed to keep small arms and light weapons out of the hands of persons who are likely to misuse them. … The criteria for licensing may vary from State to State, but most licensing procedures consider the following: (a) minimum age of applicant; (b) past criminal record including any history of interfamilial violence; (c) proof of a legitimate purpose for obtaining a weapon; and (d) mental fitness. Other proposed criteria include knowledge of laws related to small arms, proof of training on the proper use of a firearm and proof of proper storage. Licences should be renewed regularly to prevent transfer to unauthorized persons.
Here's an excerpt from Kopel's excellent article, explaining how the U.N. Human Rights Council (which is horribly misnamed) and their designated "expert" on the subject (University of Minnesota Law Professor Barbara Frey) came to the remarkable conclusion that anything less than a virtual ban on private ownership of firearms constitutes a human rights violation:
BY THE FREY/HRC standards, every American jurisdiction is a human rights violator because its gun laws are not severe enough. Even in New York City or Washington, D.C., the government does not require a gun license applicant to prove that he or she has "a legitimate purpose." Once New York City or D.C. finally let you buy a shotgun, you can use it for any legitimate purpose—sporting clays, gunsmithing practice, collecting or even self-defense (assuming that you somehow can retrieve the locked gun in time to use it against a home invader).

At every gun store in the United States, buyers must pass a background check under the National Instant Check System (or a state equivalent). Most states do not require a separate license for handgun purchases and even fewer require a license for long gun purchases. Only a few states mandate that a person who simply wants to continue owning the guns he already has must renew a license from the government every few years. The absence of mandatory, periodic licensing for continued possession of one’s own guns is another human rights violation, according to Frey.
It seems the U.N. would insist that we nullify the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and virtually outlaw self-defense, or be labeled as a nation that violates human rights. So be it. We'll keep our Bill of Rights, and they can call us what they want. "Sticks and stones . . . " as they say.