PDA

View Full Version : Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs


jinggoyd1967
09-01-2009, 1:37 PM
I did a little reading on this but I'm not quite clear on some things. Can this office/position affect gun rights within the U.S.? It seems that most of the functions have to do with other governments rather than policy in the U.S.
Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security link:http://www.state.gov/t/index.htm

dwtt
09-01-2009, 2:29 PM
This position affects mostly the US foreign policy regarding weapons of war and arms sales on the international market. It also affects US sales of arms and munitions to other countries. The way it affects US civilian firearms is by the Arms Export Control Act, which regulates US firearms going to another country that may cause mayhem and havoc in foreign countries. You know, like how they say the US is responsible for supplying 90% of weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels, like full auto M-60's, AK-47s, M-16s, FALs, RPG-7s, .50 Cal M2s, claymore and C-4 explosives, ...etc.
As long as you are not exporting firearms or any ITAR regulated items, you likely won't have to deal with that Ellen Tauscher.

OlderThanDirt
09-01-2009, 2:58 PM
There are several threads that discuss the impact of treaties like the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. Its this type of treaty that can be influenced by the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. However, as with all treaties, it would have to be ratified by the US Senate.

jinggoyd1967
09-01-2009, 3:43 PM
Thanks a lot for the info.
I'm getting the impression that the Under Secretary can still make recommendations to the POTUS or make statements that can affect 2A issues.
I'm not trying to start a new conspiracy theory but Ellen Tauscher does have a NRA F rating. She also voted NO on the issues of on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance and on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. I was under the impression that she could enter into treaties similar to the The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that could impact gun ownership in America.

OlderThanDirt
09-01-2009, 3:54 PM
Obama can sign any treaty he wants, but it is not valid and binding until ratified by the Senate. For example, President Clinton signed the International Criminal Court treaty, but the Senate refuse to ratify it at that time. The US has a long history of signing treaties that never get ratified by the Senate.

Gray Peterson
09-01-2009, 4:10 PM
Thanks a lot for the info.
I'm getting the impression that the Under Secretary can still make recommendations to the POTUS or make statements that can affect 2A issues.
I'm not trying to start a new conspiracy theory but Ellen Tauscher does have a NRA F rating. She also voted NO on the issues of on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance and on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. I was under the impression that she could enter into treaties similar to the The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that could impact gun ownership in America.

Excuse me, but the bill that you are talking about (the court jurisdiction stripping bill) is unconstitutional. Congress cannot strip the courts of authority to hear cases involving fundamental rights. Your support of a bill to the lock the courthouse door to those challenging laws under our bill of rights gives a standing rise to the idea that a future Congress could decide to strip the courts of the ability to hear cases against the federal and state governments under the 2nd amendment.

You can't play favorites with the civil rights of all Americans, including those who are objecting to a McCarthyist amendment to the Pledge in 1954. The original pledge was actually created by Francis Bellamy, a "Christian Socialist".

Better question is: Would you support Congress closing the courthouse door on Alan Gura or Don Kilmer?

I have several disagreements with her on policy issues, but Tauscher made the right call on the Pledge court stripping bill.

jinggoyd1967
09-01-2009, 6:41 PM
Gray Peterson,
I am not as well versed such on such issues and I want to learn more. Could you please clarify the "Pledge court stripping bill". I thought HR 2389 was limited to the Pledge of Allegiance. I was not aware it extended beyond that.

Gray Peterson
09-01-2009, 10:37 PM
Gray Peterson,
I am not as well versed such on such issues and I want to learn more. Could you please clarify the "Pledge court stripping bill". I thought HR 2389 was limited to the Pledge of Allegiance. I was not aware it extended beyond that.


Um, it does not matter if it extended beyond the pledge of allegiance or not. You saw something on a forum about "Tauscher voted against protecting the pledge of allegiance". What you didn't realize is that the bill was unconstitutional.

Here is the language of the actual bill:

`(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of , or the validity under the Constitution of , the Pledge of Allegiance , as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation.

`(b) The limitation in subsection (a) does not apply to--

`(1) any court established by Congress under its power to make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States; or

`(2) the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals;'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

The reason for this sort of bill even being considered is that there's some belief, primarily on the conservative end of things, that you can somehow take civil rights out of the jurisdiction of the courts. This is based on a reading of Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. What many of these morons (and yes, these people are morons, Ron Paul included) keep forgetting is that amendments to the constitutions are self enforcing.

Because of the existence of the bill of rights (including un-enumerated rights under the 9th amendment) and the further amendments, stripping appellate jurisdiction from the courts under constitutional issues is very suspect.

Again, you lead down the path of this, where the courts have their jurisdiction stripped, and it gets upheld, it is my belief that we'll be going down the path of total anarchy and revolt because it will be back and forth between the two parties stripping jurisdictions of the courts from reviewing issues they don't want to be reviewed, then push for massive amounts of gun control.

Again, I ask anyone: Do you want Congress to be passing bills to try to keep Alan Gura and his Second Amendment cases out of the federal courts? If you don't, then please stop supporting legislation that gives rise to the idea that Congress can do so on your favorite issue, whether it be abortion, the pledge, marriage equality, or flag burning.

As for the flag burning constitution amendment, I argue two things: 1) The method that they are trying to do so is actually proper, unlike jurisdiction stripping and 2) if I were a Congressperson, I would vote against it on the basis that putting some sort of special protection on a symbol is a form of deification of it. I would equate it with the 18th amendment (Prohibition), a huge embarrassment that's not worth the cost of enforcement. Again, it's also a deification of patriotism. I don't need a flag or laws protecting it especially from mistreatment in order to be a truly patriotic country. A true patriot would curse at the ones burning the flag, but stand in the way of government bureaucrats trying to enforce such a law because there are such things as a greater of two evils.

I also happened to reading this gem from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, in the dissent from en-banc hearing in Silveira v. Lockyer:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons
of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines
the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw
the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second
Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those
exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have
failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection
and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the
courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.
However improbable these contingencies may seem today,
facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make
only once.