Self-defense, the UN, and the 2nd Amendment

June 11, 2:23 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

7 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

      Oleg Volk photo

Recently, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging Chicago's draconian gun laws on 2nd Amendment grounds.  The gist of the court's decision was that the Second Amendment has not (yet) been incorporated--has not, in other words, been determined to apply to state and local governments.  Given that the 9th Circuit has ruled that the Second Amendment should be incorporated, the likelihood is considered high that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the plaintiffs' appeal, thus ruling once and for all on the incorporation question.

National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea wrote about one disturbing aspect of the 7th Circuit's decision that I have not seen much discussed elsewhere.

Slaves to stare decisis, the 7th Circuit expects us to believe that the creature, that is, the law, takes precedence over the creator, the people, in this unbelievable speculation from the decision:

Suppose a state were to decide that people cornered in their homes must surrender rather than fight back—in other words, that burglars should be deterred by the criminal law rather than self help. That decision would imply that no one is entitled to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would itself be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment protects only the interests of law-abiding citizens...

Our hypothetical is not as farfetched as it sounds. Self-defense is a common-law gloss on criminal statutes, a defense that many states have modified by requiring people to retreat when possible, and to use non-lethal force when retreat is not possible...An obligation to avoid lethal force in self-defense might imply an obligation to use pepper spray rather than handguns.

Basically, what Mr. Codrea alertly notes is that the 7th Circuit Court sees no Constitutional obstacle to outlawing self-defense in general.

As it turns out, the U.N. would be quite comfortable with outlawing self-defense:

21. No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources
of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles. While the right to life is
recognized in virtually every major international human rights treaty, the principle of
self-defence is expressly recognized in only one, the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), article 2.15
Self-defence, however, is not recognized as a right in the European Convention on Human
Rights. According to one commentator, "The function of this provision is simply to remove
from the scope of application of article 2 (1) killings necessary to defend against unlawful
violence. It does not provide a right that must be secured by the State."

"But what," you might ask, "do U.N. findings have to do with the United States?"  The U.S., after all, has not only the Second Amendment, but also a long tradition of supporting the right to self-defense, even in jurisdictions (like Chicago) that make that support mostly theoretical, by severely restricting the most effective means.

The danger lies in the possibility of the Obama administration succeeding in persuading the Senate to ratify dangerous treaties like the Inter-American Arms Treaty (often referred to by the Spanish acronym, CIFTA).  That treaty would, among other things, require licensing for the handloading of ammunition, and would also mandate that the "international community" have access to a database of American gun owners.  Lou Dobbs discusses that last part below:

David Codrea has more on both CIFTA and yet another dangerous treaty here and here.

Both Congress and the Obama administration  have appeared, so far, to be in headlong retreat from the kinds of citizen disarmament laws they have made clear they would dearly love to pass, supposedly in deference to political realities that for the moment, make such attacks on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms too difficult.  Groups like the Brady Campaign are growing increasingly strident about that.

With Obama's vocal support for CIFTA, though, I cannot help but wonder if that "retreat" is merely a feint--perhaps the real goal is an international end run around the Second Amendment--and possibly, self-defense itself.