Jul 13, 2012 No Comments ›› Pat Dollard
Excerpted from Defcon Hill today: Defense hawks in the Senate are in a holding pattern on a United Nations arms treaty that’s drawing strong opposition from the National Rifle Association over Second Amendment concerns.
Several influential Republicans defense hawks said Thursday they have to study the issue further before signing on to oppose it, despite a vocal pressure campaign from the NRA.
NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre on Wednesday told the UN conference negotiating the agreement that 58 senators have pledged to oppose the treaty if it covers civilian arms over fears this would infringe on the right to bear arms. LaPierre pointed to letters signed by the senators last year.
But the comments from senators on Thursday signals the fate of the treaty in the Senate may remain more up in the air.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told The Hill that he has to look at the issue very carefully before he takes a position on the treaty, which is still being hashed out at the UN.
“Obviously I wouldn’t support anything that infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” McCain said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of McCain, said that he did not know yet where he fell on the treaty.
Graham and McCain are among 45 Republicans who signed onto a letter from Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) last year stating an opposition to a treaty involving civilian arms. Thirteen Democrats signed a similar letter last year from Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.).
In the letter, Moran wrote they would oppose any effort to restrict “the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition, and related items.”
The two lawmakers, however, are not included among 19 Republican co-sponsors on Moran’s “ Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012” introduced in May.
Treaty supporters, including the Obama administration, say covering civilian arms with the treaty is an important step to keep arms out of the hands of terrorists, and that the Second Amendment concerns have no merit.
They argue that the treaty would bring much of the world in line with U.S. standards without affecting the rules that govern domestic sales, and that removing civilian arms would essentially gut the treaty.
The NRA argues that covering civilian arms in the treaty could violate U.S. citizens’ Second Amendment Rights. They say they will oppose any restriction on the rights of U.S. citizens to purchase or possess firearms or ammunition.
Retired Maj. Gen. Roger R. Blunt wrote an op-ed in The Hill Thursday accusing the gun lobby was distorting what the treaty would and would not do.
He wrote that the treaty’s charter would “prevent it from having any influence over domestic gun laws or sales within countries.”
The gun rights group has a contentious relationship with the Obama administration. Just last month it urged the House to vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over a dispute between House Republicans and the Department of Justice over documents related to the Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation. The NRA mentioned Holder’s efforts on gun control in explaining its position on Holder.
Others on the Armed Services Committee who frequently align with McCain and Graham have come out against the treaty.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) told The Hill she is opposed over “sovereignty concerns and impact on the Second Amendment rights of United States citizens.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the No. 2 Republican on the committee, is also against the arms treaty.
The UN treaty currently being negotiated in New York and is expected to be finalized later this month.