While reading the Eagle editorial on Sunday May 12, "Propaganda, bucks and guns status quo," one sentence popped out at me. In the survey sent to NRA members was the question "Do you oppose the proposed United Nations gun ban treaty that would give international bureaucrats the power to dictate firearms policy here in the United States?". When I read this the two words that came to mind were ironic and hypocritical.
If you go back to the vanilla gun law recently defeated by Congress you will find a Republican-sponsored amendment that in essence said that if a person was legally licensed to carry a gun in any state they could legally carry that gun in any other state regardless of that state’s laws. For example, if a person held a license to carry a concealed firearm in Arizona, a state with lax to no gun laws, that person would be able to go to Connecticut, a state that just past stricter gun laws, and there is nothing local law enforcement could do about it.
I don’t see the difference between the United Nations proposal and the Republican amendment.