INTERPOL Rumors

[Barry 'Bigbare' Carson]

Friday, January 08, 2010Over the past year, we have reported several times on the abundance ofrumors being circulated regarding firearm issues. Among other things, we'veheard phony tales circulating about such things as guns being banned for theelderly, ammunition with expiration dates, a requirement that guns be listedon tax returns, and a prohibition on gun and ammunition imports. The latestscuttlebutt has to do with a recent Executive Order by President Obamaconcerning the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL).Some have argued that the order would make INTERPOL and its officials immunefrom civil suit or criminal prosecution, and that it would therefore allowINTERPOL personnel to seize firearms, kidnap Americans, and otherwiseviolate U.S. citizens' rights. Our legal staff has reviewed this order anddoes not believe it poses any of these threats.President Obama's order amends a 1983 order by President Reagan, in whichthe U.S. recognized INTERPOL as an international organization that isentitled to certain legal immunities under the International OrganizationsImmunities Act (IOIA).One of those immunities is immunity from civil lawsuits. Under the doctrineof "sovereign immunity," foreign governments generally can't be sued, andthe IOIA extended that protection to international organizations. This hasbeen applied to block suits against the United Nations, Organization ofAmerican States, and other international bodies.This means that articles on the recent order are incorrect in claiming thatthe order made INTERPOL immune from civil suits; INTERPOL was alreadyimmune.Some have also suggested that under the order, INTERPOL agents would receivediplomatic immunity, so they could violate Americans' rights without fear ofcriminal prosecution. There are several misconceptions here.First, diplomatic immunity only protects diplomats, and the IOIAspecifically says it does not confer diplomatic immunity on internationalorganization employees.Second, while the IOIA does provide a limited type of immunity forinternational organization employees, this is only immunity "relating toacts performed by them in their official capacity." U.S. courts haveinterpreted this narrowly. In one case, a court found that a U.N. employeewas not immune to a local speeding ticket even though he was actuallydriving the Secretary General of the U.N. to an official conference. Inother cases, courts have found that employees of international organizationscan be prosecuted for espionage, because espionage is not among theirofficial duties.Law enforcement officers working with INTERPOL are detailed from agencies invarious countries, such as the FBI or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Theyhave no power of arrest outside their own countries. Therefore, a seizureof an American (or of an Americans' firearms) would likely not fall withinthe official duties for which INTERPOL officials would be immune fromprosecution.Now don't take any of this to mean that we underestimate our anti-gunopponents, or that we don't believe they would happily and readily seize theopportunity to adopt and enforce measures that would limit our freedom. Weknow full well that they would. Rather, our message is this: Rumorsabound, so don't believe everything you read. If it's a legitimate concern,rest assured your NRA-ILA will promptly address it and will give you thestraight story.Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute forLegislative Action.This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.