Jump to content
Texan

Real threat of UN ban?

Recommended Posts

I don't think it's a real possibility to affect private gun ownership. There is lots of paranoia about it, mostly promoted by, "we will save your guns" organizations to drum up donations and by anti-Obama organizations to drum up support for anyone buy Obama. My opinion. I'd like to see a draft of treaty to see what it actually says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From NRA HQ as requested by me for GFH Radio.

 

Recently, several misconceptions have circulated regarding the proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty. While the treaty is a real threat, gun owners need to understand all the facts.

 

The UN will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty in late July. At that time, many member states are expected to immediately sign on. But there is no deadline for doing so, and the treaty does not need any particular number of signatories to “pass.”

 

Once finalized, heads of state can sign international treaties at any time, even years or decades later. However, for political reasons, Obama might not choose to sign immediately. Also, even if the president were to sign the treaty now, he is not required to send the treaty to the Senate for ratification under any specific time .

 

Currently, there are 58 Senators already on record in strong opposition to the treaty if it includes civilian or small arms, as is expected. That reality may makes it less likely that Obama will sign the treaty.

 

The claims of proponents that the treaty will have no impact on national gun laws are not accurate. Proponents have repeatedly called for the treaty to cover small arms and civilian arms and to require national systems of licensing and registration and further restrictions.

 

The threat to our Second Amendment rights posed by the treaty are real, but the process for ratifying the treaty gives gun owners the time and the ability to block ratification if we take action to hold our elected officials accountable. (For further information, on the potential impact of the treaty, go to: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2011/no-compromise-nra-takes-on-united-nati.aspx)

 

Additionally, claims that “under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, [a ratified treaty] would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms" are incorrect.

 

The Supremacy Clause itself says that federal laws are “made in Pursuance” of the Constitution and treaties are made “under the Authority of the United States,” so neither laws nor treaties can override the Constitution.

 

However, some people take this too far and say we don’t need to worry about treaties at all. That’s wrong, too, because the Supreme Court has (as stated in the 1957 case of Reid v. Covert) “repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null.”

 

In other words, treaties and statutes are equal, and when there is a conflict, the more recent provision takes effect. This is known as the “last-in-time rule.” The rule can work either way; a treaty can override an older statute, and a statute can override an older treaty, as the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Cook v. United States (1933).

 

And of course, any restrictions imposed directly by a U.N. treaty, or indirectly by congressional legislation or executive action to implement a treaty, would have to be challenged on their own merits. Obviously, we’d rather avoid that by not having an anti-gun treaty signed or ratified in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gunforhire - a lot of great information there. Makes sense and I can't see any UN treaty being upheld that overrides the constitution. Just really scary that politicians do whatever they can to acheive their agenda whether its citizens agree with it or not. It seems as time passes politicians get bolder and bolder that one day we will find ourselves with a dictator in charge. We slowly inch that direction, I really feel that we are becoming what we won our independence from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gunforhire - a lot of great information there. Makes sense and I can't see any UN treaty being upheld that overrides the constitution. Just really scary that politicians do whatever they can to acheive their agenda whether its citizens agree with it or not. It seems as time passes politicians get bolder and bolder that one day we will find ourselves with a dictator in charge. We slowly inch that direction, I really feel that we are becoming what we won our independence from.

 

I could not agree with you more, we are on the road to serfdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember the source but the article claimed we should instead keep an eye on ammo/ammo component parts imports as the anti's next focus.They realize that a credible attack on the 2'nd amendment is difficult but limiting access to ammo and it's components is quite a bit more viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest worry is about a UN arms trade treaty is that it may affect imports from foreign countries of firearms, parts and ammo for the US civilian market. Even if the US doesn't sign on the the treaty, if the other countries have, they may be barred from shipping these items to the US for this purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a real possibility to affect private gun ownership. There is lots of paranoia about it, mostly promoted by, "we will save your guns" organizations to drum up donations and by anti-Obama organizations to drum up support for anyone buy Obama. My opinion. I'd like to see a draft of treaty to see what it actually says.

 

^^^^ This.

And, the NRA is one of the worst when it comes to promoting fear, uncertainty, and disinformation about the UN treaty.

 

Don't let the FUD-spreaders cause you to forget what you learned in your high school government class:

(1) The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. The POTUS ratifies treaties that are negotiated and executed by the State Department with the approval of the Senate.

(2) To be approved, a treaty must receive a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the POTUS ratify it.

 

So, we only need 34 Senators to block the approval, and there are 58 on record as against it. Whereas I firmly believe that Hillary & the Obamanation would happily execute the treaty with the UN, I could never imagine the Senate having 67 Senators in favor and approving it. So, it should never be ratified. The treaty is toilet paper as far as the US is concerned.

 

Thank God that the red states and blue states are equals in the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ This.

And, the NRA is one of the worst when it comes to promoting fear, uncertainty, and disinformation about the UN treaty.

 

I agree. People make things out to be more than they really are or can be. However, I agree with it. I would rather over think it and keep a sharp and speculating eye on firearms rights, than think it could never happen. They inch towards disarming our law abiding citizens one tiny step at a time, and before you know it our rights are gone. Blow it all out of proportion and beleive each step is the one that directly takes our firearms away and it will keep the tiny steps from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who think the Senate will save us from this, you need to watch this. This is real folks.

 

http://www.dickmorri...tv-lunch-alert/

 

Some on this board might say that's just right wingnut propaganda to drum up votes for Romney.......

 

.....while some people who can think independently can step up and ask 'what's this all about?' and actually look into the claims presented there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not trust interpretations of international law and the Constitution from people who do not even know that the Senate does not ratify a treaty.

 

The reason why no one else is talking about this is NOT because this guy is smarter than everyone else, or knows something that everyone else does not know. The reason no on is talking about this is because the Vienna Convention says that the executive branch cannot violate a treaty while waiting for Senate approval and the Presidents ratification.

 

i.e., When we signed the START and SALT, we were not allowed to build up our nuclear arsenals while awaiting ratification. But we were certainly never required by the Vienna Convention to begin reductions.

 

Similarly, if the Obummer is re-elected, the US will not be allowed to violate the ATT for four more years. However, Federal law enforcement agencies and the Federal Court will not be required to enforce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not trust interpretations of international law and the Constitution from people who do not even know that the Senate does not ratify a treaty.

 

The reason why no one else is talking about this is NOT because this guy is smarter than everyone else, or knows something that everyone else does not know. The reason no on is talking about this is because the Vienna Convention says that the executive branch cannot violate a treaty while waiting for Senate approval and the Presidents ratification.

 

i.e., When we signed the START and SALT, we were not allowed to build up our nuclear arsenals while awaiting ratification. But we were certainly never required by the Vienna Convention to begin reductions.

 

Similarly, if the Obummer is re-elected, the US will not be allowed to violate the ATT for four more years. However, Federal law enforcement agencies and the Federal Court will not be required to enforce it.

 

But they still can enforce it regardless then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POTUS is in charge of the executive branch, so yes he could enforce it. Doing so would be impeachable because it is a violation of our Constitution.

Vienna does not grant the POTUS immunity from his oath of office.

 

The interesting conflict would be COTUS passing a law that violates the ATT after the Hillmonster executes it. We would then need the SCOTUS to rule on which takes precedence. Watching that one would be worth the BIG bucket of popcorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POTUS is in charge of the executive branch, so yes he could enforce it. Doing so would be impeachable because it is a violation of our Constitution.

Vienna does not grant the POTUS immunity from his oath of office.

 

The interesting conflict would be COTUS passing a law that violates the ATT after the Hillmonster executes it. We would then need the SCOTUS to rule on which takes precedence. Watching that one would be worth the BIG bucket of popcorn.

 

I don't think any politicians are actually too concerned with violating the Constitution.....

 

And when Billary signs it, and a conflict arises and goes before SCOTUS, I don't see them going against O's 'vision' of a new America......

 

but then again, we are in NJ, and we don't have any 2A rights regardless, so whatever does happen with the ATT, is pretty much irrelevant to us.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. People make things out to be more than they really are or can be. However, I agree with it. I would rather over think it and keep a sharp and speculating eye on firearms rights, than think it could never happen. They inch towards disarming our law abiding citizens one tiny step at a time, and before you know it our rights are gone. Blow it all out of proportion and beleive each step is the one that directly takes our firearms away and it will keep the tiny steps from happening.

 

But see, here's the problem. The NRA has been been hammering this stupid treaty with minimal chance of becoming a treaty that there's an opportunity to sign, much less the US actually ratifying it and effectively making it the law of the land. Even THEN, you can pass a new law that makes it worthless, and our system says the last one wins.

 

However, they missed the boat on most of the BATFE abuses. They missed the boat on the shotgun importation study that had the ability to effectively turn all shotguns into unregistered NFA items without ever having to involve congress. They miss TONS of these things and instead harp on one thing that is not particularly high priority.

 

They aren't keeping a sharp eye on things. They aren't helping you do so either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But see, here's the problem. The NRA has been been hammering this stupid treaty with minimal chance of becoming a treaty that there's an opportunity to sign, much less the US actually ratifying it and effectively making it the law of the land. Even THEN, you can pass a new law that makes it worthless, and our system says the last one wins.

 

However, they missed the boat on most of the BATFE abuses. They missed the boat on the shotgun importation study that had the ability to effectively turn all shotguns into unregistered NFA items without ever having to involve congress. They miss TONS of these things and instead harp on one thing that is not particularly high priority.

 

They aren't keeping a sharp eye on things. They aren't helping you do so either.

 

^^^^ This. +10

The reason is simple: The ILA can get everyone all hot and bothered about the big bad UN imposing Europe's will on the US. That leads to $MM's in contributions. It is all about the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good article. Did not notice any disinformation, which is uncharacteristic for FOX.

Like what was said earlier in this thread, I don't think we New Jersians will notice much difference in our lives. But people in America will be up in arms (figuratively and maybe literally) when faced with these types of controls. It will certainly be worth the BIG box of popcorn to watch this one play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good article. Did not notice any disinformation, which is uncharacteristic for FOX.

 

Well except for the fact it is wrong about who is writing the treaty, wrong about the state of the treaty, and after the first paragraph, it is all pure speculation.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well except for the fact it is wrong about who is writing the treaty, wrong about the state of the treaty, and after the first paragraph, it is all pure speculation.

 

LOL. Retracted. Classic FOX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a summary, this treaty process to date has been a farce as far as treaties go. First they had potentially infinite oepn ended meetings. Now we are in the preparatory committee stage after it looked like the infinite open ended meetings would actually go on forever without any consensus appearing naturally. The prep-com phase is four meetings deep, and was supposed to generate a preliminary document in February of 2012, and did not (it generated yet one more proposed document, but it is not a draft of a a legally binding treaty, just a scrum of regulatory ideas). On top of that, the Obama administration technically flip-flopped on the US position, but they required unanimous consent. Which means ANY one nation can tank the whole deal. On top of that, the UN put Iran in charge of the whole thing now, and they are one of the most cited for infractions in small arms dealings as they regularly supply terrorist groups and rogue nations with arms in a manner that meets no nation's import export standards.

 

So yeah.. if you write a letter to your representatives, and if it is about this, you wasted time that could have been spent writing about any number of other much more pertinent issues, even for RKBA focused peeps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... The NRA has been been hammering this stupid treaty with minimal chance of becoming a treaty that there's an opportunity to sign, much less the US actually ratifying it and effectively making it the law of the land. Even THEN, you can pass a new law that makes it worthless, and our system says the last one wins....

 

Hope I'm just too cynical, but perhaps the NRA is stridently vocal about this treaty because they've calculated it to be an easy "win" which they can then parade for the membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope I'm just too cynical, but perhaps the NRA is stridently vocal about this treaty because they've calculated it to be an easy "win" which they can then parade for the membership and generate $MM's in donations.

 

FIFY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only both houses of Congress can approve a Treaty, not the President.

 

Research before you post something like this.

 

This is how it works.

  1. State Department negotiates and POTUS executes (signs) the treaty. The Sec. of State may sign a lessor treaty on behalf of the POTUS.
  2. POTUS makes an official request to the Senate for approval. This has to be in writing, read into the minutes, and called to the floor by the President of the Senate. Senate debates and votes. The Senate must approve the Treaty by a 2/3 majority.
  3. Only with Senate approval can POTUS ratify the treaty and make it binding upon the US.

There are lots of little backwater channels flowing around in there, but those are the main milestones.

The House of Reps is not involved in the process at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...