United Nations Push for Gun Control Treaty Continues (ATT: Arms Trade Treaty)

Ammoland.com ^ | Friday, July 15th, 2011 | n/a

[blackie]

[Still Thinking]

Still doesn’t apply. They need two thirds. I doubt they could get 20 Pubbies today.

[opentalk]

Hillary is pro-UN agenda. Our State Department needs to be reined in and replaced with people that respect our sovereignty.

[DTogo]

That kid about sums it up.

[DTogo]

Way too much backdoor with this Administration?

BOHICA!

[DTogo]

They wouldn't get them, not by a long shot!

Several hundred meters at least, depending on what they'd be Molon 'ing to Labe !

[DTogo]

This could result in turning a good many law abiding citizens into Felons. I would become one.

There was a proposed ban on magazines over 10 rounds here in CT a few months back that fizzled out in committee after several hundred CT Patriots showed up at the Judiciary hearings to testify against it (myself included). The idea was to either surrender them, without compensation, or become a Felon.

"Don't Tread On Me" was my closing statement to the Judiciary Committee!

[Jack Hammer]

NO law binding on Americans can contravene the United States Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights. Any attempt at such would merely be overturned by the Supreme Court - provided anyone paid any attention to the UN, anyway.

Again for emphasis - Under NO circumstances can ANY law contravene the constitution or the Bill of Rights. Any such attempt would simply be null and void; dead on arrival.

[DTogo]

I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, just a simple Army officer who swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

[EGPWS]

; - )

And I have my favorites for every distance.

[Gator113]

Good for you.

I agree with your tag line and if you look at my profile draft, you’ll see the flags I fly. I think I’ll buy a Sons of Liberty flag to go with my collection.

[Noumenon]

This could result in turning a good many statists and tyrants into biodegradable scenery.

[Abundy]

No, it still requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to go into force, so it doesn't work as a way to do an end run around the legislature, and besides some experts say that a treaty conflicting with the Constitution would be null and void, i.e. a treaty is not interpreted as a mini-amendment if there is a Constitutional conflict.

You would be correct.

There is a basic principle of constitutional interpretation regarding "surplusage."

Basically, every sentence in the Constution must mean something and not conflict with any other part.

Applying that principle to an international treaty that would modify portions of the Constitution requiring an amendment, the principle would favor the treaty being illegal/unconstitutional...

since there is a section of the Constitution that creates a mechanism for modification - the amendment process - that process must be followed to modify the document and no other provision of the document can be used as a mechanism to modify it. (IOW, an international treaty)

allowing an international treaty to have the effect of modifying the constitution makes the amendment process surplusage (uncessary) and therefore that treaty would be null and void.

I probably didn't explain that very well...sorry...first year Con Law was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

I'm surprised our Constitutional Scholar in Chief didn't jump on this right away and put the UN on notice that the treaty won't fly here in the US. /SARCASM

[wastedyears]

They already have the guns; those with badges operate with near-impunity, and those with illicit dealings are not hampered by firearms laws.

But that’s not the ultimate goal for the UN.

If you haven’t read Unintended Consequences, I’d suggest finding it and reading it.

[teeman8r]

not if they violate unalienable rights.

teeman

[Old Student]

Congress passing that treaty would cause me to get out the torches and pitchforks, and everything implied by the ellipsis.