Skip to comments.The 2nd Amendment Transcends The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
Posted on 07/21/2012 12:48:54 PM PDT by opentalk
It's widely known that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), being negotiated as I type, is simply gun control by another name. Although it is being sold as a treaty to lessen the number of guns moving across borders illegally, it will ultimately require a national gun registry to be enforceable: perhaps even an international gun registry.
And while all of us should be contacting our Senators to demand they refuse to ratify this ridiculous treaty when it comes before them, it behooves us also to remind them (and ourselves) that the 2nd Amendment transcends any U.N. treaty at any time and any place in this country.
Our Founding Fathers recognized that part of our birthright as humans in general, but Americans in particular, is the possession of natural rights that cannot be controlled, denied, or otherwise constricted by a man-made government. They took pains to communicate this to us via the Bill of Rights, , in which one of the rights they explicitly listed was the right to keep and bear arms.
According to the Founders, the right not only to keep arms but also to bear the arms we keep, "shall not be infringed."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Tell that... to the folks in Washington, DC
They're afraid that Americans will one day say "No more!" and they will turn their guns upon those in DC.
It seems that the game plan is 'we'll get their guns before they get us'.
Treaties become part of the law of the land so I am not sure this would be true.
I don’t own any guns but if I did, “Out of my cold dead hands.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. An honest SCOTUS would take five minutes to deny the viability of enforcing that treaty on American citizens. Actually I would see a 6-3 decision with Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kagan in the minority.
I believe there is case law which supports this premise. Having said this, I suspect the ATT is about much more than your second amendment rights. It’s about restricting arm sales to nations like Israel and Taiwan
“Treaties become part of the law of the land so I am not sure this would be true.”
Treaties do become the law of the land but they can’t conflict with the Constitution. It’s liberals who push the idea that they can supersede the Constitution because they are always looking for ways around the bits they don’t like. The whole “living document” argument is an attempt to get around the amendment process. But to the extent there is a conflict between a treaty and the Constitution the Constitution wins. Of course, given the way Roberts ruled in the healthcare case I no longer think anything is safe.
Obama cannot sign a treaty to take away the 2nd Ammendment. The Constiution is Supreme. The SC has backed that up many times.
Reid v. Covert
P.17 - There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.*fn33 For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:
P.18 - This Court has also 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.*fn34 It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
— George Washington
If Washington was serious about reducing gun traffic across our borders they would disband the BATFE and prosecute Eric Holder, Kenneth E. Melson (acting BATFE Director 20092011), and B. Todd Jones (current acting BATFE Director), and all other DOJ and BATFE bureaucrats associated with Fast and Furious and the murder of Brian Terry.
The treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States. Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853). It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument. The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).
334 1 W. Willoughby, supra, at 561; L. Henkin, supra, at 137. In Power Authority of New York v. FPC, 247 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1957), a reservation attached by the Senate to a 1950 treaty with Canada was held invalid. The court observed that the reservation was properly not a part of the treaty but that if it were it would still be void as an attempt to circumvent constitutional procedures for enacting amendments to existing federal laws. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment on mootness grounds. 355 U.S. 64 (1957). In United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc., 204 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1953), an executive agreement with Canada was held void as conflicting with existing legislation. The Supreme Court affirmed on nonconstitutional grounds. 348 U.S. 296 (1955).
335 Cf. City of New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836); Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317 (1912). 336 252 U.S. 416 (1920). 337 252 U.S. at 433. Subsequently, he also observed: The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. Id.
338 The attempt, the so-called Bricker Amendment, was aimed at the expansion into reserved state powers through treaties as well as executive agreements. The key provision read: A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty. S.J. Res. 43, 82d Congress, 1st Sess. (1953), � 2. See also S.J. Res. 1, 84th Congress, 1st Sess. (1955), � 2. Extensive hearings developed the issues thoroughly but not always clearly. Hearings on S.J. Res. 130: Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 82d Congress, 2d Sess. (1952). Hearings on S.J. Res. 1 & 43: Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 83d Congress, 1st Sess. (1953); Hearings on S.J. Res. 1: Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 84th Congress, 1st Sess. (1955). See L. Henkin, supra, at 383-85.
Thank you, that issue had always bothered me.
It seems to have been resolved correctly within the logic of the constitution since a treaty can be ratified with only 2/3s of the Senate approving whereas it takes 3/4s of the state legislatures or conventions to amend the constitution.
To imagine that Barry will respect the Constitution in any sort of way is incredibly naive.
Anything is possible these days.
I am sure you are correct about that.
States like Pakistan also have little or no control in certain regions which are armed to the teeth as well.
In fact, what the Joker in Colorado just did is a familiar scene in Pakistan.
Good post. We used to be taught about this kind of thing 50 yrs ago. People need to have their faces pushed in this reality today.
However, if the issue would be challenged in the twisted sophistry of the Supreme Court, the Constitution and Bill of Rights could be thrown out as easily as a penalty becomes a tax.
Our FRiend, Mechanicos, posted the relevant case histories to clear up my mind on this point.
Even if the Senate ratifies it, if it violates a part of the Constitution its void.
Please click the link.
The Republic you save may be your own.
“Treaties become part of the law of the land so I am not sure this would be true.”
I am sure that treaties do not trump the Constitution.
That being said Obooboo has not let that little fact stop him from infringing on our constitutional rights since Jan of 2009. It has not stopped the SCOTUS from doing the very same and of course our illustrious GOP leadership is usually eager to go along get along with all the unconstitutional activity.
At some point we will probably have to get out the pitchforks and fight for our rights.
What's stopping you? Stop procrastinating! Get to a range and learn what you're missing, let step up to the bar and exercise your Second Amendment Right!
“They’re afraid that Americans will one day say “No more!” and they will turn their guns upon those in DC.”
I believe that the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment was to assure that We the People had what was necessary to do that when push comes to shove. I also believe that our having that right, and the ability to enforce a reestablishment of Constitutional Government is why Push may not come to Shove for a while yet...but Obama et al keep testing to see how far they can go...They just might find out in a way not to their liking...
What makes you think Sotomayor will ever break with the left on a big case?
Ok, so assuming (and it is a big assumption) that the UN small arms treaty won’t deny us our 2nd A rights, and the US Senate passes it with a 2/3 majority, can it deny us these?
-Russian and other foreign ammunition is cheap and good for practice use. Some guns only can use imported ammunition, like 5.45x39. Will it be illegal to import ammunition? Or will there only be a trace to the ‘end user’?
-Some excellent foreign firearms are imported. Walther, Baretta, as well as many others. Will they be illegal to import? Or like above, will there only be a trace to the ‘end user’?
This may be wonderful for domestic producers of firearms and ammunition, but our shooting costs will go up, and that “Infringes” on my second amendment rights IMHO.
I am getting differing answers depending on where I look, and the truth is hard to sort out. Some may be too paranoid and lying to stir up support, and some may be lying to promote a gun control agenda. Someone is lying and that concerns me.
Better look at the Supremacy Clause again, particularly its punctuation. There is a reason Patrick Henry objected to it in the Virginia Ratifying Convention.
Further, I can show you a treaty whose terms so WILDLY exceed the enumerated powers set forth by Congress as to be unarguably unconstitutional that has stood at the core of environmental law for forty years with hundreds if not thousands of cases pursuant to that understanding. So to argue that Reid v. Covert is the core standard of jurisprudence is just silly. You and I may wish to read the Constitution that way, but I'm afraid Mr. Henry may have been right.
The government and those select elected officials are incorrectly hedging their bets that those of us who understand the facts and the Constitution WILL NOT fight back...
It is the same mentality of some in corporate America that desire to restrict our Second amendment right to keep and bear arms have been doing, and failing miserably, hence the recent shootings in Aurora, Columbine H.S., Virginia Tech, Luby’s, University of Texas, etc etc etc...
I think the best we can do is ignore these un-Constitutional edicts and err on the side of protecting our lives and property as WE see fit to do so...
Stay concealed, and keep your capability as subdued as much as possible...There is a fine (weak and political cowardice) line that does what little it can to protect these Constitutional rights at this time...
Not if they violate our inalienable rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Let them try it, that is what war is for.
The American Revolution began when the Crown tried to disarm the Colonists.
“In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN...SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE TO.SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.”
“The government and those select elected officials are incorrectly hedging their bets that those of us who understand the facts and the Constitution WILL NOT fight back...”
They ‘tested’ this in New Orleans after Katrina, and the people in the city gave up guns. Hopefully they do not believe it will work like that outside the big metro areas...it won’t. The largest ‘army’ in the world (America’s hunters and sportsmen) will not be disarmed by any edicts or gun-grabbing attempts. Continuing to educate the people regarding the importance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is absolutely necessary. This is no longer taught in the schools...all part of the dumbing down process. The Bill of Rights, the First Ten Amendments, is there to protect the rights of We the People from bad Government. They are Rights, not Privileges. And by the way, bad Government can come from the Executive, Legislative and/or the Judicial. We must be vigilant.
“since a treaty can be ratified with only 2/3s of the Senate approving”......the scary part is that it doesn’t take 2/3 of the Senate, but only 2/3 of the Senators PRESENT to approve a treaty and that has happened in the past in the dead of night, so I’ve heard.......
Feel free to post this as it's own thread on Free Republic (if it's not already posted)
Sorry it’s not a petition but a survey. Again, please post this as its own thread if you feel it will help the cause.
Buy a gun.
Just do it.
Then please explain how there has never been a single treaty thrown out because its terms wildly exceeded the enumerated powers of the Constitution. They are aplenty.
They do. Routinely. Lots of them. FedGov even enforces the terms of treaties that were not ratified.
“They do. Routinely. Lots of them. FedGov even enforces the terms of treaties that were not ratified. “
Yes there are many unconstitutional things out there, but Constitutionally speaking a treaty can’t trump the constitution. That would bypass the amendment process. Liberals like to argue that since a treaty becomes law of the land it can trump the constitution but that’s wrong. It’s much the same argument that the constitution is a “living document” that is malleable to change with the time. It’s just an argument to try to end run the amendment process.
That was clearly the original intent. The Federalists were having enough trouble selling the thing as it was. Henry saw through it. Few others did.