Tell that... 
to the folks in Washington, DC
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 2009–2011), 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.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html
A snippit:
“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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.