UN Small Arms Treaty Means Big Changes for our Constitution
By Mr. Curmudgeon:
Flush with a new sense of purpose after his re-election victory, President Obama signaled his administration’s support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. What follows are two of the treaty’s provisions:
Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.
Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regulations of the items referred to … such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred … and end-users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
That means every firearm, its various parts and ammunition will be regulated. And you, the “end-user,” will earn the privilege of having your name recorded in an international registry.
“That can’t happen here,” you say, “The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller denies the feds, the states and local authorities the power to restrict my ‘right to bear arms.’”
If you believe so, you are dead wrong.
Most Americans believe the only way the United States Constitution can be revised is when Congress passes an amendment for the states to ratify. However, the president and Senate can do just that by signing and ratifying an international treaty. And just in case you have forgotten, Fast and Furious Democrats control the White House and Senate.
In 1920, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Missouri vs. Holland said the Constitution’s treaty-making provision (the Supremacy Clause) means that international agreements entered into by the United States are the “supreme law of the land.” The issue in the case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The U.S.-British agreement limited the hunting of certain endangered birds. The State of Missouri contested the treaty for violating their 10th Amendment state’s rights.
It would take 2/3 of the Senate to pass this treaty.
I don’t think 67 Senators will be willing to tattoo “BENEDICT ARNOLD QUISLING TRAITOR” on their faces.
Not in a nation with tens of millions of scoped rifles.
“...the president and Senate can do just that (override the US Constitution) by signing and ratifying an international treaty.”
Wrong! The supremacy clause does not mean treaties override constitutional protections!
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Note that the supremacy clause actually starts by referring to the constitution. The founders made it very difficult to amend the constitution. Did they intend for the president and the senate to be able to bypass the amendment process through a treaty? No way.