Posted on 03/21/2013 7:52:05 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Bureaucrats from 150 nations are ramping up efforts to impose gun control through international pact. Here in the United States, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has become the vehicle to drive an agenda that is deeply controversial because once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the supreme law of the land.
Last week, Secretary of State John F. Kerry — no friend of the Second Amendment — announced support for the treaty, which calls for international regulations on firearms, including personal firearms as well as military weapons. During the presidential campaign, President Obama was evasive about his position on the treaty. Now that he has fully “evolved” on the Second Amendment, he has the “flexibility” of not having to face voters again, and is pushing for the treaty.
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about what’s being cooked up in Turtle Bay. Proponents say the treaty is only meant to crack down on illegal gun-smuggling, and the only people who ought to be concerned are military strongmen looking for a good deal on black-market rocket launchers. Of course, there’s more to the story. The exact wording of the agreement, and more importantly, how vague passages can be interpreted and twisted by the courts, will determine what the treaty actually means. It could, for example, force America to implement a national gun-registration scheme, ban importation of weapons and impose burdensome regulations on transfers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Exactly, if Dingy Harry can't get 40 votes for the AWB, he sure as h**l can't get 67 for a UN Gun Grab. There are things to be worried about, namely the Trojan horse registration bill, disguised as Universal Background checks, but this treaty is pretty far down on my list of concerns.
I did not watch the video, but read the text.
Doubtful that Harry Reid would allow it to come up for a vote. It would foretell massive electoral losses for the Dems, assuming there would be another election if ratified.
Article VI, section 2 of the U. S. Constitution which reads: "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, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
emphasis mine
By who? The administration in general? The SofS? TSA? The pResident? The Senate? They cannot just start blasting away at everyone and anyone in D.C. (Although that is not a bad idea...) Americans won't stand by for an ill-defined military coup, not be governed by a military junta. Someone well-defined needs to be in the cross-hairs...
Who is going to start asking the question -
What do you intend to do after the people are disarmed
that you can’t do before they are disarmed?
Remember the Kyoto Treaty on global warming? It didn’t get one vote to ratify in the Senate.
Did that stop Clinton and Gore ? They implemented much of the accord anyway.
Uh, according to Article II, Section 2, Clause, 2 of the Constitution, that would be by "two thirds of the Senators present," not the several States. But you have a bigger problem than that.
According to "customary international law" pursuant to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (which we never ratified), once it has been signed, the government has agreed not to contravene the treaty, the Constitution in effect notwithstanding. The government of the United States has abided by that treaty (illegally) ever since it went into effect.
See post 29. This is why Bush II rescinded Clinton's signature on the treaty governing the International Criminal Court.
Case law shows treaties don’t trump individual constitutional rights, and Heller makes 2A rights individual. So legally, the door is securely barred. The only way the left has around this is just plain lawlessness, and hoping enough people go along with it to make it work (ignorance and depravity are the left’s greatest allies). Not saying that can’t happen, but if attempted, it will precipitate a robust response from those who know it is just a putsch.
There was a screw-job at operation as regards international law in the drafting of the Constitution. It was intentional. That history, and its import is covered here.
Reid v. Covert is dicta. Show me one treaty that has been thrown out by the courts. There are dozens of them whose terms exceed Constitutional limits.
Yeah, you are correct.
I think what everyone is worried about is the administration implementing new laws in support of the treaty and using it as the excuse (rather than admitting their gun-grabbing predilictions), and effectively implementing the treaty terms, without really actually ratifying it.
Doesn’t change the fact that both methods violate the 2nd Amendment (and others) but it gives them an excuse to satify the everyday idiot Dem voters. (Sorry, cannot write “low information voters.” They are just willfully ill-informed, or just not real intelligent. Let’s be frank here: most of these people shouldn’t be voting.)
Um. NO. We will not lose our guns or 2nd Amendment Rights. The Left has doomed itself with the path they are on. They will incite rebellion and they will not like how it turns out.
Followed up with, what if they respond in the traditional Lexington & Concord manner?
L: “You don’t NEED an AR-15”
R: “You don’t NEED to disarm the people”
Ya, I hear you. I hope youre wrong...really I do. I can see your point though.The commies among us feel emboldened and are badly misjudging the situation...very BADLY. They have no idea the forces being set in motion. A CW isnt what we need and the outcome isnt certain.
Uh, somebody remind me again why we are even in the un. Is it because we like having hateful clowns spit in our face? Or is it because we can “feel good” about ourselves by doing all the tremendous work the un does for the poor. Not that the actual needy folks ever get any of the stuff. Well maybe once in a while they might get some stuff. Did the sequestration have any effect on our un contributions?
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.