Skip to comments.Texas AG to Obama: Iíll sue if U.N. Arms Treaty is ratified
Posted on 04/02/2013 1:02:55 PM PDT by jazusamo
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying that the state will head to court over the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty should Mr. Obama sign it and the U.S. Senate ratify it. The UN has concluded its negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty, Mr. Abbot writes. It is now up to you to sign it or reject it. Do not sign this treaty.
Mr. Abbott writes that he understands the apparent purpose is to combat illegal arms trafficking around the world, but that the treaty could draw law-abiding gun owners and gun operators into a complex web of bureaucratic red tape created by a new department at the UN devoted to overseeing the treaty.
As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document, he continues. Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology that could be used by those who seek to undermine our liberties to impose any number of restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. Darryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups have distorted the meaning of the treaty. He said it is about the global trade of dangerous weapons, not individual rights within the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
He needs to allow normal Americans to join in on this lawsuit. After all, the Bill of Rights belong to us, not the commie turds running the government. Americans have “standing”.
Greg Abbott is tops. He is a legal professional, a Texan and a Patriot.
Pound Sand Obozo.
He says at the end: “I and my fellow state attorneys general.”
I don’t know if that would open it to organizations and individuals to join in or not.
Courts decide standing.
A proper lawsuit would be structured to guarantee standing in the courts.
Allowing those to “join in” whom the courts would not agree to, wouldn’t make sense.
Believing you have standing is not the same thing as a court agreeing that you have it.
When the revelution startd we need to runt the UN out of the country and burn the building.
It takes two thirds of the U.S. Senate for a treaty to be ratified. The Dem’s own budget only passed 50 to 49 in the Senate, no way they get 67 votes for this treaty.
A shame the AG didn’t tell the Fraud that “he would regret” signing the treaty.
It was ok to say to the Leftist of leftists, Bob Woodward....
Nope, the People gave their blessing for the federal Constitution, but it's the States that are the 'parties to the compact'.
There’s some ambiguous “recognition of international law” concept that’s bugging the back of my head...
something about if most of the nations of the world sign on to a treaty, and the US doesn’t, we’re still bound to abide by the law in that treaty...
I think this was in the context of the “International Rights of the Child” treaty.
The country’s worse nightmare is a Senate of 67 Democrats. The Democrat Party should be renamed International Socialists/American Division.
Don’t worry: there are a lot of Democrats who are facing tough elections. This will never pass.
-smartest conservatives in the room, March 2010 right before Obamacare passed
Amen...I also read on another thread that it only takes a 2/3 vote plus 1 of the Quorum present. I wouldn’t trust Reid on anything.
They don’t need quite 67 as long as there are some maverick RINO’s to help fill the gap.
Well, actually, its about a herd of tinhorn dictators trying to make SURE no one who tries to pry their murdering, raping, dictatorial hands off the helm of power will be able to secure firearms from outside their countries.
THAT is why that collection of misogynostic turds in the UN liked this.
The reason OBAMA likes it is because it will have as much of an impact on Americans securing guns from legitimate foreign sources as has been the Obama Administration’s machinations to prevent access to bullets in America.
The time for re-enacting our National Rebirth has long passed.
“no way they get 67 votes for this treaty.”
That may depend on what they’re willing to trade for the votes. Our Senators aren’t so much about doing the people’s business as they are about power, money and bringing home the pork for votes. I do agree that it doesn’t seem likely that the Democrats will hurt themselves for this like they sacrificed the so-called Blue Dogs for Obamacare. But never underestimate pure greed.
Intriguing concept of a State suing over the signing of an International Treaty......but it would have to be ratified.
Hmmm, so.......Prexy signs it; its not ratified, Texas sues?
If it isn’t ratified has no force of law, but.........if the US President signs an International Treaty that can be shown to violate the U.S. Constitution or that voids rights guaranteed therein, then...........does that mean the act (of signing) reaches the level necessary to void the pact/agreement by which the State “joined” the Union?
Does this perhaps take Texans to TRUE Freedom?
If the first Civil War was fought over States’ Rights, the second one will be fought over Nations’ Rights.
So, if 0bamugabe signs it will the international courts indict him and Holder for Fast and Furious?
Any UN personnel caught wandering around in the US will be treated as enemy combatants.There is no peaceful reason for them to be here
And when it gets to SCROTUS, then what? Watch Roberts and the other 5 pinkos swoon all over Der Leader like they’ve been doing?
That is a common misconception. They don't need 67 votes to ratify it. All they need is 2/3 of those present voting "AYE" and a quorum. That is 51 Senators present and 34 votes to pass it.
Slimball Harry can sandbag some sleepy night or weekend and call for a surprise vote while most of the treaty opponments are out to dinner and the gun grabbers "coincidentally" stayed late for some minor business or other. It can be brought to the floor and be a ratified treaty in less than 5 minutes.
It would pretty much take a conspiracy to do that, but do you trust Reid and the Demoncrats not to do it?
I simply don’t get this crap. Why sue? That legitimizes the issue. Just declare: the UN treaty is unConstitutional and the state of Texas doesn’t recognize it. Period. You sue us.
****** “It takes two thirds of the U.S. Senate for a treaty to be ratified. The Dems own budget only passed 50 to 49 in the Senate, no way they get 67 votes for this treaty.” *******
How many Body Bags to Enforce it?
Oh, please, don’t throw us into that briar patch!
If the president agrees to sign a treaty that contravenes the Constitution, he commits an impeachable offense. We need to make our leaders aware that we are watching.
As if they give a damn if we are watching or not.
Texas should be joined by 49 other states.
What a sick state of affairs.
Is this when the drones start flying? When the AGs and sheriffs start getting knocked off one by one!
I couldn’t agree more.
has there ever been an admin in history ever so much in violation of the constitution and then ignoring their own laws like immigration and drugs
He is representing all the people of Texas in his lawsuit. We’re a normal lot enough... ;)
You saying we need hackers or surface to air missiles? Cause we got both.
In any even asking the Federal employees in black robes their opinion is not participatory threatening. But that’s all an Attorney General can do. Now Texas has anther kind of General that can help deal with them drones. Assuming we don’t go down the hacker rout.
The Constitution trumps any such treaty and is still the law of the land and will be as long as I draw breath.
Woe be unto any UN representative who comes onto my property with confiscation of firearms on his mind.
Should Obozo sign the treaty without the Senates approval he'll be asking for a world of hurt. There comes a time for a turkey like Obozo that he'll have to abide by our laws which he hasn't on many occasions so far or take a long walk.
Hindsight is always a swift kick in the butt!
I don’t believe it will make it that far.
this is about keeping permanent records of US citizens.
vs the current must destroy by rule.