Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The U.N. Gun Ban Treaty That Threatens Your Gun Rights
Buckey Firearms Association ^ | 22 January, 2010 | Gerard Valentino

Posted on 01/23/2010 6:28:49 AM PST by marktwain

U.N. Gun BanDuring his presidential campaign, Barack Obama assured gun owners that he was no threat to gun rights. And so far, his administration has publicly steered clear of the issue. After all, Obama knows that a direct assault on the Second Amendment would be political suicide.

However, behind the scenes, he and his staff have shown support for the U.N. Gun Ban, an international treaty on small arms sales that could sidestep established American gun rights and pose a serious threat to the Second Amendment.

But how could a U.N. Gun Ban affect the rights of Americans?

The United Nations is a favorite weapon used by left-leaning activists to launch stealth attacks on American interests. Over the years, leftist ideologues have tried to empower the U.N. to govern our right to fight just wars and the right to control our own pollution standards. And now this steadily advancing treaty seeks to govern our right to bear arms.

President George W. Bush refused to involve America in any aspect of the U.N. Gun Ban treaty. But the government's position changed when Obama gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the green light to begin the negotiation process.

The risk to American foreign policy interests are unacceptable if the Obama administration decides to make us a party to the treaty. It would destroy our ability to provide arms to non-governmental groups or other nations as we see fit. American businesses would also have their ability to do businesses in overseas markets destroyed.

The bigger issue for gun rights activist is the treaty's threat to the the right of Americans to buy guns for self-defense and sport. Foreign companies that offer great firearms at a lower cost could lose their ability to sell in America, and the flow of gun parts or accessories from overseas could be shut off.

One phrase in the treaty is key to how all this could happen. Being a party to the treaty requires all signatory states to have the "highest possible standards" in place to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals.

You can bet anti-gun forces armed with such a legal provision would find a way to use it as a reason to further regulate gun purchases. Under those circumstances, any statistical lie, no matter how far fetched, could be used as an excuse. For example, the unfounded claim that 90% of guns seized from violent Mexican drug cartels originate in America would provide support for harsh gun restrictions on U.S. citizens.

Under the guise of international cooperation, President Obama could try to use the legally binding provisions to shift blame to the U.N. for new anti-gun regulations. He could argue that he has no choice but to follow the legally binding provisions of the treaty.

Worse, the Heritage Foundation's assessment of the small arms treaty brings up a horrifying proposition that the theory of "international norms" means the U.S. might be bound by the treaty even if we never sign on.

Basically, once the small arms treaty is accepted by enough nations, the argument can be made that the provisions become accepted practice and binding on all nations. Based on that logic, America is hurt by the U.N. treaty whether we are a party to it or not.

Such a vague and ill-defined set of circumstances is exactly the type of Trojan horse President Obama needs as cover to inflict his dream of an anti-gun utopia on America.

It is therefore incumbent upon liberty minded people everywhere not only to oppose American involvement in the treaty, but also oppose the mere existence of such a treaty.

Barack Obama is the most anti gun president in history and his anti-gun views are a threat to gun rights. If he can destroy the right to bear arms while cozying up to the U.N., without paying a political price, he will surely do so.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; gun; treaty; un
I believe that the UN treaty is a real threat to our liberties.
1 posted on 01/23/2010 6:28:49 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The UN as a whole is a threat to our liberties.


2 posted on 01/23/2010 6:33:15 AM PST by mapmaker77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

got it
he has allowed interpol to come here
he now signs this UN treaty
thus we are now to be allowed to be arrested by interpol for having a gun.

I would love to see them try that as well but saying that we never know what is going on with this man in the white house because half the time he seems to be back on drugs

again


3 posted on 01/23/2010 6:34:02 AM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I propose that gun owners in the US will not comply with anything UN and will in effect tell them to go pound sand. I DONT really see the UN coming door to door to pick up guns. Those blue hats make outstanding targets.


4 posted on 01/23/2010 6:35:17 AM PST by Concho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

A Treaty does not override the Constitution, If they go along with this it would be considered TREASON under our Constitution.Not to mention it would absolutely be the Flash Point for another American Revolution.


5 posted on 01/23/2010 6:35:58 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It is. The likely effects would be no more “surplus” firearms or parts from other countries, no more “surplus” ammo, logging of who buys domestic guns and ammo, and higher prices all around for what is left. And that’s for starters.


6 posted on 01/23/2010 6:36:08 AM PST by Sender (It's never too late to be who you could have been.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Barack Obama is the most anti gun president in history

Wanna bet this anti-gun attitude won't extend to his hoped for "domestic force as strong as the armed forces?" Imagine an armed brown-shirt paramilitary domestic force recruited primarily from favored Dem consituency groups. All part of the plan to redistribute wealth and power.

7 posted on 01/23/2010 6:36:34 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

The only security to all this is that treaties and such can be repealed.

There is already a good movement on that at www.repealit.org


8 posted on 01/23/2010 6:41:41 AM PST by Concho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
In U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over any U.S. treaty. A Constitutional amendment would be necessary to nullify the Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, a rogue Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution in any way it wishes, but there we would face an epic legal crisis inasmuch as the Constitution, the basis of U.S. law, has never given the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution, though precedent certainly has.

The thugocrats who run the United Nations are just itching to establish a world-wide thugocracy--with themselves in control of it, of course--and one of their top priorities is to disarm the people of the world so that they cannot protect themselves from the thugocratic government the thugs envision.

Extraordinary vigilance is necessary if the American people are to protect themselves from the thugs and their growing power. A dark side of the Information Age is its empowering of them far more than anyone could possibly have imagined.

9 posted on 01/23/2010 6:42:06 AM PST by Savage Beast (Politics is corrupt..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mapmaker77

The UN is making a wrong conclusion about the gun ownership as their opinion is based on other countries who are run by dictators run amuck and politically/socially.economically immature countries.

Its too bad their lack of logic does not address the fact that the US has had peace and security in its democracy because of guns. Its stability is a result of guns and as such has had a constitution that has held with peace for over 233 years!

Not a nation that the UN has visited can boast that!

Obama? Can go suck lemons!


10 posted on 01/23/2010 6:43:39 AM PST by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

The UN isnt going to set foot on this soil. They know that more than 200 million of us are heavily armed. It is like the Marine motto, Mess with the best and die like the rest.

Bambi can talk all he wants to with the UN, but he certainly doesnt have balls enough to enforce it.


11 posted on 01/23/2010 6:47:07 AM PST by Concho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I get a little tired of these “Treaty Threads” that do not offer factual acknowledgment that treaties have to be ratified by 2/3 of the Congress before they can take effect in the US.

This is why the US did not participate in Kyoto even though Rev. AlGore signed it. It is also the reason why the US did not participate in the League of Nations and had to negotiate a separate peace treaty with Germany after WWI.

I really don’t care what Obamao and company do with the UN Gun Ban treating. It will never be ratified.


12 posted on 01/23/2010 6:52:56 AM PST by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

“got it
he has allowed interpol to come here
he now signs this UN treaty
thus we are now to be allowed to be arrested by interpol for having a gun.”

If our constitution and laws do not APPLY to them then they are not PROTECTED by our constitution and laws!


13 posted on 01/23/2010 6:53:21 AM PST by Not a 60s Hippy (They are SOCIALISTS, not Progressive, Liberal, Left Wing, Democrats, Special interest groups.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine; marktwain

He’s not anti-gun, he just wants to control who has them.


14 posted on 01/23/2010 6:56:53 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Concho

“They know that more than 200 million of us are heavily armed. It is like the Marine motto, Mess with the best and die like the rest.”

My thoughts exactly they will be slaughtered then mutilated and hung from lightpoles. The average American gun-owner who is a shooting enthusiast has more hours at the range and is very gun savvy. Read daily the stories how the armed citizen dispatches thugs every day. We are not afraid to use them if we have too.


15 posted on 01/23/2010 6:56:56 AM PST by DarthVader (Liberalism is the politics of EVIL whose time of judgment has come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

I dont know where you are located, but here where I am, these guys are just itching for a reason to use them.


16 posted on 01/23/2010 6:59:25 AM PST by Concho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The proposed treaty does not seek to eliminate guns. It seeks to ensure that only police states are armed with guns. It is a gun disenfranchisement initiative to ensure that ordinary citizens are rendered helpless and dependent on the police state for protection. We already know that the police state cannot prevent unarmed citizens from being victimized by criminals. Who protects the unarmed citizen from his armed protector? No one. Which is exactly the point.

The glorious new unarmed world championed by the UN and Obama looks alarmingly similar to the blood-stained old world we just left, where police states in Germany, the Soviet Union, and China massacred hundreds of millions of their own citizens.

17 posted on 01/23/2010 7:01:14 AM PST by behzinlea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Concho
If you haven’t found a reason by now you never will.
18 posted on 01/23/2010 7:03:57 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (usff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Concho

They are where I am too plus this sentiment is growing across the nation. Last night I went to pick up a magazine and drybox for my new Glock at one of the local gun stores about 1 hour before close. There were 12 people in the store. You should see the types of guns people are acquiring too. Americans mean business.


19 posted on 01/23/2010 7:04:29 AM PST by DarthVader (Liberalism is the politics of EVIL whose time of judgment has come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13
I get a little tired of these “Treaty Threads” that do not offer factual acknowledgment that treaties have to be ratified by 2/3 of the Congress before they can take effect in the US.

From the article: "The Heritage Foundation's assessment of the small arms treaty brings up a horrifying proposition that the theory of 'international norms' means the U.S. might be bound by the treaty even if we never sign on. Basically, once the small arms treaty is accepted by enough nations, the argument can be made that the provisions become accepted practice and binding on all nations. Based on that logic, America is hurt by the U.N. treaty whether we are a party to it or not. Such a vague and ill-defined set of circumstances is exactly the type of Trojan horse President Obama needs as cover to inflict his dream of an anti-gun utopia on America."

20 posted on 01/23/2010 7:08:43 AM PST by behzinlea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Concho

Salivating at the thought !


21 posted on 01/23/2010 7:15:34 AM PST by Renegade (You go tell my buddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Any gun owner who believed Obama wouldnt go after guns should theirs taken away because they are too stupid to own one.
This man is a communist surrounded by communists.
All I can say is I see a UN blue helmet, I kill the man wearing it.


22 posted on 01/23/2010 7:40:56 AM PST by Yorlik803 (better to die on your feet than live on your knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I will have absolutely no problem shooting foreign invaders wearing blue helmets that are trying to usurp our US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS... here me UN?????

LLS

23 posted on 01/23/2010 7:58:51 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: behzinlea
From the article: "The Heritage Foundation's assessment of the small arms treaty brings up a horrifying proposition that the theory of 'international norms' means the U.S. might be bound by the treaty even if we never sign on. Basically, once the small arms treaty is accepted by enough nations, the argument can be made that the provisions become accepted practice and binding on all nations

let them try to enforce it and they will be blood spilt

24 posted on 01/23/2010 8:01:35 AM PST by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Skinning Cats: Legal Means to Disarm the Second Amendment
25 posted on 01/23/2010 8:18:56 AM PST by Carry_Okie (They were the Slave Party then; they are the Slave Party now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I would love to hear from some UN troops about their desire to come to America and disarm Americans.

Perhaps they will study Operation Downfall, Olympic and Coronet and look at the projected Allied casualty figures against folks who were willing to fight to the death with farm implements.

We would resist with much more than pitchforks and sickles.


26 posted on 01/23/2010 8:45:02 AM PST by Molon Labbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
A Treaty does not override the Constitution,

All physical evidence indicates they have already done so, massively, for which there may be good reason. Let's take a look at the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution:

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.

The obvious saving caveat would seem to be the phrase, "under the Authority of the United States." Most people believe that phrase renders any treaty that involves powers not enumerated in the Constitution void. In other words, the government of the United States does not have the authority EITHER to enact laws or agree to terms of a treaty with any other nation the enforcement of which would require powers that exceed its Constitutionally enumerated powers. So in theory at least, a citizen whose rights have been violated by an unconstitutional treaty should be able to sue and have the treaty thrown out.

It's never happened.

The other way to read it is to place the Constitutions and treaties at parity and that both are subject to "the Authority of the United States," with whatever that might be left unspecified.

Go ahead and try reading it that way. It works linguistically.

In response to Patrick Henry's objections to the clause at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Madison argued that said "Authority" was subject to the Constitution's enumerated powers and so did Randolph. Unfortunately there may be more to this.

It is my opinion that the protestations of Madison, Governor Randolph, et al., at the Virginia Ratifying Convention might have been cover for a hidden agenda to federalize the law of the land. Hamilton did lie through his teeth arguing in Federalist 75 that the text of the Supremacy Clause as applied to treaties was a thoroughly debated point at the Federal Convention. The problem is, it was in fact never a point of debate at the Federal Convention. I've read the whole thing and it is not there.

I really don't like that comma before that key phrase. Does it mean that "the Authority of the United States" is the final determinant or is it the powers enumerated in the Constitution? The two are different. Most folks hold a subconscious hierarchy in our laws, with the Constitution at the top, followed by treaties, and then Congressional statutes and finally administrative rules and regulations. It may not be that way in legal fact. Note that the beginning phrase of the clause places Statutes "in Pursuance thereof," but DOES NOT qualify treaties similarly. Instead, treaties are joined to the Constitution with the conjunction "and." Then it completes the list of items with the comma prior to the phrase "under the Authority of the United States." You and I see that authority as limited by the Constitution. It may not be.

There was an element among the founders that may well have secretly intended Federal usurpations of power against the liberties of the people by federalizing legislative and regulatory powers then to be subordinated to the very internationalist agenda we see today. To see “originalism” otherwise may well be a case of willfully selective blindness as to the founders’ original REAL legal intent hidden in plain sight in The Federalist #75.

27 posted on 01/23/2010 8:54:07 AM PST by Carry_Okie (They were the Slave Party then; they are the Slave Party now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
He’s not anti-gun, he just wants to control who has them.

Good point. After all, Mao said "political power flows from the barrel of a gun."

28 posted on 01/23/2010 9:59:58 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Photobucket
29 posted on 01/23/2010 10:23:25 AM PST by IYellAtMyTV (Workday Forecast--Increasing pressure towards afternoon. Rum likely by evening.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Mark, I know you are already aware of this but I’m posting to you for the others.

There are only four million gunowners who are currently members of the NRA. That means there are probably only about five million people in the United States willing to take a stand for their Rights.

No one of those others are going to do a thing for Liberty when it gets serious. If someone couldn’t take advantage of the free membership last year, they are certainly not going to watch your back.

Gun grabbers are power hungry dictators. Gunowners sitting on the sidelines aprove of it.


30 posted on 01/23/2010 12:44:27 PM PST by Shooter 2.5 (NRA /Patron - TSRA- IDPA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson