U.S. Senate Stands with NRA in Strongly Opposing U.N Gun Control Efforts

NRA-ILA ^ | July 22, 2011 | NA

[Loyal Sedition]

Ah, “Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.”

That is why I remember Monterey in reference to this.

My memory lost some of the fine details, but I think my main point was and is correct.

[HenpeckedCon]

All “Pro-gun” Harry Reid has to do is approve one more Obama appointee to the SCOTUS and we can kiss the 2nd amendment goodbye!

[lentulusgracchus]

The U.N. can mandate anything, it just cannot have any ability to enforce their agenda within the U.S. borders.

The problem lies in what happens when a President (as Clinton did repeatedly) cynically signs a treaty that stands no chance of ratification.

The Congress and USG are then bound by the treaty's terms, not to do any thing or pass any new law that contravenes the terms of the signed treaty, n/w/s that it has not been ratified. There is the rub, and that is what Obama will do. He will sign the treaty when presented.

In fact, this may have been what Gunwalker etc. was all about -- to manufacture cover for Obama to sign the UN's treaty as an act of "responsible statesmanship" in the face of all that illegal, immoral, nasty-outlaw Texas gunrunning down there in Bad Evil People Country.

[Loyal Sedition]

I have to respectfully disagree.

Unless ratified a treaty cannot have any force of law within our borders.
What would a person be arrested for in relation to an unratified treaty?
No new “Law” has been created, congress has not ratified the treaty as required by our constitution, no agency can be tasked with implementing regulations based on the unratified treaty.
Anyone charged would then have “Standing” to force Gov. Org. to justify the charge, likely resulting in the alleged “law” being thrown out.

It is shameful that congress has not addressed these treaty abuses as is their duty.
Even a ratified treaty may be rescinded, and several need to be.

I am sure you are correct about Klintoon, his contempt for our constitution may have been equal to Obombies.
I would like examples to study, and probably bring up to my representatives.

[Loyal Sedition]

I have to respectfully disagree.

Unless ratified a treaty cannot have any force of law within our borders.
What would a person be arrested for in relation to an unratified treaty?
No new “Law” has been created, congress has not ratified the treaty as required by our constitution, no agency can be tasked with implementing regulations based on the unratified treaty.
Anyone charged would then have “Standing” to force Gov. Org. to justify the charge, likely resulting in the alleged “law” being thrown out.

It is shameful that congress has not addressed these treaty abuses as is their duty.
Even a ratified treaty may be rescinded, and several need to be.

I am sure you are correct about Klintoon, his contempt for our constitution may have been equal to Obombies.
I would like examples to study, and probably bring up to my representatives.

I am sure you are correct about the intent of “Fast & Furious”, I disagree that the plan would have been legal and that any alleged treaty would take effect immediately.

[lentulusgracchus]

I suggest you do a little searching on treaty law, its force in the U.S., and consequences of presidential signature of a treaty, when the Senate defers consideration and does not act either to ratify or to reject it.

The topic's been discussed on FR, but since the search engine only looks at thread titles and key words, I'm not sure where to look, or how. I've tried it a few times and been not too satisfied with the results, or that I knew what to do.

[Loyal Sedition]

I expect that you are correct that we currently have some alleged “law” by fiat.
But that does not make the alleged law constitutional, legal, or enforceable.

Sure the Gov. Org. may attempt to quash opposition to it’s illicit mandates, they print the money and will expend unlimited resources, up to and including deadly force.

None of that makes them right.

I am not an expert in treaty law, but I am sure there ARE relevant laws, which must include limits on the time available for ratification and what may be done in the interim.

Maybe one of the many lawyers here will contribute a clue as to where to begin a meaningful unbiased search?

I strongly suspect that a lot of this treaty abuse continues only because no one dares fight it.

[neverdem]

Obama is posturing for gun grabber donations. If he signs the treaty, too many rats in the Senate will reject it a la the Kyoto Treaty. Harry Reid might not bring it to a vote. The next majority leader of the Senate will bring it to a vote to reject it like Kyoto.

Poll: GOP gains big with white voters

[prophetic]

with the Democrats controlling the Senate, personally I am shocked (but greatly relieved) !!!

[lentulusgracchus]

Obama is posturing for gun grabber donations. If he signs the treaty, too many rats in the Senate will reject it a la the Kyoto Treaty. Harry Reid might not bring it to a vote.

Obama has only to sign it to slap handcuffs on what the Congress can do by way of legislation.

It would forestall (or give two-faced RiNO's an excuse to beg off on), e.g., a national 2A act mandating concealed carry in all jurisdictions at all times (for the sake of argument). It might actually be citable by SCOTUS as a reason to overturn state open- and concealed-carry laws, and to sustain Illinois-style restrictive legislation.

It would act as a drag, if it were frequently invoked by Chamber and RiNO types, who are secretly or not-so-secretly anti-2A (according to something I saw about the 1999 Pew sociology and political typology study, of which a new 2009-2010 version is out and available for inspection), on any proposed civil-immunities legislation referring to RKBA.

You know some liberal jurisprudence has been "setting us up the Bomb" for repeal of 2A for years now, beginning with a frank reading of 2A, 5A, and 14A's "privileges and immunities" clauses (the amendments cited in the Emerson case brief and the district court's original opinion in favor of Dr. Emerson), to reach an expansive statement of RKBA, for the ulterior purpose of energizing grabbers to undertake repeal of 2A. (And they might as well take down the rest of their "living Constitution" and its BoR that is such a party-poop whenever people start talking about running "His Won-ness" for a third term, and/or for "President for Life".)

I agree with you, that the next Republican Senate should bring up all these UN treaties and crush them underfoot, to stop this kind of footsie-playing with the international totalitarians.

I would point out, however, that the GOP majority from 1994 to 2006 didn't lift a finger to see about scotching this garbage when they had the power.

[neverdem]

I would point out, however, that the GOP majority from 1994 to 2006 didn't lift a finger to see about scotching this garbage when they had the power.

The Great Recession and the Tea Party were unknown then. The GOP hasn't stood for any animating ideas since the Civil War and emancipation until its relatively recent flirtation with conservatism. The ruling class was rather comfy.

Reversing all the ills from the Progressive era and moving this economy will keep the Tea Party Movement in business for some time to come, IMHO.

Poll: GOP gains big with white voters

[Joe Brower]

I remember the story on that "study" as well.

However, that story itself was a coverup of sorts, since my unit was given a similar questionnaire back in 1981 when we were at 29 Stumps participating in a NATO exercise called Gallant Eagle 81.

I was an HM3 TAD'd out of Camp Pendleton at that time.

The federal government has been floating this trial balloon on and off for quite a while.