Skip to comments.EDITORIAL: Gun control by the U.N.The White House attempts an end run around the House
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 whats 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, theres 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 ...
I don't believe this is the case.
Once it is ratified by the states, then it becomes the law of the land.
It will pass the Senate, I fear. It will pass on the narrowest margin, but it will pass.
I wonder if shoot-n-see makes “UN-blue” target stickers?
This is an impeachable offense, attempting to bind US citizen to laws that they, through congress, have explicitly rejected.
“once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the supreme law of the land.”
Well yes unless its totally unconstitutional. No treaty trumps the Constitution. But we all need to make known to our senators that this is unacceptable and to vote no. Personally I don’t believe this treaty has the 67 votes needed in the Senate and will not have.
A treaty requires 2/3 for ratification, doesn't it?
You need 2/3 of the Senate.
Seeing as the Constitution is a ‘living document’ now it can mean anything. I suspect the treaty will cruise on thru. If it doesnt that ill be better. If it does thats part of what the 2nd is for.
...and yet the answer is still “NO”. Regardless of how they decide to kill our 2A rights, just “NO”. Why is this so hard to understand?
“Personally I dont believe this treaty has the 67 votes needed in the Senate and will not have.”
Sad part is that it is even being thought of and voted on...how effed up has the Idiot in the White House destroyed this Country?....wow.
I fail to see how a mere treaty with a foreign power or corrupt organization can trump the US Constitution. Could a UN treaty end free speech, allow UN “peace keeper” troops to be housed in private residences, end trial by jury or allow UN “inspectors” to enter my residence without a warrant? If a treaty only ratified by the US Senate can end the Bill of Rights why are we signing such treaties?
We said the same thing about Obamacare. Please believe me, I do NOT want this, but in today’s political climate, I’m not holding to hope for much anymore.
This is just my personal feeling but there are currently so many things going on to bring about CWII I think we are going to be sorting the country out well before the 2016 election. So all this stuff will end up being moot.
I’ve talked to several active and reserve members of the Armed Forces and they all said that this will be regarded by the military as an act of war upon the Constitution and the American people.
The democrats have always liked the UN because they look at it as a tool to get around the Constitution.
I thought Kerry was pro-hunting, isn’t that the same as a friend to the 2A? Sliding around on his snake belly with his trusty double barrel hunting deer...
Despots like the evil one first use the direct approach to get their stuff done...when that fails....they try the end run, like this idea about a treaty.....when that fails they implement by edict. So, if this does not (it won’t) become ratified, look for his niceness (phoney) to just declare it so.
Well, after Obamacare, ANYTHING is fair game to the treasonous left.
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."
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?
Exceeding constitutional limits is not the same as abrogating individual constitutional rights. The burden of proof is to show one treaty that ever successfully made a direct attack on a fundamental individual right recognized as such by the Constitution. If you know if such a case, I would be interested to hear of it. And Covert, as I recall, did not pull treaty inferiority out of thin air. Inartful distinctions between dicta and holding have led to some unpleasant surprises when attempted in legal practice. However, to be fair to you, I will review it and get back to you. I am presently being held captive by a kitchen remodeling project and don’t have immediate access to my usual research tools. :)
Stay out of my gun rights, I need my gun and permit, my son’s killer only served 14.5 yrs of his plea bargained sentence, socio path had threaten to kill any who testified against him, well I forced him to max out his “gooh” err bad behavior time. He is now free to kill again. Thank God I am changing counties and getting out of rat infested criminal loving Memphis!
You are correct: All treaties that are approved by 2/3rds vote in the Senate are still subject to constitutional limitations.
States do not ratify treaties; they ratify amendments to the Constitution.
Highly unlikely. The treaty requires the approval of 2/3rds of the Senate at a time when Harry Reid can't, by his own admission, get 40 votes for an "assault" weapon ban.
Can you please remind me how this administration follows Constitutional limitations?
That’s right. Thanks.
[[This is an impeachable offense, attempting to bind US citizen to laws that they, through congress, have explicitly rejected.]]
Impreach a black president? Not goign to happen- no matter what he does- He could order wmd’s on his own people and the msm would spin it so that the citizens felt it was necessary and acceptable-
"We" are NOT signing them. Traitors and prospective tyrants are signing them. Time to prepare to exercise the true meaning of the second amendment.