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

Skip to comments.

EDITORIAL: Gun control by the U.N.The White House attempts an end run around the House
Washington Times ^ | Mar. 20, 2013 | The Washington Times Staff

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 ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: absolutedespotism; backoffbarry; banglist; bho44; bhobanglist; bhofascism; bloodofbluehelmets; bloodoftyrants; corruption; cwii; democrats; donttreadonme; govtabuse; guncontrol; liberals; longtrainofabuses; nocompromise; obama; progressives; secondamendment; treason; tyranny; un; usurpations; waronliberty; wewillnotcomply; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last
The “Review Conference on Illicit Small Arms Trade” adopted a “consensus outcome document” that states in Article 2, Paragraph 4 that signatories to the treaty would “establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within paragraph A1 .” Paragraph A1 includes small personal firearms.
1 posted on 03/21/2013 7:52:05 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the supreme law of the land.

I don't believe this is the case.

2 posted on 03/21/2013 7:58:05 AM PDT by grobdriver (Vivere liberi aut mori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

Once it is ratified by the states, then it becomes the law of the land.


3 posted on 03/21/2013 7:59:12 AM PDT by cll (The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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?


4 posted on 03/21/2013 8:02:15 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

This is an impeachable offense, attempting to bind US citizen to laws that they, through congress, have explicitly rejected.


5 posted on 03/21/2013 8:03:59 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

“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.


6 posted on 03/21/2013 8:06:54 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
It will pass the Senate, I fear. It will pass on the narrowest margin, but it will pass.

A treaty requires 2/3 for ratification, doesn't it?

7 posted on 03/21/2013 8:13:03 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Gun control: Steady firm grip, target within sights, squeeze the trigger slowly...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

You need 2/3 of the Senate.


8 posted on 03/21/2013 8:13:28 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Seeing as the Constitution is a ‘living document’ now it can mean anything. I suspect the treaty will cruise on thru. If it doesn’t that ill be better. If it does thats part of what the 2nd is for.


9 posted on 03/21/2013 8:13:53 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

...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?


10 posted on 03/21/2013 8:14:22 AM PDT by Mich Patriot (PITCH BLACK is the new "transparent")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

“Personally I don’t 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.


11 posted on 03/21/2013 8:15:35 AM PDT by oust the louse (You need your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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?


12 posted on 03/21/2013 8:15:42 AM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

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.


13 posted on 03/21/2013 8:19:26 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 556x45

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.


14 posted on 03/21/2013 8:20:43 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Enemy action ping.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

15 posted on 03/21/2013 8:21:09 AM PDT by Joe Brower (The "American People" are no longer capable of self-governance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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.


16 posted on 03/21/2013 8:21:27 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

The democrats have always liked the UN because they look at it as a tool to get around the Constitution.


17 posted on 03/21/2013 8:25:28 AM PDT by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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...


18 posted on 03/21/2013 8:25:58 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (One "bitter clinger" praying for revival. <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

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.


19 posted on 03/21/2013 8:27:27 AM PDT by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
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.

Well, after Obamacare, ANYTHING is fair game to the treasonous left.

20 posted on 03/21/2013 8:27:45 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oust the louse
“Personally I don’t believe this treaty has the 67 votes needed in the Senate and will not have.”

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.

21 posted on 03/21/2013 8:27:46 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
Americans will lose their guns. Nothing will stop the communists from degrading Americans to a point that they will be owned by King Obama and his empire. Wake up!
22 posted on 03/21/2013 8:29:20 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cll
Interesting reading on this topic

I did not watch the video, but read the text.

23 posted on 03/21/2013 8:30:01 AM PDT by grobdriver (Vivere liberi aut mori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

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.


24 posted on 03/21/2013 8:31:19 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back The Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
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?

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

25 posted on 03/21/2013 8:31:54 AM PDT by RepRivFarm ("During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
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.

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...

26 posted on 03/21/2013 8:32:27 AM PDT by LaRueLaDue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

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?


27 posted on 03/21/2013 8:33:39 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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.


28 posted on 03/21/2013 8:35:48 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cll
Once it is ratified by the states, then it becomes the law of the land.

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.

29 posted on 03/21/2013 8:38:08 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie
They implemented much of the accord anyway.

See post 29. This is why Bush II rescinded Clinton's signature on the treaty governing the International Criminal Court.

30 posted on 03/21/2013 8:39:27 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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.


31 posted on 03/21/2013 8:39:49 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RepRivFarm
The problem with the Supremacy Clause is the commas surrounding the phrase, "under the authority of the United States." If that means that these treaties are limited by the authority of the United States, that's one thing. If it means that the United States shall then enforce its treaties no matter what, that's quite another. I really hate that first comma.

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.

32 posted on 03/21/2013 8:43:06 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Case law shows treaties don’t trump individual constitutional rights, and Heller makes 2A rights individual.

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.

33 posted on 03/21/2013 8:44:21 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

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.)


34 posted on 03/21/2013 8:48:39 AM PDT by LaRueLaDue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

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.


35 posted on 03/21/2013 8:58:19 AM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
The corrupt tyrants in DC know Americans are not going to comply with any treaty that will have a direct affect on each and every Americans freedom by attempting to void our constitution. However, since the US will approves this UN treaty this administration will assume that gives it approval to unleash it's full power to try to disarm us. This is analogous of the UN giving the obozo hussein authorization to attack Libya using the US military when clearly he did not have Constitutional authority to do so. And the Congress did what about that?
36 posted on 03/21/2013 9:01:16 AM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Indeed. Put another way, why the "need" to disarm the American people?

Followed up with, what if they respond in the traditional Lexington & Concord manner?

37 posted on 03/21/2013 9:02:29 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back The Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

L: “You don’t NEED an AR-15”
R: “You don’t NEED to disarm the people”


38 posted on 03/21/2013 9:04:25 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

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.


39 posted on 03/21/2013 9:04:29 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226

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?


40 posted on 03/21/2013 9:05:20 AM PDT by rktman (BACKGROUND CHECKS? YOU FIRST MR. PRESIDENT!(not that we'd get the truth!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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. :)


41 posted on 03/21/2013 9:07:35 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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!


42 posted on 03/21/2013 9:09:06 AM PDT by GailA ( those who do not keep promises to the Military, won't keep them to U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver
I don't believe this is the case.

You are correct: All treaties that are approved by 2/3rds vote in the Senate are still subject to constitutional limitations.

43 posted on 03/21/2013 9:14:57 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cll
Once it is ratified by the states, then it becomes the law of the land.

States do not ratify treaties; they ratify amendments to the Constitution.

44 posted on 03/21/2013 9:17:17 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
It will pass the Senate, I fear. It will pass on the narrowest margin, but it will pass.

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.

45 posted on 03/21/2013 9:21:36 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

Can you please remind me how this administration follows Constitutional limitations?


46 posted on 03/21/2013 9:23:12 AM PDT by ObozoMustGo2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

That’s right. Thanks.


47 posted on 03/21/2013 9:23:56 AM PDT by cll (The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Triple

[[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-


48 posted on 03/21/2013 9:33:12 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
...and the only people who ought to be concerned are military strongmen American Patriots looking for a good deal on black-market rocket launchers, personal defense rifles, anti-tank weapons and stinger type anti-air missiles.

Small repair.

49 posted on 03/21/2013 9:37:00 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
If a treaty only ratified by the US Senate can end the Bill of Rights why are we signing such treaties?

"We" are NOT signing them. Traitors and prospective tyrants are signing them. Time to prepare to exercise the true meaning of the second amendment.

50 posted on 03/21/2013 9:41:09 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last

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