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

[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.

[EXCH54FE]

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.

[grobdriver]

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

I don't believe this is the case.

[cll]

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

[rarestia]

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?

[Triple]

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

[Georgia Girl 2]

“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.

[ScottinVA]

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?

[DarthVader]

You need 2/3 of the Senate.

[556x45]

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.

[Mich Patriot]

...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?

[oust the louse]

“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.

[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?

[rarestia]

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.

[Georgia Girl 2]

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.

[Joe Brower]

Enemy action ping.

[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.

[Cold Heart]

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

[Blue Collar Christian]

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...

[Mouton]

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.

[Puppage]

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.