U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

[mark s]

“As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms, but just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or the local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.” – then Senator Barack Obama, in a candidate debate, 2008.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120 ... k_check=1#

Last year, U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) and 57 other senators signed a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reminding them that the Senate has final say on treaties, and stating their unequivocal opposition to any treaty that would affect civilian ownership of firearms, challenge the authority of Congress to regulate firearms within the United States, or call for an international gun registry.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/artic ... -week.aspx

Last week, in a letter to President Barack Obama, 130 members wrote that a treaty was "likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights." They called for the rejection of any treaty that would prevent the U.S. from supplying arms to allies like Israel and Taiwan.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/03 ... de-treaty/

There are no accurate figures for the number of small arms and light weapons currently in circulation globally. Sources estimate the total to be at least 875 million. The majority of small arms - generally the only category of weapons not falling under Government monopoly of possession and use - are in private hands.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

A bill to prohibit funding to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that restricts the Second Amendment rights of United States citizens.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2205

Hadn't see this yet . . .

[Resurrection Torchlight]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2205

Prognosis:

This bill has a 1% chance of being enacted. The following factors were considered:

The sponsor is a member of the minority party. (-2%)

3-5 cosponsors serve on a committee to which the bill has been referred. (+2%)

Companion bill H.R. 5846: 6+ cosponsors serve on a committee to which the bill has been referred. (+2%)

Companion bill H.R. 5846: The sponsor is a member of the majority party. (+3%)

Just 3% of all Senate bills in 2009–2010 were enacted.

I hope the prognosis is wrong

RT

[1whowaits]

Dick Morris stated on Hannity's show that if the treaty is signed by the Secretary of State, the US is obligated to observe the rules of the treaty until it is either ratified or rejected by the Senate. According to Mr. Morris, if the Senate chooses not to vote or delays a vote, the treaty still remains in effect and carries the force of law. The treaty as law, even though it may be a temporary law, could then carry the weight of a constitutional amendment, superceeding the 2nd amendment.

If the treaty is signed by the SoS, a democrat majority during the lame duck session could ratify the treaty making it law, which apparently could not be overturned. This law would again carry the weight of a consitutional amendment and would superceed the 2nd amendment.

Hillary is supposed to sign the treaty on the 27th..........freedom isn't free.....there is a cost.....

[GodsStudent]

Ok, i know i can be a stupidoo.....i've read the thread, but im not getting the gist here.
Help

Does this thing revoke our right to own guns? If so, is Hillary Clinton about to sign our rights over on an international level?

[1whowaits]

The goal of the treaty is to regulate all arms within the borders of all nations which would require the registration of all firearms in the hands of civilians. The writers of the treaty have repeatedly refused to exempt the firearms held by civilians, meaning that these arms are to be registered and controlled, which can then include the banning of weapons held. The regulating body in the UN would determine which firearms can be possesed and by whom, not individual nations.

So the answer to your questions would be it could revoke our rights to own firearms depending on the goals of those at the UN, and yes, that appears to be her goal, which of course she has desired all along.

[GodsStudent]

Thank you, Mark.

I hate to make rogue comments, but all I can see playing out in my head is that Americans have been fattened and made ready for the slaughter. Our high fat, low fiber "ready made" diet, waiting for us in almost all restaurants and grocery stores, coupled with intense, often sedentary work schedules (for those of us with jobs, still), ...and take away our ability to defend ourselves, we are like pigs waiting for the slaughter.

I imagine the cartels won't register their weapons.

For Christians, the patience and faith of the saints is Christ alone and the promise of eternity with Him, so while they can take my worldly freedom from me, the promise of eternal freedom in Christ is still mine.

[A_Watchman]

This is rediculous. Great way to start another Civil war. Take away our most vaunted protection against a tyrannical government, and then tell us to lay down, and die. Nope, this will not happen without a some very loud commotion happening. Be prepared Saints. Cause the enemy of our master is surely here.

[1whowaits]

Dick Morris has a video about this today on his site, apparently there is a 'Vienna accord' that the US signed that indicates that any treaty that the US signs, either by the SOS or POTUS, is in force until the POTUS renounces it or the Senate votes it down. If the treaty is not voted on by the Senate or is not renounced by the POTUS it remains in effect and carries the force of law.

This would mean that if Hillary signs the treaty and Obama gives his approval, the treaty is in force and the US is subject to the governing authority in the UN regarding small arms, ie the second amendment is superceeded by the treaty. This treaty would remain in force until Obama leaves office (and the succeeding pres hopefully would renounce the treaty), or the Senate voted to renounce the treaty (2/3 majority).

If Mr Morris' info is correct, the adminsitration is attempting to make an end run around the second ammendment, and they may well succeed. This would explain Obama's statement to gun control advocates that he was attempting gun control 'under the radar'. This would also explain 'fast and furious', the supposed 'illicit' transfer of civilian firearms from one country to another causing harm in the other nation (Mexico). If the fast and furious fiasco would have been carried out in the way the administration had designed, it would have proved the need to regulate the civilian arms in the US, and since the Congress would not pass such a law, an international body would be best positioned to impose control on civilian arms in the US.

Freedom is at risk.

[GodsStudent]

A friend and I were discussing this earlier today. After we talked, she emailed the following to me:


The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!

[mark s]

[1whowaits]

GS, after looking at the Reid opinion and article II i would agree that any treaty that contradicts or comes into conflict with the constitution is void. But a treaty coming into conflict with the constitution would depend on how the treaty is written and on how the constitution is interpreted and who is doing the interpreting.

The 2nd ammendment has been confirmed by the SCOTUS as guaranteeing the right of an individual or individual citizens to possess firearms. But that right has not been ruled as absolute, restrictions can be placed on certain aspects of firearm ownership.

Is the banning of semi-automatic firearms (incorrectly called 'assault weapons') in conflict with the constitution? There has been an assault weapons ban in the past for a 10 year period so such a ban can be interpreted as not being in conflict with the constitution. So the banning of certain classes of firearms can be seen as being permitted under the constitution, as long as a treaty does not ban all firearms it could ban entire classes of firearms, and not come into conflict with the constitution, depending on who is doing the interpreting.

Is the registering of firearms in conflict with the constitution? Certain states register all firearms or certain classes of firearms and have not been seen to be in conflict with the constitution. A treaty could force the registration of all firearms and not be in conflict with the constitution. And of course the firearms would need to be registered prior to institution of the banning of certain classes of those firearms, the UK, Canada and australia being the recent examples of this tactic.

So a treaty could be written that would force the registration of all firearms and would allow the banning of a significant number of firearms if not most firearms, and still not be in conflict with the constitution or 2nd ammendment, depending on how loosely one interprets the constitution and 2nd ammendment.

This is not how most of us would interpret the constitution or see this as the intention of the writers of the constitution, but an admistration bent on limiting the firearm rights of individuals could well interpret the constitution in this way and be upheld by the SCOTUS. Signing a treaty that has these firearms limitations in it would be seen by the people as an end run around the constitution, but at the same time the government can argue that is is not in conflict with the constitution and have the treaty institued as law.

As long as a treaty does not ban all firearms, even if it bans most firearms, it can be interpreted as not coming into conflict with the constitution.

[GodsStudent]

Wow, 1WW, That's a very astute response.

My buddy said that instead of taking our guns away, she believes they are just getting rid of, or buying out the gun manufacturers. When we briefly spoke, she cited a few recent sales of larger manufacturers and said when the well runs dry on organizations licensed to make guns, it will all of a sudden be much tougher for new applicants to be approved to manufacture them.

[Exit40]

Meanwhile private gun ownership companies, and ammo companies, are operating three shift's to keep up with demand, and there are still shortages. Oh, violent crime stats are down accordingly, all this since O was declared the president elect.

God Bless

David

[Jericho]

I have heard there was a spike in ammo and gun sales after O was elected. Coupled with the fact we are the most armed nation on earth. Even if they closed down every gun shop today I imagine there would still be quite an arsenal out there in the hands of citizens. Good luck trying to take that away.

[Exit40]

According to issued hunting licenses New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia, would constitute the largest standing military, if organized, on the planet.

God Bless

David

[Resurrection Torchlight]

mentioned this in another thread here if you want to know more about the treaty itself you might want to check it out:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=64059

RT