Hillary Clinton does NOT sign UN Gun Control treaty

[depicts]

While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters

[P&R Fan]

This comes up every few weeks.
The US president does not have the power to enact this. It would require a 2/3 vote of congress to pass. I'm sure Barry and Hillary would love to see this happen. In today's political environment, not a chance.

[LoboGunLeather]

Originally Posted by P@R Fan

This comes up every few weeks.
The US president does not have the power to enact this. It would require a 2/3 vote of congress to pass. I'm sure Barry and Hillary would love to see this happen. In today's political environment, not a chance.

I disagree. I expect this administration to fully attempt to impose this treaty as quickly as possible, leaving anyone who dares stand in the way waiting several years for a day in federal court to hear the case. Meanwhile, the mid-term election will have taken place and Mr. Obama will have had several additional years to pack the courts with like-minded appointees.

I expect this treaty to be implemented in spite of the US Constitution, and the administration can lay everything else aside and simply state that they are only conforming with international norms under a binding treaty.

We will see what the results may be.

By the way, not only firearms ownership is covered under this treaty. Anyone who reloads ammunition will be required to have a license, be subject to limitations on quantities and types of ammunition produced, be required to report every transaction, etc, etc, etc. The treaty is very far-reaching in scope, and just what the libertards have been looking for to impose their will upon those of us who won't roll over for them.

[Raspy]

Lobo,

Would you care to explain how this will be enforced? Of course, it will never come to that, but just wondering.

Oh and, once again, you are making the mistake of equating "anti gun" with "liberal". Not a good idea to start a fight with "liberal" gun owners that can join you in the gun rights struggle. Stay on message and address the issue. The issue is gun rights. Much better than slinging derogatory all encompassing and inaccurate labels. Why turn off and isolate yourself from fellow gun owners?

[ASA335]

OK, I followed the Reuters link. It was posted October 14th, 2009 (seven months old). No where does it say that it has been signed by anyone from the USA. All it says is:

"The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto." (Emphasis added)

Backing the launch of talks only, that any one of the attending nations could veto.

And, like P@R Fan said "The US president does not have the power to enact this. It would require a 2/3 vote of congress to pass." That is the constitutional requirement.

Even if it was signed without first going through the constitutionally required process, any attempt to enforce this would be stopped very quickly by many courts and the congress. I believe very few LE types would even consider enforcing such a blatantly unconstitutional law.

Oh I believe President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton would love to see it approved, but not likely at this time.

In Pursuit,

[ASA335]

I just checked the UN web site.

The most recent statement posted by the US Mission to the UN, and specifically attending meetings for the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (the one handling the Arms Trade Treaty discussion), was dated March 5th, 2009.

Nowhere in that statement does the US Mission say they support a specific treaty, only that it (we) support the general discussion on “… controlling the international conventional arms trade, and especially preventing such arms from serving illegitimate or anti-humanitarian purposes”. I loved this part:

Mr. Chairman and distinguished colleagues, I have been struck this week by the number of interventions proclaiming generic and laudable “goals, objectives, parameters, and elements” that fit more appropriately into a treatise following on to Thomas More’s “Utopia”.

(Emphasis added)

All they’re doing is talking about it, and the next meeting to “discuss” isn’t until July, 2010; with the last currently scheduled meeting not until 2012. There doesn't appear to be any treaty ready for signatures; they're still talking about it.

In Pursuit,

[depicts]

I'm sorry I jumped the gun in posting this letter I received.

While I have been following this process, and know the Senate needs to ratify a treaty (Unless DEEMED passed), I freaked out a bit last night when I received it and did follow to Snopes or other sources other than Reuters. And you're right, I didn't notice the date.

Sorry for my alarm. It still is a good idea to watch these people very closely.

[bk43]

I'm sure this is refering to the UN CIFTA treaty which Hillary and the TPOTUS support. However, Bill Clinton signed this treaty in 1997 and it was, and still is today, DOA in the Senate. They couldn't get a simple majority in the Senate to ratify this much less the two thirds required.

Bob

[DonD]

Originally Posted by depicts

While I have been following this process, and know the Senate needs to ratify a treaty (Unless DEEMED passed It still is a good idea to watch these people very closely.

I don't think that there is any provision for "deeming to pass" a treaty. Not even Harry Reid could try that and SCOTUS would invalidate it in a heartbeat.

But you're quite correct, none of the principles in this administration are trustworthy when it comes to firearms issues. Don

[zoom6zoom]

Ambassadors don't sign treaties, IIRC.

[george minze]

Nothing this administration can believed on its face. On the other hand some of the stuff out there is not helpful to our cause. It is not just about gun rights it is about rights in general. I keep hearing about the Barry Sor???stuff that was know or supposedly know for 2 years.( legality of POTUS birth place) People sending the info on Supreme court intervention.....Please keep it straight. Know the rules of evidence etc. Hey they may be right but we are not ready for a constitutional crises. Not from hearsay.

[oldRoger]

The “deemed passed” stuff is the house of representatives,. The two thirds majority senate treaty ratification is a constitutional requirement.

It is going to be very difficult to backdoor this one. No question BHO and Clinton agree on this but getting it done is going to be difficult
B. Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty (global warming) but didn’t bother submitting (it would have failed) the thing to the Senate so it died.

BHO might sign such a thing hoping for a good time to send it to the Senate. But there are too many Dem Senators skating on thin ice to try this now, I doubt even Durbin would sign it.

Get a few more Liberal Senators out, and we won’t have to worry about it.
Our real worry should be Liberal anti-self- defense mayors. And peace to you Liberal Gun Owners but most, if not all of the Anti Self-Defense rhetoric comes from the Left. I know that not all liberals are against self defense, but every one who denies that we have self defense rights seems to be liberal.