UN gun control treaty to be signed by U.S. on July 27!

Status
Not open for further replies.
ladder13 said:
Maybe you should read the rules, and pay close attention to this one.
3. Do NOT descend into personal attacks on a member.
Click to expand...
Spirited debate is encouraged here but even when passions run high, we as firearms owners must hold ourselves to a higher standard else be branded as your basic gun "nut".
 
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton just gave a good summarization of the gun control treaty on Greta Van Sustren's On the Record, on Fox News at around 10:30PM Eastern time. Her show will repeat in a couple of hours, for those interested in watching or recording the interview. It is worth watching.

JP
 
TexasArmed said:
Well after reading this thread I have decided I will vote. I had planned to stay home, since the rest of the country don't seem to like Texas candidates. I have read Dick Morris's comments,
but can President Obama sign the treaty during a time when congress is not in session, and make it effective? I am a single issue voter when it comes to my gun rights, and whoever from the UN or anywhere else decides to strip away my rights under the 2nd ammendment can have my guns, bullets first whenever they come to take them.:)
Click to expand...

Obama can't sign the treaty into law, but can sign it I believe. it would be symbolic though b/c to be law it has to be ratified by the Senate, but I am worried about how various UN anti-gun efforts could be reclassified under existing treaties.

There's another UN effort out there, ISACS, which is supposed to be a standards body for "International Small Arms Control", but SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Mfg Institute) withdrew from the body citing it as nothing more than an anti-gun group and calling it "tainted." While ISACS can't really be signed into law itself, I worry that such efforts can be grafted on to existing treaties out there.

Back to this treaty...

IMO the Small Arms Treaty globally is focused on limiting arms transfers to anti-government forces. Iran doesn't care about the 2nd Amendment. However, lots of people in the US do, and in my view their agenda is to use the UN to end run SCOTUS and the voters, where they have been getting whipped.

This goes to the most recent argument that we need gun control b/c of guns making their way to Mexico. Here's one scenario: the treaty says guns can only be transferred between governments, but these guns are going to the drug cartels. Can't Mexico then say the US is violating the treaty by allowing the guns across the border? Sure they can, then the anti-gun people say we need gun control laws to comply with the treaty.

That's not even close to a reach in my view. The Mexican President has directly called for renewal of the Clinton gun ban and a national gun registry in the US. If he's called for a gun registry in the US going to the UN is easy to see coming.

So it is 2nd amendment relevant even though it may not be the broader global goal of the treaty. Even so, it's so debilitating to our foreign policy I would reject it even if it had a clause saying the "US 2nd Amendment is to never be breached and we applaud US gun ownership." It's a treaty by repressive regimes, for repressive regimes.

It's a bad deal for the US in every way I can see. Fortunately the Small Arms Treaty has slim to no chance of passing, but I certainly encourage you to vote b/c only with our votes can we insure it fails and make it clear that all such future efforts are also doomed.
 
Last edited:
I was listening to Dick Morris on the Hannity radio show as I was driving today. He says that although 58 Senators have gone on record as being against the treaty, if Hillary and Obama sign off on it, it will have the effect of being binding should Obama choose to make it so in the "interim" period until the Senate goes thumbs up or thumbs down on it.

The upshot is that all Harry Reid has to do is NOT bring it to a vote indefinitely, and the whole damn thing will be in our laps whether we want it to be or not. This is a dangerous step that could implement back door gun control with absolutely no legislative action whatever. It's devious, dastardly and devastating, in complete opposition to the Second Amendment.

Obama is acting like a petty dictator on this, and until he's voted out of office or impeached, there's apparently no one with the guts to call him out and get his shenanigans stopped.

John
 
Winston Churchill's first book in his 5-part series of the Second World War was entitled "The Gathering Storm" -- could this Small-Arms Treaty issue be the harbinger of the 2nd American Revolutionary War??

Interesting times we live in -- we need to remember the lessons of the past. "No taxation without representation" might defer to "No penalization (i.e. subjection to a penalty per Obamacare) without
deference to the Constitution" -- we could now be easily "penalized"
out of gun ownership.
 
Suggested homework lesson:

Read the dissents of Justice Antonin Scalia on the Arizona immigration law decision and the Affordable Healthcare Act decision --

they are illuminating and scintillating -- he is clearly the most intelligent justice on SCOTUS and no one is even close in their legal analytical ability. His academic and intellectual honesty are the bright shining light at SCOTUS. We need more like him.

I must admit to being prejudiced -- I spoke on a panel with him and he loves to duck hunt in South Louisiana -- an excellent shot with a shotgun.
 
John, I was just about to post the same as you did recently, as it seemed to have slipped by the majority of people who watched the video. It almost seems if Obama is re-elected we are thoroughly screwed, unless the Senate can force a referendum on the damned treaty.
And he shows up at the USA-Brazil hoops game last night, smooching up his wife and getting free air time, all the while conniving ways to make this country weaker and poorer.
 
PALADIN85020 said:
I was listening to Dick Morris on the Hannity radio show as I was driving today. He says that although 58 Senators have gone on record as being against the treaty, if Hillary and Obama sign off on it, it will have the effect of being binding should Obama choose to make it so in the "interim" period until the Senate goes thumbs up or thumbs down on it.

The upshot is that all Harry Reid has to do is NOT bring it to a vote indefinitely, and the whole damn thing will be in our laps whether we want it to be or not. This is a dangerous step that could implement back door gun control with absolutely no legislative action whatever. It's devious, dastardly and devastating, in complete opposition to the Second Amendment.

Obama is acting like a petty dictator on this, and until he's voted out of office or impeached, there's apparently no one with the guts to call him out and get his shenanigans stopped.

John
Click to expand...

I think Dick Morris is wrong. Years ago, Bill Clinton signed the "Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms" treaty (CIFTA): an international gun control treaty signed by Clinton in 1997 but never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Obama announced his support of this Treaty but it has NO Effect of Law because it has never been voted on.
 
Been a while since civics, but afaik Morris is not just wrong but very wrong, a fact I find disturbing given his standing in the government.

A President can negotiate a treaty but cannot sign it into law. The Senate must be adopted by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate and only then can the President ratify it by his signature. First the Senate must vote, then the President can sign it into law.

As part of his negotiation process he can sign the agreement, but it has no weight of law. For US legal purposes it's a symbolic gesture only as I understand it.

By custom the treaty would go to Foreign Relations then to the full Senate but I don't believe that's a requirement. It's a custom like the President submitting a budget. He's not required to do so.

Regardless nothing he agrees to has any force of law until the Senate votes it into law and he subsequently signs it, just like any law.

The only exception re international treaties, which is the loophole that worries me, is if something is brought into effect as part of an existing treaty or by some kind of bizarre legal accession. As a stand alone treaty I can't imagine what will come out of a committee where Iran is a respected member ever passing muster.

I wonder if this is to what he's referring, that there's some existing treaty framework out there that lets him claim this to be part of something to which the Senate already agreed. I don't know of any such thing and haven't seen it put that way in the media, but that's the best swag I've got.

I'll be surprised if Obama even endorses this thing. Too much of a risk for him before the election. He'd only validate the NRA's concerns and not really get anyone to vote for him that wasn't already going to do so.
 
Last edited:
In addition to needing 67 votes in the Senate, an impossible number these days, Reid v. covert established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties. So the sky ISN'T falling.
 
The sky isn't falling yet, but it's still a good idea to keep an eye on these nincompoops. And make sure you remember who our friends are when you go into the voting booth this fall.
 
pharmer said:
The Politicritters are paying attention to the NRA like never before. Even the libs concede they are an immovable block. They all know that to vote for this monstrosity will be remembered on election day should a vote happen before then. I ain't worried, yet. Joe
Click to expand...
This, Sums up my feelings as well.
Hope they don't send in any guys with white and light blue
helmets marked U.N. to try and confiscate from me.
It won't turn out well for them.

Chuck
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

depicts
Hillary Clinton does NOT sign UN Gun Control treaty
Replies
11
Views
8K
oldRoger
O
oldfella
GOA Email Alert
Replies
0
Views
971
oldfella
oldfella

Latest posts

Back
Top