Call to arms

[25elk]

This may be moved to the Second Amendment Forum if the mods think it more appropriate, but since the readership here is 75-100 times greater than there, it seemed more responsible to post it here.

Today is the day Sec of State Kerry signs the U N Arms Treaty. I have signed every petition, contacted every member of my congressional delegation in both houses and protested to the POTUS. This treaty must be ratified by Congress if it is to become the law of the land, but we all know how that has been going lately. Anyway, if ratified, this will be the official start of firearms registration in this country. It may take a while to implement, but since it will be an international treaty it will eventually happen. Under the guise of controlling illegal arms distribution to dissidents and terrorists around the world, this bill will REQUIRE registration of all firearms in all countries that are signatories.

Every person that enjoys the freedoms we uniquely share in this nation should be vehemently protesting this relinquishment of our right to govern ourselves. Self governance is one of the core principles upon which this nation was founded, and turning over control of our rights granted by the Second Amendment to Constitution to the United Nations is tantamount to treason. If you never get involved, this is the time. Write, call, let your voice be heard. We don't need a repeat of "We have to pass it to see what's in it" insanity.

To all those who think this another tin foil hat event, you can don your tin foil hats every September 25 and celebrate the loss of your freedom while you ponder the unthinkable that somehow came to pass.

 

[M29since14]

...We don't need a repeat of "We have to pass it to see what's in it" insanity.

Amen! to that. As is usual, we have heard a lot about this treaty but have been told very little by our representatives. Certainly the case in my district. I think the current Administration is setting the stage in hopes of getting a different House at the next election. Then the ratification process can be steamrolled and no one will need to know what is in the treaty until after the accomplished fact. We need to know more about this treaty - now.

 

[smokindog]

Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it | Fox News

 

[tlay]

It is not the House that ratifies the treaty, it is the Senate. Contact your senators.

 

[dcxplant]

Done, sent to Flake and McCain.

 

[Gunslinger808]

Done, sent to Flake and McCain.

Well, we tried anyway.
Not like it'll really help with McCain.

 

[M29since14]

It is not the House that ratifies the treaty, it is the Senate. Contact your senators.

My mistake. I was thinking it took both chambers but you are right - it is exclusively the duty of the Senate. Brain fade. I will contact both IN senators - and hope for the best.

 

[the ringo kid]

I signed two online petitions with in the past couple of months and also sent letters to Sens: Hinojosa--to which ive never received any type of reply) as well as to Ted Cruz--whose office sent me a thank you letter about a week after I mailed my letter off. If Cruz runs in 2016? he has my vote.

 

[bluegrassarms]

It has almost no chance of passing the Senate and being ratified, but that doesn't change the fact that we all need to make our voices heard on it. It still has influence on US policy now that we are a signator, and we need to make it clear just how much the American people disagree with its principles. This treaty will give weight to efforts to encroach on the 2nd Amendment, from regulatory level efforts to executive orders and import controls. The more noise we make about it the better.

 

[Autococker07]

It has almost no chance of passing the Senate and being ratified, but that doesn't change the fact that we all need to make our voices heard on it. It still has influence on US policy now that we are a signator, and we need to make it clear just how much the American people disagree with its principles. This treaty will give weight to efforts to encroach on the 2nd Amendment, from regulatory level efforts to executive orders and import controls. The more noise we make about it the better.

The danger is not that it will not be ratified, it is that it can be shelved and or try to ratify for life..... eventually if we get enough senators to vote for it, it could be ratified.

It is just like a hostage negotiator.... they are just going to wait us out till the best time.... time is on their side.... sad....

 

[KKECK5]

It needs a 2 /3 vote to pass. Never going to happen.

 

[bluegrassarms]

The danger is not that it will not be ratified, it is that it can be shelved and or try to ratify for life..... eventually if we get enough senators to vote for it, it could be ratified.

It is just like a hostage negotiator.... they are just going to wait us out till the best time.... time is on their side.... sad....

I agree it's something to just sit out there and maybe get passed later and it is a danger, but another very real danger is it will be used to justify any number of 'executive orders' that limit our rights, like banning import of specific weapons justified as being compliant with the treaty.

I made a long post on the other thread, but as a signator to a treaty we do have an obligation in international law to "not defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty, which is a completely unclear standard but will be pointed to by Obama as justification for various actions that Congress doesn't have to approve.

This can and will be used against the 2nd Amendment even if it never reaches the Senate.

The only good news is that another President can un-sign the treaty without approval as well, but the longer this sits there the better they figure their chances are with the Senate. if we can win back the White House in 2016 it can be un-signed. Until then this thing is an ongoing threat to the 2nd Amendment at many levels.

 

[DWalt]

One thing to keep in mind - If the treaty is ratified by the Senate, then the treaty supersedes the Constitution. Essentially the 2nd Amendment will cease to exist. Which is exactly what this administration desires.

 

[dougb1946]

One thing to keep in mind - If the treaty is ratified by the Senate, then the treaty supersedes the Constitution. Essentially the 2nd Amendment will cease to exist. Which is exactly what this administration desires.

You may want to revise this. A treaty can not over ride the Constitution

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution.

 

[GBertolet]

No treaty may overide the constitution. I used to think it could, but after research I found it cannot, at least legally it can't. If the administration gets to replace a justice or two on the supreme court, they will rule on 2nd ammendment rights issues any way the administration tells them to, which may factor into this treaty. This treaty is going nowhere for now, but it will be a ticking timebomb, for any future senate to get the 67 votes needed to ratify, as these treaty signings do not sunset. I believe a future president can "repudiate" an unsigned treaty to terminate it. Don't count on a future democrat president to do that though.

 

[jtpur]

My goodness how can you folks say NEVER going to happen. The treaty does not die if the Senate votes no. It can be brought back up. If Harry Reed doesn't think it will pass, he has the option of not putting
it up for a vote. If the supporters of the treaty get a 2/3 majority it will pass. At one time or another both political parties have held a 2/3 majority, and who can predict that the vote will strictly be along party lines
The US would not sign the treaty when Bush was President and Bolton was UN Ambassador. One election changed our Country's position. One election can do the same in the Senate too. Please NEVER SAY NEVER!!!!!!