petition to stop UN treaty

[skyraider]

Please read, sign and send this link to anyone you know who supports our second amendment rights.

Paul Moore


Sign The Petition To Stop The US From Signing The Arms Trade Treaty! | Dickmorris.com

 

[627 city hunter]

Sent!!!

I am disgusted to the point of nausea with this agenda!

 

[Nedroe]

Sadly.......

they are gonna sign it, no matter how many names or petitions show up. The US and a couple of small puppet countries asked for some clarification & had the vote postponed until November. Make no mistake, they are signin' it.


Ned

 

[627 city hunter]

^^^U.N.fortunately I believe you are correct.

The U.N. will be the forces to squash distention
from the U.S.A. as we move *forward* into
unconstitutional enslavement.

 

[StatesRightist]

They may sign it, but it's not going to get ratified. Thankfully.

 

[627 city hunter]

StatesRightist, I generally agree with you 97% of the time.

Why will this not be ratified?

 

[madmikeb]

The treaty has to be ratified by, I believe it's 2/3rds majority in the senate which they do not have. 50 senators have signed on and sent a letter to the white house against the treaty so I think we are safe for now. But there are always executive orders, and who knows what the makeup will be of the next senate.

 

[silentflyer]

My understanding is a Supreme Court ruling from the 1957 Reid v. Covert case, establishes legal precedent that no treaty may be signed that infringes on any of the Bill of Rights or Constitution.
My mouthpiece told me about it, and he is a gun owner and hunter.

Reid v. Covert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[627 city hunter]

^^^
Precisely, what I meant by 'orders'.

 

[jtpur]

Sorry but I have to laugh. Anyone who thinks that a previous SCOTUS case would nullify a treaty is frankly suspect of taking to many mind altering drugs. SCOTUS can and will rule any way they damn well want to rule. Given the present make up of the court, it could be a 5-4 decision nullifying the infringement on the 2nd or it could be 7-2 in favor of upholding the treaty.

 

[StatesRightist]

Madmike covered the why it won't be ratified part of the equation.

A President can only issue Executive Orders which fall within already established Congressional Law. In other words, a President can change the way environmental law is regulated, measured for effectiveness etc. He could not have issued it by Executive Order if Congress had not already established the EPA, Clean Air Act etc.

There is no Congressional Approved UN Small Arms treaty, therefore he has zero Executive Order privilege in this area. If he attempts to go outside the lines it will either be struck down almost immediately as unconstitutional and illegal, it will not even require a hearing I suspect, but will be by a Judge's ruling or quickly overridden by Congress. The Senate has a huge majority who are against it, much less the House's majority against it.

I would also expect impeachment articles to be presented should he try it.

He would be clearly stepping on Congress's toes and usurping their authority, past history shows even Congressmen of the same party as the President quickly try to eat the President's lunch for that little trick.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

With the exception of a handful of "the usual (liberal) suspects", I can't imagine any politician voting for something like this. It would be political suicide to even suggest "considering" the measure, let alone voting for it. And take a moment to remember this date, April 18th, 1775, when the British sent a force of soldiers towards Concord, Mass to confiscate the guns of it's citizens. At Lexington they ran into some "resistance". I have visited the memorial in Concord and would urge every American to do so at least once. It's a symbol of the freedoms we enjoy today and a lesson for our future.

 

[Cook74]

UN does not trump our 2nd amendment rights so I could care less what the UN and its idiots do...

 

[MikeChandler]

I've signed, but I doubt they could ever make this happen, for all the reasons already given above. It would be political suicide.

Republicans are not the only gun owners - democrats own guns too. And while there is a discrepancy on the types of firearms that should be allowable, there is only minor contention regarding owning any firearms at all - so the supporters of this sweeping treaty would be as rare as vegetarians.

Besides all of that, the writers of this arefundamentally mistaken. I would personally like to see every capable homo-sapien, regardless of country, religion, or whatever, armed to the teeth. That's the treay I would stand behind.

That would be the singular most effective path to a lasting world peace, since it would have the same effect as removing all weapons from the planet - which is impossible - arming every capable human with maximum firepower would even the playing field the exact same way.

Just to be clear what camp I'm in

Nature is bloody in tooth and claw, and we didn't rise above it with harsh language. The only real peace is peace backed-up by the mutual respect of deadly force.