UN Gun Ban?

[kewpie]

I hope this is in the right place and is not redundant. It seems almost all of what goes on in this country against decent people is hidden from them uintil it is sprung upon them en masse.

Scary for sure IMO.

NAGR Gun Rights Blog U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

 

[DonD]

Although I trust Obama, Clinton and Holder as far as I can throw a Navy aircraft carrier, just the statement that we will participate in the UN proceedings doesn't mean much.

With the recent SCOTUS decisions, the Obama administration would have a nearly impossible uphill battle if they tried to accept a UN treaty that impacted individual firearms rights in the US. The Democrats are already quite worried about losing their majorities in Congress, they can't afford to offend any more people. The Senate in my opinion would never consider approving such a UN treaty.

I'm no legal scholar but I think this is going nowhere.

Having said that, we can't afford to become complacent, the buttwipes who oppose us will try anything. Don

 

[Hoplophile]

Keep in mind, it takes a 2/3 vote of the US Senate to ratify any treaty. That's not subject to procedural manipulation, that's explicit in the Constitution.

67 votes. They aren't there today. If YOU do your part, they definitely won't be there after November 2nd. Recall Monica's boyfriend signed the Inter-American Treaty (CIFTA) 1 years ago -- and the Senate has yet to ratify that one.

 

[kewpie]

First heard about this some time ago then it seemed to fade for a time. I do remember reading that if such a move were signed in the form of an international 'treaty' it would be enforceable. The plethora of back-door legislation undertaken by this admin has me concerned about thst 'treaty' aspect. I dont remember the NRA chiming in on this lately either.

Hopefully, it won't happen at all, but nothing Washington may try to do would surprise me.

 

[oldRoger]

As long as there are liberals or a UN this will be out there. The Liberal Elite loves the idea of disarming others.

As Hopophile reminds us it will take 67 votes in the Senate to ratify this treaty or any other. BHO does not have the votes nor did Clinton the last time around.

It is by no means clear that an unconstitutional treaty would be binding upon the US even if approved.

All kinds of organizations use these types of “scares” for fund raising. The environmentalists are making big bucks now on the backs of the oil spill in the GOM.

 

[Frailer]

As long as there are liberals or a UN this will be out there. The Liberal Elite loves the idea of disarming others...

The only difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is which of my rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights they want to infringe upon.

Left-wing wackadoodles want to take my guns, and right-wing wackadoodles want to listen in on my telephone conversations. Both say it's for the common good, but they're both wrong.

Anyone who actually takes the time to *objectively* research this issue would find the following statement in the draft resolution:

"Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory..."

That statement was added at the insistence of the U.S.; the treaty as currently written does *nothing* to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights.

But I realize I'm probably urinating into the wind here. There will always be people who know what they know; facts be damned.

FWIW, and IMHO, Bolton is half a bubble off level.

 

[PDL]

The only difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is which of my rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights they want to infringe upon.

Left-wing wackadoodles want to take my guns, and right-wing wackadoodles want to listen in on my telephone conversations. Both say it's for the common good, but they're both wrong.

Anyone who actually takes the time to *objectively* research this issue would find the following statement in the draft resolution:

"Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory..."

That statement was added at the insistence of the U.S.; the treaty as currently written does *nothing* to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights.

But I realize I'm probably urinating into the wind here. There will always be people who know what they know; facts be damned.

FWIW, and IMHO, Bolton is half a bubble off level.

If you feel you can base your gun rights on that kind of statement, I don't think you understand politicians real well. That sop is there to give cover for the folks would vote to ratify it. They'd tell there constituents that 'your 2A rights are protected'. BS, look at the number of internationaly produced firearms and wave them goodbye. That's like some of these buttheads want to prohibit or restrict access to ammo, stating it doesn't interfere with your right to own a gun.

One thing I do agree with you on, is that both sets of the career pols are detrimental to our freedoms.

 

[kewpie]

If you feel you can base your gun rights on that kind of statement, I don't think you understand politicians real well. That sop is there to give cover for the folks would vote to ratify it. They'd tell there constituents that 'your 2A rights are protected'. BS, look at the number of internationaly produced firearms and wave them goodbye. That's like some of these buttheads want to prohibit or restrict access to ammo, stating it doesn't interfere with your right to own a gun.

One thing I do agree with you on, is that both sets of the career pols are detrimental to our freedoms.

You described my feelings/apprehension more specifically than did I. I don't think it's a matter of interpreting something we are 'told' or 'shown' that 'has been written', so much as it is a matter of what we are not being 'told' or 'shown' that might also have been written. (Much like having to 'sign the healthcare proposal so we can see what's in it!' )

I was once in federal law enforcement. I take nothing face value from the feds simply because they nearly always speak, smile and confront us with at least two faces.

 

[Frailer]

If you feel you can base your gun rights on that kind of statement, I don't think you understand politicians real well...

First, I don't "base my gun rights on that kind of statement." That wasn't my point at all.

My point was that as a group we're like dogs who get fixated on whichever squirrel happens to run by. We're too busy looking for the "gun grabbing liberal" hiding behind every tree that we lose sight on what's really going on. This is merely a distraction.

I think the first sentence in my original reply to this thread reflects a fairly rational view of politicians.

 

[PDL]

I think Kissinger said it properly, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

And the facts are the gun grabbing libs are out to take firearms out of the hands of citizens.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I recall an article I read in the NY Times during the Klinton years where they noted-with disapproval-that Slick was trying to inject a treaty into U.S. law by executive orders rather than submit to the Senate where even Democrats were opposed to it. We have to worry about limitation on gun rights coming in through the backdoor or even through the cellar so to speak.

 

[DonD]

I recall an article I read in the NY Times during the Klinton years where they noted-with disapproval-that Slick was trying to inject a treaty into U.S. law by executive orders rather than submit to the Senate where even Democrats were opposed to it. We have to worry about limitation on gun rights coming in through the backdoor or even through the cellar so to speak.

No approach, nothing at all is too sleazy for the anti gun zealots to try if they think they can further their cause. They simply do not care about you or any rights you believe you have. Don

 

[oldRoger]

An executive order is not a treaty. The POTUS can not simply issue an executive order and establish law either.
Many Presidents probably have wished that they could but can not. The Constitution clearly limits presidential power, he is not sovereign.
Presidents sign agreements with foreign powers frequently which never are implemented because the Senate does not ratify the agreement.
Think for example the Kyoto (global warming) Treaty, Clinton never sent it to the Senate for consideration because it would have been dead on arrival.
There are a lot of fast ones the POTUS can pull, but congress can always step on this sort of thing if the political will is there.

 

[hf1960]

Keep in mind, it takes a 2/3 vote of the US Senate to ratify any treaty. That's not subject to procedural manipulation, that's explicit in the Constitution.

67 votes. They aren't there today. If YOU do your part, they definitely won't be there after November 2nd. Recall Monica's boyfriend signed the Inter-American Treaty (CIFTA) 1 years ago -- and the Senate has yet to ratify that one.

Amen Brother...