UN Gun Ban

[lawdog]

As people in the shooting sports forum, you better educate yourself about this and follow it. Despite all the claims from people on the left about how Obama wasn't supporting this and how it was dead, it was announced just hours after the election results that the project was resurrected with Obama's support. Gee what a coincidence...

Don't be fooled into thinking this is about illegal gun trafficing by terrorists either. They will push for all out bans that WILL affect us.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!

[Ufatz]

Oh nooooooo! Not this thing again. Please folks....worry about something that will ACTUALLY have an effect on YOUR life.

I don't mind it you want to crank up the anit-Obama stuff right away and yes, I know there has been and will be discussion of such a world-wide "ban" but the truth is the US would never sign off on anything that would in any way affect your gun ownership. Common sense will tell you that.

C'mon you guys.....you're smarter than that and you have better things to worry about. Like whether that d*** Nancy Pelosi can afford another face lift and whether Arnold Schwartzenner and Jesse V. are gonna team for a run in 2016!!!!

[fr0sty]

I agree.

Oh nooooooo! Not this thing again. Please folks....worry about something that will ACTUALLY have an effect on YOUR life.

I don't mind it you want to crank up the anit-Obama stuff right away and yes, I know there has been and will be discussion of such a world-wide "ban" but the truth is the US would never sign off on anything that would in any way affect your gun ownership. Common sense will tell you that.

C'mon you guys.....you're smarter than that and you have better things to worry about. Like whether that d*** Nancy Pelosi can afford another face lift and whether Arnold Schwartzenner and Jesse V. are gonna team for a run in 2016!!!!

[DRAGFOOT]

This is just one of many things we can start to be concerned about. It is a very real possibility and anyone that tells you it's not is misinformed. The conseqences of this election are far deeper on many fronts than most people want to believe.

[flipper]

[lawdog]

Stick your head in the ground ostrich style then Ufatz. Why were we told it was dead before the election and then the story breaks on the news within hours after the election that its back on? You can't possibly be this niave, no one is that big of a dolt...

[Getanet]

Do you guys check under your bed each night to make sure the Boogeyman isn't going to get you?

Maybe I wouldn't need to take out a loan to buy a box of ammo if some folks weren't so irrational.

[Scott K]

I would bet, nobody is coming to take my guns away. But if someone ever tried, I would be revolting. I am sure I wouldnt be the only one, but until that day comes, I am not going to lose any sleep at nights.

[DRAGFOOT]

Well, I hope for everyones sake to say years down the road that it turns out to be false.

I dont look under my bed at night, but I do keep myself informed of whats going on in the bigger picture in this world besides peoples tax returns and birth certificates, unlike the majority of America.

[Ufatz]

Hey L'dog....I can be as big a dolt as I want to!! Ha Ha Ha! Please closely examine the situation. I really don't want to waste much time and space here, but the White House and State Department has always said, without equivocation, that no treaty of any kind "will be signed that makes any attempt to change the US laws and regulations on sporting arms." Look it up.

Secondly: any treaty, assuming one is EVER reached, would have to be approved by the U.S.Senate. Now....I want you to think slowly and carefully here....what are the odd's YOUR U.S.Senator is going to vote to ratify that treaty. Got it?

Now, move on with your life and leave these poor guys alone in here. They've got other things to worry about without you guys running around screaming at the sky! LOL

[lawdog]

My senators are Franken and Klobuchar, I'd bet huge coin they'd both vote for it, one is a lock and I'm pretty sure the other would go for it if Barry and Hilary were pushing it! Oh and I wouldn't trust any of the new Pravda's propaganda statements about how we shouldn't worry about it...

[lawdog]

Oh and one other thing, even their own statement leaves HUGE loopholes. They define what is a suitable sporting arm and then limit their bans to what they've decided is OK. Ya right, no problems in that scheme...

[Whoaru99]

but the White House and State Department has always said, without equivocation,

You do have a good point, inasmuch as governments throughout history have always been 100% forthright with the people. Now where is that "rolleyes" smiley?

[Whoaru99]

This one should be moved to political forum too.

[RK]

This story is like a bad penny - just keeps turning up. I'm going to start saving my responses in a file so I can just cut and paste instead of having to hunt down old posts...

Anyhow - here we go again:

1.) Can an international treaty or UN mandate supersede the Constitution? No. Reid v Covert, 1957 Supreme Court case establishes clearly that international treaties, even when ratified by the Senate, do not supersede the Constitution.

2.) The Secretary of State, as a member of the Executive under the President's authority can negotiate and sign a treaty, but it isn't a valid treaty under US law until it is ratified by a 2/3 majority of the US Senate. (“[The President] shall have Power, by and with the consent of the Senate, to make treaties; provided two-thirds of the Senate concur” (Article II, Section 2; #2)). There are other kinds of international agreements allowed by law, including congressional-executive agreements (CEAs, which require simple majorities in both chambers of congress) and sole-executive agreements, which the Executive branch alone can enact. A congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President. A sole-executive agreement can only cover matters within the President's authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President. Neither would apply here. No treaty can "bypass the legislative process" no matter who signs it. If it ain't ratified, we aren't bound to it under international law. In other words, it takes a little more than 'the stroke of a pen.'

2.A.) There is list of signed but un-ratified treaties as long as your arm, including the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty (signed and ratified in 1972, but the US withdrew from it in 2001); the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; The Convention on Rights of the Child (It's opposed by some conservatives in the Senate because it prohibits the death penalty for minors. Only the US and Somalia have not ratified it. There's something to be proud of...)

3.) The Secretary of State hasn't signed a UN Arms treaty because ***there is no such treaty to sign.*** The conference in July, which the initial freak-out was about, and which produced no treaty, is covering the arms trade in general, from tanks and planes and attack helicopters to small arms and ammunition. It's similar to international treaties that cover things like pharmaceuticals, electronics, automobiles and a host of other things. In the draft of the treaty, the language states it is the: "sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems." Most treaties have similar language.

The aim of the potential treaty being discussed is to combat the illicit international trade in small arms by "tightening the regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market." [source = the UN ODA] The treaty *IF* signed and ratified, would require the US to record all international weapons sales, NOT domestic sales. If you want to draw a connection between trying to eliminate arms shipments from North Korea to East Africa and preventing you from buying a deer rifle, be my guest...

4.) The only way to 'circumvent the 2nd amendment' is to amend the Constitution to either repeal or alter it (anyone taking bets on the chances an attempt to amend or repeal any part of the Bill of Rights would have?) or via a Supreme Court decision that radically alters the interpretation of it, and tosses out a mountain of precedent in doing so. No international treaty, agreement or UN mandate can do so.

All in all...this whole "The UN Treaty will ban all guns!" story is a great example of hysterical scaremongering, with a sliver of truth that requires an alternate political reality to become a threat, and which takes about 10 minutes worth of research to blow to smithereens. The claims about this treaty are just plain false.

Seriously, people. Go watch "Red Dawn" 20 more times or something.

[Moose-Hunter]

Seriously, people. Go watch "Red Dawn" 20 more times or something.

Thank you RK... For the great post! And for the GREAT closing line!! That right there... Made my day!!

(The chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall.... John has a long moustache. John has a long moustache.... LOL!!)

[Scott K]

This one should be moved to political forum too.

NO!

[Whoaru99]

Yeah it should be, it's purely a political theme/message.

[96trigger]

Sure RK, don't go spreading all that factual stuff around here. What we want here are good old scare tactics and paranoia creating statements. When the russian paratroopers start landing in our football field, I'll be blaming you.

Everybody now "wolverines, wolverines, wolverines"

(If you have not seen red dawn, my post probably makes very little sense)

[CANOPY SAM]

Just like we witnessed thru the majority of this recent campaign, which we should all unanimously praise the Lord that it's over, if the same folks keep publicly stating the same lies long enough, eventually the masses begin to accept them as the truth.

Bleeding hearts of the world unite! Get in line with the rest of the lemmings and march blindly over the cliff.

[flipper]