U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

[Guest thorn]

Ok. How about Supreme Court decisions. Anyone place any "authority" or "belief" in those?

IF so, go read: GEOFROY V. RIGGS, 133 U. S. 258 :: Volume 133 :: 1890 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Pay particular attention to the bottom of page 133 U.S. 266 to the top of page 133 U.S. 267, where it says treaty power is limited by the Constitution - where the treaty power does not extend as far as to authorize what the Constitution denies...

In simple terms, a treaty cannot trump the Constitution. So says the SCOTUS... And FYI: The Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution, and therefore trump any treaty...

So, Clinton and Obama can sign a gun ban treaty, the Senate can Ratify it, and if it violated the Constitution, by default, it would NOT be enforceable within the U.S. - Checks and Balances, aint they grand?

So basically what you are saying is that the Federal Government can do whatever they want then I have to go up against them as an individual to defend my Constitutional rights maybe it's just me admittedly lacking where you have been taught and studied. Give me a set of plans and some dirt and I can build something but when it comes to all things written then I'm left helplessly in the hands of the likes of you and them. The difference is for me an inch is an inch - for them an inch is a whatever they say it is... And the cards have been stacked.

I know, I know, I know, we can't have mandatory healthcare either while all along I take it in the rear end. But the whole UN thing was just talk nothing was signed so, no worries. I'm following you there whether I want to or not. "Checks and Balances" good, but if they don't make it, then we can't buy it. I'm actually struggling with this one more since my initial post and the Calderón comment.

I haven't had the time to read this through but it's where I'm going next The OAS Firearms Convention Is Incompatible with American Liberties | The Heritage Foundation

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Another problem with society is there has been a shift in how laws are being used. They are no longer viewed as a means to better society or to keep people safe but as a means to generate revenue. 90% of the laws on the books need to be replealed then the 10% that are left need to be enforced.

The expectation is that it is a 'do nothing' ineffective congress if they don't pass a passel of new laws every dern year.

Ferinstance when Scott Brown was elected, the talking heads were abuzz that Brown would have to be careful to select a solid important thang upon which to base his first-introduced new legislation.

Wrongheaded. He has to prove his salt by concocting some new law when we had an oversupply of laws decades ago!

Do-nothing is better than new laws. Give em a raise if they just go to Washington and twiddle their thumbs.

Even better, reward the ones who try to repeal laws. Repealing law is doing something!

[mikegideon]

The expectation is that it is a 'do nothing' ineffective congress if they don't pass a passel of new laws every dern year.

Ferinstance when Scott Brown was elected, the talking heads were abuzz that Brown would have to be careful to select a solid important thang upon which to base his first-introduced new legislation.

Wrongheaded. He has to prove his salt by concocting some new law when we had an oversupply of laws decades ago!

Do-nothing is better than new laws. Give em a raise if they just go to Washington and twiddle their thumbs.

Even better, reward the ones who try to repeal laws. Repealing law is doing something!

+1

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Gotta agree with you Lester:D congress could spend a decade or two repealing all the stupid laws they passed and we would be better off.

[Guest Catdaddy]

Gotta agree with you Lester:D congress could spend a decade or two repealing all the stupid laws they passed and we would be better off.

Amen! Repeal all the useless restrictions on free trade and liberty, and then do something new ONLY if it is Constitutional and creates opportunity and greater liberty for all, mostly that means stay out of the way!

[Guest HvyMtl]

My point with the SCOTUS ruling is, simply, yes, someone would have to sue the fed govt if it ever came to them going that far... But the rule of law is there, and the number of states signing pro-gun legislation tells me there would be plenty of groups suing...

Reality is this is not a way to gun grab. There are other, easier and faster actions which could do so...

Reality is, it is a tightening of UN treaties to prevent the black market guns getting to war zones. Reality is, the US is the #1 military weapons seller in the World. In no way would any political party "kill the golden goose" of the profits coming from this trade, they benefit too much from the jobs in their districts, and the $ from the lobbyists.

So, focus on the legit threats. This is not one.

[mikegideon]

So, focus on the legit threats. This is not one.

We need a smiley sign with this exact text!