U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

[MikePapa1]

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Larry Bell - The Bell Tells for You - Forbes

Very interesting and informative OP-ED.

[Guest LeeroyNWH]

So when can we expect this treaty to pass if it does? 2012?

[Dolomite_supafly]

UN treaty or not there still is that pesky Constitution any enforcers are going to have to contend with. And honestly I do not see UN troops coming in and going house to house looking for arms. LE isn't going to do it on a large scale either leaving the honor system.

What would happen is 95% of the gun owners would turn in their arms under threat of jail. The other 5% will hide their guns for that proverbial rainy day that probably will never come. Also, all the gun owners who turned their guns in will turn in those who didn't.

This, if it even happens, is nothing more than lip service to the rest of the world like what has already been going on. We are slowly being turned into the Euro trash socialists that our government wants us to become just so they are happy with us.

Dolomite

[MikePapa1]

That's the genius of this approach, Dolomite. The Constitution itself says that it and treaties are the supreme law of the land. Then discrepancies between the two will have to be worked out by the Courts.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm under the impression that treaties, once ratified, becomes part of the law of the land.

Is that not right? What can the courts do after a treaty is ratified? I may not have the

correct understanding of how it works.

[MikePapa1]

They have to "reconcile" any conflicts between co-equal laws. My guess is that by the time this is ratified, if ever, that those who are pushing it believe they'll also control the Supreme Court.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't realize that was part of the process. Thanks. I think you're right about their beliefs, also.

[East_TN_Patriot]

The other thing to keep in mind is that the Secretary of State and President do not have the power to ratify the treaty. They can sign it, but then it goes to the Senate to be ratified. My suspicion is that it would not pass the Senate at this point unless political winds change dramatically.

[G27]

Not gonna happen - not only would it be political suicide (just look at what's happened regarding gun laws over the last few years along with the recent SCOTUS decisions) but this is one of the few things that would likely incite a violent reaction from some.

If they want a civil war, this is an almost guaranteed way to start it.

[Glenn]

If they want a civil war, this is an almost guaranteed way to start it.

There is the problem. They wouldn't mind a civil war. Just a good reason to squash all rights.

Glenn

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I knew those two clowns couldn't ratify anything, but, as with Obamacare, payouts get votes.

The elite class of our Senate is up for purchase. the House of Representatives is left out of the

process and the American people are placed at risk of more tyranny. It's very probable that it

won't happen, but, "never say never".

Bad things like the Patriot Act made it through both House and Senate and got signed into law.

Look at how we live now. Pat downs at airports, Damn near no privacy.

Fear got that one through. Basic fundamentals of what freedom is were forgotten.

Oh, and not to mention all the "feel good policies" from years gone by that we are paying dearly

for, to this day.

Don't say it can't happen.

[Glock30]

THIS is why Obama isn't making his liberal followers "happy". He has a much grander scheme at play. Wow. Just cruising until he can get a second term and then he's going to try and run the table.

[Guest pfries]

THIS is why Obama isn't making his liberal followers "happy". He has a much grander scheme at play. Wow. Just cruising until he can get a second term and then he's going to try and run the table.

Yeah hes got my vote

[Guest BungieCord]

That's the genius of this approach, Dolomite. The Constitution itself says that it and treaties are the supreme law of the land. Then discrepancies between the two will have to be worked out by the Courts.

And four of the sitting Supremes have voted that firearms ownership is not an individual right. Three are on record saying their interpretation of the US Constitution is subject to being influenced by international and foreign law.

[BigK]

FYI...yesterday was UN Radio day (I'm not making this up, I swear). I heard an interview on the radio with some kind of expert on the UN Small Arms Treaty. One thing he emphasized emphatically was that it only applies to the illicit sale/traffic of small arms.

He's probably just a liberal nut-case trying to lull America to sleep, but that's what the man said.

[Guest mds3d]

The article stated that the particulars were not out yet. Do we have the particulars yet, or even better the actually text of the proposal?

[Chief07]

Any time the UN is in session the US is in the cross hairs. Time to get out of this anti US organization.

The UN is nothing but a den of corruption.

Hope no "blue helmets" come around.

[Defender]

The antis don't have to pass a sweeping bill, or try to. They will start with little things...treaties, rule interpretations, minor violations of our right to bear arms...

I think something big will eventually happen...either independently or even perpetrated by the liberals, some mass killing of innnocents that will give them an excuse to write up some kind of new Patriot Act, that will gut the constitution, in the name of security...THAT will be the beginning of the end of our freedom.

Was it Ben Franklin who said, ""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."? Some say the current iteration of the Patriot Act is a slippery slope...but I suppose that all depends on who is using it, and for what. When they decide that they can get away with using it against citizens under the guise of anti terror...well that reminds me of Germany in the 30's and early 40's.

As far as this Senate is concerned, be afraid, be very afraid.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The anti's have been doing that since 1934. They have a long, distinguished track record!

This UN treaty has been mis-represented for a long time.

[Guest brandon_pitt]

The antis don't have to pass a sweeping bill, or try to. They will start with little things...treaties, rule interpretations, minor violations of our right to bear arms...

I think something big will eventually happen...either independently or even perpetrated by the liberals, some mass killing of innnocents that will give them an excuse to write up some kind of new Patriot Act, that will gut the constitution, in the name of security...THAT will be the beginning of the end of our freedom.

Was it Ben Franklin who said, ""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

or if you interpret it in Latin, Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium. Give me Liberty or Give me Death.

[Guest midnitelamp]

you would have thought the UN would have been dis-banded if not during the korean war,at least after the Suez "crises",just as the League of Nations bit the dust for all intent after Italy invaded Ethiopia.

Get the UN out of the US,[Greenland would be a good spot] and get the US out of the UN.

[JayC]

I think you under estimate some small part of the American population... There are a number of folks who have drawn a line in the sand, and gun confiscation (or a semi-auto gun ban) is well past it.

It would never make it to the court before the federal government would be fighting an armed insurgency in this country. And it would make the 'civil war' look like a girl scout picnic.

At some point living under tyranny is no longer the best choice, and some folks will take up their banned firearms and start taking shots at people who work for the government that no longer represents them... look at Libya or Egypt as examples.

UN treaty or not there still is that pesky Constitution any enforcers are going to have to contend with. And honestly I do not see UN troops coming in and going house to house looking for arms. LE isn't going to do it on a large scale either leaving the honor system.

What would happen is 95% of the gun owners would turn in their arms under threat of jail. The other 5% will hide their guns for that proverbial rainy day that probably will never come. Also, all the gun owners who turned their guns in will turn in those who didn't.

This, if it even happens, is nothing more than lip service to the rest of the world like what has already been going on. We are slowly being turned into the Euro trash socialists that our government wants us to become just so they are happy with us.

Dolomite

[East_TN_Patriot]

or if you interpret it in Latin, Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium. Give me Liberty or Give me Death.

Not exactly... "I prefer liberty with danger over peaceful slavery." It's my signature.

[Guest HvyMtl]

I think this has been discussed in the past. Remember: Constitution is superior to treaties. Have some reading on the matter:

US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

“The treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.†Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853)

“It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.†The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890)

In other words, the SCOTUS and Federal Courts have long ruled that the Constitution trumps Treaty. So, the 2nd A, being an Amendment to the Constitution, cannot be overturned by treaty.