UN ARMS TREATY AGAIN ALREADY?!?!?!

[jaxjohn419]

[url="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107"]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107[/url]

[hipower]

Time for the next round of bs and lies from the UN and Washington.

[Guest No Ammo]

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=12058

More info:

Within HOURS Of Winning Re-election Obama Approves UN Gun Ban Talks

[Guest PapaB]

And the worse news, according to the United States Constitution;
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2
He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Article 6, Section 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Notice that under Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 he only needs two thirds of the Senators [b]present[/b] to concur.
Any ideas on what to do if this happens? SCOTUS wouldn't help, even the conservatives on the bench would have to uphold it, barring any technical errors. Edited November 8, 2012 by PapaB

[E4 No More]

[quote name='PapaB' timestamp='1352385312' post='841749']
And the worse news, according to the United States Constitution;
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2
He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Article 6, Section 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Notice that under Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 he only needs two thirds of the Senators [b]present[/b] to concur.
Any ideas on what to do if this happens? SCOTUS wouldn't help, even the conservatives on the bench would have to uphold it, barring any technical errors.
[/quote]Well, it says "...the judges in every STATE...." The SC isn't a state judiciary.

[zgunbear]

Elections have consequences
I don't know if we will have a country we can recognize as the United States of America

[mcurrier]

Who is surprised by this? Things are going to start moving very fast under this regime. 0bama has Valerie Jarrett over in Iran cutting a deal and he himself is cutting a deal with Putin in secret. This is what people voted for. They are about to receive it.

[BryanP]

[quote]any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[/quote]

That would appear to be the key phrase. A treaty cannot override the Constitution.

[BryanP]

Here we go. I knew it was out there somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

[i]Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.[/i]

[RobertNashville]

Funny...I thought there were no differences between Romney and Obama and especially on firearms related/gun control issues since Romney was the ONLY one of the two candidates who had signed an assault weapons ban. Maybe I'm wrong and of course, we'll never know, but I doubt Romney would be going this direction.

Oh well...if you can't beat them (and apparently we can't) we might as well join them so I hope they make all future gun manufacturer and sales illegal because that's going to make what I have (not that I admit to having any) worth a hell of a lot on the black market.

[Guest TNBrat]

[quote] "In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."[/quote]

While being sorry to see so many people die... I say let them regulate themselves. Why should the horrible things going on in their country affect my guns.

[quote] "We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.[/quote]

That's a bet! They may not can take away our actual right to bear arms but they can sure make it harder. The damn things aren't cheap now & the price of ammo... I'm sure they'll find a way to do it constitutionally... Luxury Tax? I don't know....




TNBrat Hiding in the woods…

[Guest HvyMtl]

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said. Ok. Watch it. See if it does.

Remember, the US is a major, if not the major, arms exporter in the world. Too much $$$ involved by big business to allow that to be easily curbed. I have a feeling its going to be tweaked, so the US keeps the lion's share of the market.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It won't go anywhere, except by a bastardization of the Constitution. According to the vote, our house is divided,
pretty evenly. If the Senate goes along with this, there will be some serious problems in our country, and I think
you know what. He can do this, but the military will not be on his side. The people will not be on the Senate's side.
People like Corker and Alexander would be crucified if they voted for this. Others would, too. There are a few
Democrats the same way. I don't see Obama having a strong second term, except by Executive Order, and that
will not work very well for him, for very long.

I don't say he won't try, though.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1352397831' post='841886']
It won't go anywhere, except by a bastardization of the Constitution. According to the vote, our house is divided,
pretty evenly. If the Senate goes along with this, there will be some serious problems in our country, and I think
you know what. He can do this, but the military will not be on his side. The people will not be on the Senate's side.
People like Corker and Alexander would be crucified if they voted for this. Others would, too. There are a few
Democrats the same way. I don't see Obama having a strong second term, except by Executive Order, and that
will not work very well for him, for very long.

I don't say he won't try, though.
[/quote]You obviously still have [i]some[/i] faith in these clowns that I have lost.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No, I have faith in people who eventually learn hard lessons from life, or they die off, Robert.

All this will come to a head, maybe soon.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352398106' post='841887']
You obviously still have [i]some[/i] faith in these clowns that I have lost.
[/quote]

I have faith in their self-serving mentality. Vote against gun rights, get kicked off the gravy train. I don't think 6.8 was giving them any more credit than that.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's about it.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote]any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[/quote]
[quote name='BryanP' timestamp='1352388038' post='841776']
That would appear to be the key phrase. A treaty cannot override the Constitution.[/quote]

Nope. "Notwithstanding" means "regardless of", "despite of anything to contrary".

Constitution says plainly that a treaty may override itself.

I'll read up on your case link to see how that really relates, though, as for actual interpretation.

- OS Edited November 8, 2012 by OhShoot

[mcurrier]

Not to mention that the U.S. is not even on the list of countries with oversight of this "treaty", but we would be expected to abide by it. You should see the list of oversight countries - LOL!

[mcurrier]

Senator Dianne Feinstein Moves To Ban ALL Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines and Pistol Grips - http://marketdailynews.com/2012/11/07/senator-dianne-feinstein-moves-to-ban-all-assault-rifles-high-capacity-magazines-and-pistol-grips/

[Guest ThePunisher]

The commies are not wasting any time. Any buyers remorse of Obama and any Libtard representative now?

[Chucktshoes]

I only got one thing to say, go for it.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='mcurrier' timestamp='1352421666' post='842138']
Senator Dianne Feinstein Moves To Ban ALL Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines and Pistol Grips - [url="http://marketdailynews.com/2012/11/07/senator-dianne-feinstein-moves-to-ban-all-assault-rifles-high-capacity-magazines-and-pistol-grips/"]http://marketdailyne...d-pistol-grips/[/url]
[/quote]

I hope she gets cancer. Yes, I know it's harsh.

[Mike.357]

she can move all she wants to. Banning guns is not a way for the asshats in congress to get re-upped. I think they like their cushy lifestyle more than they fear guns.

And i am so sick of this gloom and doom #### spewed by people here I about can't stand it any longer. How do some of you get through the day? Just go kill yourself already.

[jcj]

I can see an AWB being passed as some add-on part of a major financial bill. Sort of "attached" to something the GOP wants to get them to vote it through. You know, in the name of "compromise."

As a standalone bill...no way.