Its done. Kerry signed UN Arms Treaty.

[JohnC]

Guys, the supreme cop ours has already ruled that no treaty can over ride our constitution look it up

Yeah, forcing folks to buy health care or pay a fine that is supposedly a tax was also unconstitutional until recently. ;)

[KKing]

I really hate to be "that guy" and I hate to have this attitude...but I keep my weapons loaded, and clean for good reason.

I can't say for sure that they won't be successful in getting this ratified. I wouldn't believe they could, but then again I would've never believed we would be here as a nation either. I do my part, I write and call my representatives. I support conservatives at every turn with all my means. I'm just worn out from the constant attack on my civil liberties. I honestly don't know how much longer there will be a peaceful option to keep our rights.

[Guest nra37922]

Edited October 7, 2013 by nra37922

[E4 No More]

Judge Napolitano says that a treaty does NOT trump the constitution, and that this is only symbolic in nature.

[jaxjohn419]

any step forward with this damned treaty, whether legal or not, is still a step forward. too many times people have said "don't worry, they can't do that". Then it happens anyway. Obamacare. Gay marriage. Women in infantry units. etc. etc.

[East_TN_Patriot]

any step forward with this damned treaty, whether legal or not, is still a step forward. too many times people have said "don't worry, they can't do that". Then it happens anyway. Obamacare. Gay marriage. Women in infantry units. etc. etc.

Darn right! Gay marriage, women in infantry units, abolishing Jim Crow, emancipating the slaves, interracial marriage, letting women vote, repealing Prohibition; what's this world coming to?!?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Judge Napolitano says that a treaty does NOT trump the constitution, and that this is only symbolic in nature.

Only correct until ratified. Once that happens things do change. A big problem with the signing of a treaty is that it

can't be unsigned, that I know of, and can be ratified by a future senate. Policies can be made, even though there

is no law to back them up, like those Garands still in South Korea, which was done by SecState, but they are not

laws. They are another class of crap regulations that could eventually pass muster in a liberal Supreme Court.

 

Lots of twists and curves in this stuff with a tyrannical leadership.

 

I should have never watched all the episodes of Jericho.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Only correct until ratified. Once that happens things do change. A big problem with the signing of a treaty is that it
can't be unsigned, that I know of, and can be ratified by a future senate. Policies can be made, even though there
is no law to back them up, like those Garands still in South Korea, which was done by SecState, but they are not
laws. They are another class of crap regulations that could eventually pass muster in a liberal Supreme Court.

Lots of twists and curves in this stuff with a tyrannical leadership.

I should have never watched all the episodes of Jericho.

No, treaties cannot legally trump the Constitution. Clearly, the question becomes one regarding whether elected officials, courts, and voters will actually do anything meaningful to prevent an unconstitutional treaty from being enforced.

I think what most people fail to understand is that even ratified treaties - like restraining orders - are only pieces of paper that are as good as a nation's willingness to abide by it and the UN Security Council's willingness to enforce it. The UN does not have an army, and I seriously doubt that the other members of the Security Council would agree to use their military to enforce the treaty in the US. That would leave the United States to enforce it and no president in their right mind would try to do that. Why would any elected politician risk impeachment to keep records of gun sales on file fir 10 years? The Feds can't even get a magazine ban implemented, much less pull off an obviously unconstitutional gun ban in accordance to a UN treaty that doesn't even include a language calling for a gun ban. If the government is so corrupted that they would try, then that UN treaty is the least of our worries.

EDIT:

One other thing.  The president does not have to sign a treaty.  The Constitution and related federal law only states that the treaty must be negotiated by the executive branch with the assistance of the House of Representatives and it cannot be signed without the consent of the president.  If the president's signature were required, then Harry Truman would have been sitting on the deck of the USS Missouri instead of Douglas MacArthur at the end of WWII.  The Secretary of State is a cabinet appointee who is responsible for foreign affairs and acts at the direction of the president.

Edited October 8, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[leroy]

Folks... ETP's post above (...#33...) is exactly right...  Treaties cant trump the Constitution (...as others have wisely opined...).... 

 

As to the UN "enforcing" anything... Dont worry....  . 

 

As to politicians here in the good ole USA doin anything about "banning guns"; the supremes have ruled on that one too... The Second Amendment is an "indivudual right"; despite whatever Rugh Bader Ginsburg and others say... They lost...  

 

The signing of the un arms treaty wuz red meat for the anti-gunners and a red flag to infuriate the "real people" in this country... It was agreed to in symbolic terms only (....treaties require ratification and cant trump the Constitution....) by two of the most heinous anti american sons of satan who have lived since the civil war --- maybe ever in our history as a nation...  

 

They are both overbearing, pompous, narcissistic, nincompoops who have no notion of anything other than that they should be emperors and that us delightful rustics should bow down and do what they say--- after all, they are the best and brightest; and we (...and the Founding Fathers, evidently...) are just ignorant old men...... 

 

Their main problem is that we wont bow down, the Bill of Rights restrains them, and there will be another election soon; and they will be out... That is the true genius of our system of government... The hell with them both... Keep your powder dry...

 

leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, once ratified, what do they do?

[jaxjohn419]

remember guys, those old 9 black robes won't be alive forever. with this sitting president, if anything happens to one or two of them in the next 2 years, goodbye to some of our most prized rulings...

[Guest TankerHC]

If it's approved by Senate the President still has to sign off. When the law of the seas treaty came up Reagan said we would not be signatories because he would not turn control of 2/3rds of the Earths surface over to a bunch of 3rd world countries. Obama would gladly turn the entire United States over to a bunch of third world countries. And I have no doubt given an opportunity without consequences our Congress would go right along. Someone needs to resurrect Joe Mccarthy and stick him back in office. It's time again to clean government up across the board.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[leroy]

So, once ratified, what do they do?

 

I think this is a fair question...  As long as the Obama regime makes no move to implement any of this stuff that infringes on the Constitution; i think nothin will happen; because it doesnt need to...  There will be another election and this whole little thunderstorm will go away like it never happened...  If they do, in fact, decide to implement some unconstitutional provisions of the treaty unilaterally; my guess (...and it is a guess....) is that the opposition party (...whoever that might be with standing, NRA, Republicans, Tea Party, you, me....) would file suit in federal court... The suit would move thru the judicial system and be adjudicated (...again...)... The problem with all this hand wringing is that this has already been settled....

 

Just because a bunch of political operatives sign something that is patently unconstitutional doesnt make it binding on all of us; nor does it make it a law... Again, its theater for the "children"... Dont get dragged into the maelstrom about this... 

 

A far more important battle is goin on now over this gubmt shutdown and the debt limit... Its an argument about who has the power of the purse when the constitution clearly says that the legislative branch holds it... There is no place in government where this heinous bunch of would be dictators isnt probing to find out what they can get by with; legally or otherwise... On balance, they have lost big every time they go up against the Constitution...Thanks several times to the Supremes and the lower Federal Courts, who some of us (...me included...) regularly blaspheme here...

 

I think it's extremely interesting that while the executive branch is runnin wild and the legislative branch tends to be weak and fractured; the judicial branch is doin it's job of (....for the most part...) protecting us from this idiocy and encroachment on liberty.... I think they full well know that they better do their job and do it well; because they can come under attack as well as we citizens can...They seem to realize how high the stakes are in this current thunderstorm and are acting accordingly...  Mainly, doin their job exactly as the Constitution calls for them to do...  Remember, the Obama regieme has taken a horrible beating at the hands of the supremes and the federal appeals courts on lots of things; and i predict there is more commin...

 

More than that; just who is gonna take up the guns and where do ya think they will start?....  Stuff like that started the Revolutionary War... No one is gonna take up your guns in a red state... Some of the "children" in the blue states may voluntarily give theirs up; but i dont believe for a second that will happen down here; and in the long run, it wont happen in the blue states... the reason;...its unconstitutional.... Remember Charles Krauthammer's recent opining on this very subject...  Obama and Reid like to talk about us being a "nation of laws"; and we are.... That's exactly why they cant do the UN arms treaty thing; plus lots of other things they dream of...

 

I say in the kindest possible way; dont worry about a lame duck president/pseudo emperor and his idiotic apparatchik signing a piece of paper that is clearly unconstitutional on its face... Worry about what our weak-kneed republicans might do with any budget deals; its far more important...

 

leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

As much as I agree with you, Leroy, liberals tend
to think of themselves as the boss based on their
superior intellect, and will default to abusing that
supposed power. After all, we got Obamacare
without a single Republican vote in either body
of Congress.

Now how they go about collecting all those guns
will be the $64000 question. The liberal needs to
be continually pushed down because they always
come back in slightly different clothing. We don't
push very well. We rest our laurels on the use of
intellectual debate. They don't. They resort to brute force after they have broken our will to fight
back.

Krauthammer's comments about Obama using
the "nation of laws" statement are about right,
but did he say that every time Obama says things
like that, did he say Obama is only mocking the
country's foundation when he uses those comments?

Eventually, we will have a conflict from within due
to their arrogance and our lack of perception.

Those powers the Constitution directs, are to be
held by the people, not an evolved Orwellian
central government. We need to remember that.

I wish every bit of this could be avoided, but we
let this happen.

[bersaguy]

I hope this works but here is a link to a petition that everyone that wants to can sign and send. If it does not work maybe someone here with more intelligence than I can make it work.  I think it goes state by state

 

http://www.nrastoptheungunban.com/petition.aspx?source=unpetitionb&ek=1338I10020

Edited October 8, 2013 by bersaguy

[leroy]

I fully agree that everyone who loves liberty and believes that the Constitution says what it says sould be both watchful and engaged in this whole thing...  It is very important to be involved...

In no way did i mean to make light of the situation.. My point is simply that as government is constituted based upon the Constitution alone; this UN treaty thing means nothin...

 

As to being proactive and fighting the "progressivists"; i certainly think we should and are...That's why the democrats and republicans are both howling about the Tea Party and the Club for Growth and calling them names... The people are pushin back and the political class is being affected by it; just as it should be... More and more people are gettin madder and madder about what government is doin to them and they are pushing back... That's the reason for the Tea Party and the Club for Growth...

 

Look at what the Tea Party has already done within the Republican party; not to mention the Club for Growth; the guys that are "targeting" RINO's and others via the primary process... Listening to the republican establishment in some quarters; ya would think that the Club for Growth guys are satan... The reason; they are shaking up the political establishment and tearing down some long standing deals between the two parties; and that is a good thing...

 

While the pundits on both sides said the Tea Party wuz extreme and wuz dead; the Tea Party, the Club for Growth, and folks like Rand Paul and Ted Cruze have changed the political landscape and the republican party for the better...  The solution is, in fact, politics and winning; but the right kind of folks need to win...The other solution is the Civil War solution.. Politics is always better...

 

Look around... The Red States are politely saying no to federalism for the most part... Look at what happened in Wisconsin the other day with their governor declining to close a supposedly "national park" when directed to by the fed...  This is interestin stuff...  I contend that that trend will continue because if ya get people that are fed up with this stuff in a socialist paradise like wisconsin; just think what ya have in the "former confederate states"... Look at what wuz said right here in Tennessee by Bill "Snozz" Haslam  RE:  the proposed gun ban stuff that failed in congress... He said:   (...my rough paraphrase translation....): " ... we are looking into the constitutionality of these proposals with an eye toward protecting the second amendment rights of tennesseeans..."  

 

For the first time since the civil war; federalist power is being challenged and curbed by the states... That's a good thing... What's goin on now is just a "divided government" thing... Its the executive branch and the senate against the house in a stalemate...

 

Remember, it's always a good thing when the gubmt is fightin among itself...  They cant do too much that's stupid(er) than usual...they cant agree on anything...  On a personal basis; i think it would be good if the dammed government wuz shut down... period... for a while... It would straighten lots of things out...

 

Hope this helps explain a bit more...

 

leroy

Edited October 8, 2013 by leroy

[East_TN_Patriot]

So, once ratified, what do they do?

The treaty has been signed by enough UN member nations to become binding under international law, but a minimum of 50 nations have to officially ratify it through their own political process.  That has not happened. Currently only 7 nations have ratified the treaty.  The United States has signed it, but for it to be legally binding, it has to be ratified by the US Senate with a 2/3 majority.  That is not going to happen in the near future.  If it were to happen later on, it will primarily be up to the executive branch to enforce the treaty within the United States unless the UN Security Council unanimously votes to use the power of the United Nations to have member nations contribute military and/or diplomatic resources to get the United States to comply.  


The next question is one that is being neglected here: what does the treaty say and what would need to be enforced?  On this one, I think that this one has been blown a tad bit out of proportion.  Why?

1) The treaty specifically reaffirms the "sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal and constitutional system"

 

2) It specifically states that the treaty assumes a policy of "non-intervetion in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State..."

3) It specifically says the purpose is to "prevent and eradicate the illicit trade" of firearms, not ban guns.

 

4) It specifically prohibits the illegal sale of weapons or the international sale/trade of weapons for the purpose of "commit[ing] or facilitating a serious violation of international humanitarian law... human rights law... an act constituting an offence international conventions or protocols relating to terrorism... or protocols relating to transnational crime."

 

5) Importing nations have the responsibility to assure that weapons are not being imported or diverted for the prohibited actions above.

 

6) The importing nation (and I think this is the rub for many folks) must take measures to keep tabs on imported weapons and provide that information to other member nations.  The text is clear though that "such measures MAY include end use or end user documentation" (emphasis added by me).  In other words, the individual nation is expected to keep track of imports to some degree and MAY choose to collect end user documentation.  Various types of record keeping are "encouraged" and the records must only be maintained for 10 years.   If this was implemented in the United States, it would have to be done in accordance with federal law and constitutional law.  I also propose that our current FFL record-keeping policies are sufficient for the purposes of this part of the treaty.  I conceded that this COULD be a reason to try and pass a national gun registry, but I don't think this would happen, nor would this treaty be necessary to pass a gun registry.

7) The treaty specifies that the responsibility for enforcement primarily rests with "Each State Party" that is party to the treaty.

Because of all of these points, I personally think that the threat from this treaty - even if ratified by the United States - is minimal.  For the apocalyptic outcomes that people are predicting to come true, the scope, purpose, and wording of the treaty would have to be blatantly ignored.  As I said before, if that is what would happen without protest from politicians/military/law enforcement, then we have far more serious concerns to focus on and this treaty isn't needed to implement a gun ban in this country.

The text of the treaty is here:  http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410%2012-01%20PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Now, that's several specifics I didn't know about that treaty. Thank you, ET.

 

I do think we have more of a threat from within the US, right now, also, but every little bit of future

potential legislation is what concerns me. all this stuff adds up in the end.

Edited October 9, 2013 by 6.8 AR