seeker_two
New member
Could Obama use his EO powers to define GCA'68 according to the terms of the Small Arms Treaty? That would be the ultimate end-run.....and not below him...
2012 Election and Rules for L&CR
- Thread starter Rifleman1952
- Start date
Treaties alone cannot do a thing. I really don't care how many are signed and then ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
Unless and until actual laws are legislated, a treaty by itself is nothing more than words on a piece of paper... Put another way, unless the Congress enacts (and a president signs) enabling legislation, treaties are worthless.
Unless and until actual laws are legislated, a treaty by itself is nothing more than words on a piece of paper... Put another way, unless the Congress enacts (and a president signs) enabling legislation, treaties are worthless.
To supplement Al's post, I'd refer folks to Reid v. Covert on the matter of treaties:
Please disseminate this information to you friends and neighbors. A lot of scaremongering is going to take place in the next few months, and you'll be doing everyone a favor by debunking it. We need to keep our eyes peeled for sneaky regulatory stuff, and distractions like the ATT or Feinstein's new doomed AWB proposal only distract us from that.
Please disseminate this information to you friends and neighbors. A lot of scaremongering is going to take place in the next few months, and you'll be doing everyone a favor by debunking it. We need to keep our eyes peeled for sneaky regulatory stuff, and distractions like the ATT or Feinstein's new doomed AWB proposal only distract us from that.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/reid-moves-limit-gop-filibusters/
That thing I said about bending the rules before...
No reason to run round like chickens with our heads cut off though, the House is still in the control of 2A friendly politicians.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Behaviorally, the Pres. deliberately avoided any strong actions on gun control. When they had the strong majority in 2008, nothing happened. Yes, the usual suspects said the usual things. If one recalls GWB trotted out flag burning amendments, abortion amendments and the like every once in awhile to get base support- but he really did nothing.
When, in this election, the GOP actually had folks who truly pushed their extreme views, those senatorial candidates got clobbered.
Since the realistic pols will take this lesson, I doubt the realists will let an extreme divisive gun control position get rolling. Yes, you can say the realist views of the first term were a set up for the UN to come a calling. I think the wheels are turning for 2016 and while there may be rhetoric, the poll numbers of gun control (most of the country are against) will not lead to legislation with significant impact.
The lesson of pushing extremes is out there now.
When, in this election, the GOP actually had folks who truly pushed their extreme views, those senatorial candidates got clobbered.
Since the realistic pols will take this lesson, I doubt the realists will let an extreme divisive gun control position get rolling. Yes, you can say the realist views of the first term were a set up for the UN to come a calling. I think the wheels are turning for 2016 and while there may be rhetoric, the poll numbers of gun control (most of the country are against) will not lead to legislation with significant impact.
The lesson of pushing extremes is out there now.
This wishful thinking is why I said we only have "P.C." discussions here. This is the Pollyanna effect. Anyone who thinks that there will be a push by people who have publicly stated they support enacting restrictions are quickly branded as kooks. We know for a fact that a strong majority of members of the party in (2/3) control are in favor of gun control and it is a badge of honor to say you are for gun control. But mention that the UN arms treaty just went back up for negotiation today,big surprise,and you are Chicken Little. No I don't think much of that, but I have been whining about judicial appointments for the last four years and when you stack four years of judicial appointments on top of the last four years, you have a serious problem. As I see it, the "P.C." part of this is akin the proverbial circular firing squad, well they caucus with the wrong side, but "that boy sure do love his guns," they vote for bills in lock step with the wrong side, but "that boy sure love him some guns" and they vote for judicial nominees in lock step with the wrong side but, "boy howdy, he really do love them guns." And so what if their party is in favor of idiotic gun laws, "they really love them there guns." Now lets replace Justice Kennedy with a Kagan/Sotomayor Clone and, "sorry I voted in lock-step with my party for the nomination of Justice X, but I sure do love me my guns." That is why I believe we fail to keep it real. If you voted for a "D" that loves them there guns, you just put a another nail in the coffin.
Last edited by a moderator:
Keep in mind that there are several bills in both houses of congress that would give CWP holders to carry in any state that issues permits. One of the most popular, and least restrictive was introduced by Senators from the party that is usually more anti-gun. As has been said, the there will be few, if any anti-gun laws passed in the next 4 years. Congress won't shift one way or another dramatically (though the Senate might have a chance of changing hands in two years...I repeat, MIGHT) and the house will pretty much prevent any anti-gun bill from hitting the president's desk.
The biggest concern should be Judicial appointments. And we likely won't see the effects of that for a decade or more.
The biggest concern should be Judicial appointments. And we likely won't see the effects of that for a decade or more.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
jmortimer said:
Once again, it's not about PC, it's about accuracy, realism and civility.
Your UN Treaty comment, for example. Do you realize that treaties can not override constitutional provisions? Do you realize that the treaty specifically includes qualifiers in it's own text which state that the treaty does not apply to firearms commerce within individual countries, that it does not override any of those countries laws or constitutional provisions and that it specifically applies only to trade between nations?
In other words, whining about it being used to override the 2A is Chicken Little, The Sky is Falling nonsense. That's why it's called such, because it IS.
From my post:
"But mention that the UN arms treaty just went back up for negotiation today,big surprise,and you are Chicken Little. No I don't think much of that..." And yes, I know how it works and "I don't think much of that.
You missed the fact that "I don't think much of that," i.e. the treaty. So my "treatment" of that issue was in line with your "treatment." But, I do think the judicial nominations will bite us the the arse big time, and no it won't take "10 years" for us to feel the impact, we are feeling it now, both on a trial level and on the appellate level. Look at the judges who are currently deciding pending cases and considering appeals and who nominated them.
"But mention that the UN arms treaty just went back up for negotiation today,big surprise,and you are Chicken Little. No I don't think much of that..." And yes, I know how it works and "I don't think much of that.
You missed the fact that "I don't think much of that," i.e. the treaty. So my "treatment" of that issue was in line with your "treatment." But, I do think the judicial nominations will bite us the the arse big time, and no it won't take "10 years" for us to feel the impact, we are feeling it now, both on a trial level and on the appellate level. Look at the judges who are currently deciding pending cases and considering appeals and who nominated them.
Yes, I understand what you are saying as these folks do enable their party to hold the leadership positions and determine which bills get debated and voted on. I also have seen some friends and family who are involved in shooting and hunting vote for anti-gun candidates, but state it doesn’t matter since the candidate will be in the minority in The House. I fear we could potentially reach a “tipping point” where things could shift if more and more anti-gun candidates are elected even if they start off in the minority.
However, there is another way to look at this and that is the strategy of disassociating Second Amendment Freedoms with any one particular party. We should not be in a situation where a change in the Presidency automatically means that a Constitutional freedom is under attack. If we can change the image of gun owners from that of angry white right wingers and to the more realistic image I see at the range we’ll be much better off. While I support the NRA they need to seek out and cultivate stronger relationships with members of the Democratic Party.
At the end of the day I support the party I believe most likely to protect and advance my personal freedoms and economic principals. However, I must be realistic and recognize that party only includes roughly half of Americans at best. So, we can either sit here and grumble or seek ways to educate and persuade those in the other party about freedom.
One of the reasons I like TFL as I do is the maintenance of civility here, and the limited discussion of political or religious issues. I wasn't here for the "unpleasantness" but have been around enough sites to know that vitriol from heated discussions in these areas effects the tone of the entire site. This forum walks a razor thin line allowing for discussion of legal and judicial issues related to firearms. Without tight control, ideological and partisan beliefs and opinions quickly destroy any chance of meaningful discussion.
Like many I have real concerns about the direction we are headed as a country and what that means in all areas, including the 2A. Y'all come on over to the house and we will have a cup of coffee and solve all these problems.
Kirby
Like many I have real concerns about the direction we are headed as a country and what that means in all areas, including the 2A. Y'all come on over to the house and we will have a cup of coffee and solve all these problems.
Kirby
^ BarryLee - Agree, better than nothing if you are in the minority. Doing something is better than nothing. But, the NRA tried the whole endorse Harry Reid and then unendorse him after Kagan/Sotomayor. Did not turn out so well. In the end, I'm banking on State's rights and the 10th Amendment and so much good has been accomplished by certain states in such a short time.
StainlessSteel215
Moderator
Happy there are some knowledgable brains on this forum that understand the law of politics....I am learning much myself during this election season and glad this thread remains open for any pressing updates that would impact the folks on this forum. Keeping an eye on this thread, thanks everyone for contributing
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
jmortimer said:
Apparently a difference in the usage and assumed subject of the statement. I took it to mean that you didn't think much of the treaty, as in you don't like it, rather than you don't think much of the discussion/paranoia.
Something to remember about executive orders is that there is a built in opportunity cancel them. When a president takes office they have to approve or rescind all existing orders.
I do not think most presidents want to rely on the next president's approval to make a lasting policy.
While this is true, it cannot affect our individual right to keep and bear arms, it can have other affects. Most notably, the possibility of making it more difficult to get imported guns. If your preferred manufacturer doesn't have a factory in the country, it could potentially be more difficult/more expensive/impossible to get one of their guns.
carguychris
New member
IMHO that is unlikely to happen because of free trade issues, the 2A notwithstanding.
Most of the countries on America's "Not Good" list- China, Russia, Iran, the DPRK, etc.- already cannot legally export guns to the USA, or are limited to a very short and specific list of models (e.g. China and Russia).
The countries that currently export firearms to the USA in large numbers are all countries with which the USA has friendly trade relations: Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Canada, Switzerland, even Japan. If the administration tries to shut down the import pipeline from these countries, their trade representatives are likely to squeal very loudly, and may retaliate against American exports in other sectors of the economy- during a time when the administration is trying to present itself as a friend of U.S. export manufacturers!
Furthermore, such a move would probably have little effect on the overall volume of gun sales, because the 68 GCA has already shut most foreign makers- with the possible exception of Taurus- out of the high-volume lower end of the market. American gunmakers have that territory staked out now.
The only scenario under which I could foresee a large firearms import prohibition would be a generalized return to trade protectionism, but I don't see that happening in the current political climate, because of its potential to destabilize global trade at a time of uncertainty.
Last edited: