Amendment 139: Opposing the UN ATT

[Spats McGee]

See page 2 of the treaty:

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,

(emphasis supplied by Spats)
Yes, and note that neither self-defense nor defense from tyranny appears anywhere in that clause.

When I last taught ConLaw, the textbook that I used had the "model constitution" that the UN (allegedly) supplies to emerging nations to use as a model. There is no RKBA in it.

 

[SPEMack618]

The UN has a pretty bad track record in regards to the RKBA in developing nations.

They seem to think that it would be morally reprehensible for oppressed groups to fight back with the same cast off AKMs thier oppressors seem to favor.

Spats, I had to use the model UN constitution in both International Relations(for a hypothetical independent Palestine) and as a contrasting document in Constitutional History.

That document served to elevate my fear of the robin egg's blue helmet to nearly irrational levels.

It makes one thankful for the Founders and our Constituion, in addition to providing a gut check to that oath I took at 17.

 

[poline]

((I didn't really need to look, but both my worthless senators voted "Nay.")
Same with my two!
I remember the USA ARMY LAD that refused to serve the UN...their hat
and patch........above our CONTITUTION. He was and is my hero.
The army tired to keep it quiet and just give him an article 15, but he made
it a bigger issue.
I never have thought it was a good Idea for a country to give up it's
SOVEREIGNTY. We don't like our own govt telling us what to do, why would
we want the UN to tell us?

 

[KyJim]

In Reid Vs. Covert SCOTUS ruled no treaty over-rules the US Constitution.

Thallub, this is always your mantra on the treaty. There is an awful lot of room for laws to be passed in support of the treaty (or by executive order) without violating the Constitution. Spats McGee mentioned the treaty might require registration. As much as I am opposed to registration, I cannot, as a lawyer, say that the courts would find a registration system unconstitutional. In fact, I think the federal courts would likely find it constitutional.

 

[thallub]

There is an awful lot of room for laws to be passed in support of the treaty (or by executive order) without violating the Constitution.

Yep, theres that thing about executive orders again. Let me get out my tinfoil hat with lead liner and ultrasonic hearing protection.

 

[btmj]

Scouse wrote:

In the end though, the US is never going to do anything just because the UN says so, countries duck out of bits of treaties all the time. Personally, I can't see the US government sending lists of its citizens to anyone.

The editorial staff at the Wall Street Journal was always opposed to the Kyoto protocols (and associated treaty) on carbon emissions. One of their key objections is that other nations routinely violate treaty agreements and given the extreme sacrifice demanded by Kyoto, international compliance seemed highly unlikely. The US, on the other hand, views treaties as Law, and if ratified by the Senate, Kyoto would have carried the force of law in the US. Environmental activists in the US would have certainly sued to ensure US compliance with the treaty. Fortunately, the US never signed on to Kyoto.

Fast forward to the present day, and very few nations who signed Kyoto have actually lived up to the requirements. Kyoto is basically viewed as "dead". But had the US signed, you can bet your bottom dollar that federal court orders would have enforced our compliance.

I don't see why the situation is any different with ATT. Other nations may pay lip service to the treaty, but the US is a nation of laws with an independent judiciary... If the US signs it, we will comply with this misguided treaty, by hook or by crook....

 

[Mausermolt]

UN arms trade treaty

so i read today that the UN arms trade treaty passed. also i read something a while ago that said the USA was not going to take part in the treaty because it was a violation of the 2nd. but now all of a sudden the Obama administration flip flopped on the position and went ahead and signed on. i dont know much about the treaty or what the Obama administration has done, so if someone could enlighten me so i dont have to go sifting through pages and pages of articles that are politically swayed against our god given right, i would appreciate it.
here is the article i read just so you can see where my question is coming from:

http://www.gunnews.com/u-s-government-changes-stance-u-n-gun-treaty-easily-passes/

 

[Spats McGee]

Mausermolt, I don't have any solid sources that I can cite right now. I've gotta run in just a couple of minutes. That said, your post accurately reflects my understanding of the situation:

. . . . the UN arms trade treaty passed. also i read something a while ago that said the USA was not going to take part in the treaty because it was a violation of the 2nd. but now all of a sudden the Obama administration flip flopped on the position . . . . .

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Russia, China, and India have all abstained from voting, as have several Central American states. There are some real concerns with the language of the treaty.

Nice tidbit. Doesn't that sound like the easy road for them?

Abstinence from being a partaker in a vote leaves them open to excuses as to why they would not abide in the future, just as a few of the aforementioned have done in the past (and likely to do so again)?

 

[csmsss]

No tinfoil hat required for this one - just a supposition of a lawless executive branch. If the White House and DoJ were to adopt the position that they are unconcerned about constitutional niceties with respect to the imposition of laws supporting a treaty, they would have a considerable period of time in which to implement the provisions of the treaty before it could make its way to the Supreme Court. It could, also, take its time about modifying its behavior even after an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling was issued. All it takes is an executive branch with the will to ignore the Supreme Court. I don't doubt the capacity of the current administration to do just that.