Arms Treaties and Second Amendment Problems

And as another Mexican national was executed in Texas you can see that no treaty by itself alters US law.

The SCOTUS threw the case back since Incongruous Assembled has failed to pass any laws codifying a treaty 'obligation.'

Since Congress has not acted the state of Texas has no duty to enforce the terms of a treaty by allowing consular access for the accused killer, now executed.
 
It's not about the UN imposing its will/mandate upon the U.S. It's about the hubris of not one but two Presidents making an end run around the constitutional amendment process in order to avoid Supreme Court scrutiny and half of the legislative body.

What's necessary, in my opinion, is a REAL constitutional amendment which will, once and for all, make it ironclad that no treaty, under any circumstances, can suborn rights guaranteed under the constitution nor abrogate our national sovereignty to any international body. Get that? You don't have to worry about nefarious treaties such as this.
Click to expand...

+ 1 x 10,0000
 
I'm not sure where the "factual" data for those executive orders comes from, but I know it's coming from someone or something that has never actually READ the XOs...

NO Executive Order has the ability to suspend the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Anyone who claims that is a mouth-breathing, conspiracy theory shrieking moron.

It's also COMPLETELY off topic for this discussion, and is thus deleted.
 
If you have been following NRA News, then you already know that Wayne LaPierre addressed the UN yesterday and demanded that civilian firearms be excluded entirely from the scope of the Arms Trade Treaty. He also pointed out that there was no way such a treaty would be ratified by the Senate. Other nations that are now skeptical about the treaty appear to be China and Russia (which is no suprise since they are primary traffickers of actual military small arms to various conflicts). If Russia and China refuse to join the treaty, that would be a major blow to the Arms Trade Treaty.

Finally, the NRA is circulating a letter to President Obama signed by the various United States Senators indicating that they will not ratify any Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian firearms in its scope and that a 12ga over/under should not face the same regulations as a military helicopter loaded with ordnance. This should be an easy sell for your Senator in the sense that it is not a binding vote and gains him or her some easy pro-RKBA credit. Please take a moment to contact your Senator and let them know you would like to see their name on that letter. It also demonstrates to the President that the Arms Trade Treaty lacks the votes to be ratified in the Senate.
 
I would hope that someone in the Whitehouse can count. that was 44 Senators (both of mine) that signed that letter!
 
45 by my count; but conspicuously absent on the letter were many "pro-Second Amendment" Dems like Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Joe Manchin etc. In fact, it looks like the 45 names were almost all Republicans, including Rs I'd normally count as weak on gun rights like Olympia Snowe.

However, the good news is even if that list represents all we can count on, then we could still survive as many as 11 defections and defeat any treaty ratification.
 
The proposed arms treaty is no threat to our Second amendment rights. As much as i like the NRA; i've been a member for well over 50 years, that organization is wrong on this issue.

From the proposed treaty:

UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…
Click to expand...


No treaty can trump the US Constitution.

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.
Click to expand...


Reid vs Covert:

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm
 
Both of mine too
Click to expand...
Not from the predominate side of the aisle, but sadly...Virginia's senators Warner and Webb seem to have not signed that letter. Embarrassing actually, since within the state...things are reasonably pro 2a.
 
Well, I'd agree and disagree. As long as the continue to include the regulation of civilian arms inside a country,the treaty is a threat to our rights. As this letter makes clear, it isn't a serious threat because it will never be ratified by the current Senate; just as CIFTA hasn't been ratified in over a decade.

While relying on the Constitution adds an additional fallback position, the problem there is we were just one vote away from not having an individual right at all. There are at least 3, probably 4, votes on the Court right now who would likely have no trouble finding a UN Arms Treaty constitutional.

I think the NRA has a good approach on this. Both the UN and the White House know what is realistic. We can now see what their response is.
 
As long as the continue to include the regulation of civilian arms inside a country,the treaty is a threat to our rights.
Click to expand...

It ain't in the proposed treaty. This is in the proposed treaty:

UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…
Click to expand...
 
It 2011 and the treaty did not see the light of day in 2010. Obama and the Dems have too many front burner issues right now. There is no way this thing will be drug up until after the 2012 election if Obama wins a second term. Even with that if the election for Congress does not go Obama's way you will probably never see the treaties for a while.
 
It ain't in the proposed treaty. This is in the proposed treaty
Click to expand...

Currently, there is no official draft of the treaty. That is what the past week in New York was about, to try and get a working draft that can be used to generate an actual treaty in the 2012 meetings. The "draft" on the UN website has been changed several times.

Keep in mind, the treaty referenced in the Senate letter is the Arms Trade Treaty, not the Inter-American Treaty
 
Last edited:
Notwithstanding

any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding...in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by.

i.e., nothing to the contrary in the Constitution can "withstand" a treaty.
 
Notwithstanding

United States Constitution said:
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.
Click to expand...
(emphasis supplied)

I believe that the above-underlined clause means that such a treaty would trump State constitutions. I do not think it means that the UN treaty would trump the United States Constitution. That does, however, present it's own set of problems.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
thallub said:
i will say again: A treaty does not trump the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
I understand that. I was simply pointing out (in reference to poptime's post) that "State," in the context of the clause quoted by poptime, is not the same as "State," in the context of the proposed treaty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top