Arms Treaties and Second Amendment Problems

I believe that the above-underlined clause means that such a treaty would trump State constitutions. I do no think it means that the UN treaty would trump the United States Constitution. That does, however, present it's own set of problems.
Click to expand...

Yes I can see that as the most likely interpretation. I do hope that is it.
 
I am well versed on the proposed treaty
Click to expand...

Then you understand that the resolution you are quoting is not part of the treaty but just an earlier resolution proposed by the U.S. when John Bolton was ambassador indicating the direction the U.S. thought the negotiations should go?

This last week, a large number of countries basically insisted the final treaty (which has not been drafted) require member states to adopt registration and restrictions on internal civilian sales as well. That view seems to be tempered by those nations who understand this will be both unworkable and kill the treaty; but the potential is there for a threat to our Second Amendment rights.
 
Treaties have the standing of laws, and cannot alter the Constitution any more than ANY law can.
Click to expand...

Correct, treaties cannot override the Constitution. However, as applied to the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty (or the CIFTA Treaty), that leaves us with two big problems.

Problem #1 is that at least 3 of the existing Supreme Court Justices (and likely 4 if we include Kagan) do not believe that an individual right to bear arms even exists in the Constitution. So they would have no problem finding this treaty constitutional if it were challenged in the Supreme Court. That leaves us either one or two votes away from losing if one of the majority from Heller is replaced by someone with a different view.

Problem #2 is that in the past week, several of the nations made calls for centralized registration of all firearms as a part of the treaty. So far, no case has challenged the constitutionality of registration of firearms and in fact, the argument that it is constitutional is good enough that even with no change in the current SCOTUS line-up, we might still lose that vote.

Right now, our biggest advantage is that the Senate hasn't shown the slightest inclination to ratify this treaty or any other arms treaty. For that reason alone, I don't consider the Arms Trade Treaty a very serious threat; but I don't think we should be complacent about it either. The reason it isn't a threat is because Senators on both sides understand that would cost them their jobs. We want to continue to make sure they don't forget that point.
 
A bit belated, but here's a link to an article on the NRAILA website about the Senate letters to the Obama Administration expressing opposition to the ATT as it currently stands.

There are TWO letters, the one from Senator Moran (R - KA) mentioned above, with 45 signatories, and one from Senator Tester (D - MT), with 13.

I guess the Dems don't want to sign on to a Republican letter (they might seem bipartisan? Get cooties? I dunno...).

58 opposed... If this number doesn't change, due to defection, election, etc., the ATT will never pass.
 
Thanks for the update Dan_F, I was initially disappointed to see that none of the NRA-endorsed Dems signed the letter. I'm glad to learn that it was just a format thing and that those Senators didn't place party over the Second Amendment.

As you point out though, it means that as a practical reality, neither CIFTA nor a UN Small Arms Trade treaty incorporating civilian firearms will ever be ratified. A treaty would need 66 votes in the Senate to be ratified and an agreement would need 50.

With 58 Senators on our side and on the record, we can still defeat ratification of these types of treaties, even if as many as 20 Senators defected.

Looking to the longer term 2012-election view, here is a quick list of the 2012 elections. Senators who signed the NRA letter are in bold:

RETIRING:
1. Joe Lieberman CT
2. Daniel Akaka HI
3. Jeff Bingaman - NM
4. Kent Conrad - ND
5. Jim Webb - VA
6. Herb Kohl - WI
7. Jon Kyl - AZ
8. Kay Bailey Hutchison - TX

UP FOR REELECTION:
1. Diane Feinstien - CA
2. Tom Carper - DE
3. Bill Nelson - FL
4. Ben Cardin - MD
5. Debbie Stabenow - MI
6. Amy Klobuchar - MN
7. Claire McCaskill - MO
8. Jon Tester - MT
9. Ben Nelson - NE
10. Bob Menendez - NJ
11. Kirsten Gillibrand - NY
12. Sherrod Brown - OH
13. Bob Casey, Jr. - PA
14. Sheldon Whitehouse - RI
15. Bernie Sanders - VT
16. Maria Cantwell - WA
17. Joe Manchin - WV
18. Richard Lugar - IN
19. Olympia Snowe - ME
20. Scott Brown - MA
21. Roger Wicker - MI
22. Dean Heller - NV
23. Bob Corker - TN
24. Orrin Hatch - UT
25. John Barrasso - WY

As you can see, out of 33 seats up for election in 2012, only 15 Senators who signed that letter face a reelection challenge. That means even if the antis are successful in a clean sweep of every pro-RKBA Senator who signed the letter (which would entail the unlikely task of unseating long-term incumbents and replacing them with antis in states like MT, WY, TX, etc.) WITHOUT losing a single one of the other 18 races, they still wouldn't have the votes necessary to ratify a treaty if these Senators hold true to their signed pledge.

So as a realistic threat, it looks like neither of these treaties are going anywhere until 2014 at the earliest (and even that would require some unlikely wins by the antis in 2012).
 
For over 50 years i've been an NRA member active in the fight against gun control.

What Norris is saying is absolutely not true. Norris and others who talk this stuff are pandering to the large number of US citizens who have no idea how our gov't works. Lies and rumors detract folks attention from the real threats to our 2nd Amendment rights.

1. There is no treaty.

2. There will be no treaty before next year.

3. If there is a treaty it will have the following caveat:

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...

4. In Reid vs Covert the US Supreme Court ruled treaties do not supercede the US Constitution.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1

This stuff has been flying around since early 2009. Someone ginned up a lie, posted it on the web and it went viral.

This one from last year claimed that the treaty was signed:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
 
Last edited:
thallub said:
What Norris is saying is absolutely not true. Norris and others who talk this stuff are pandering to the large number of US citizens who have no idea how our gov't works. Lies and rumors detract folks attention from the real threats to our 2nd Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Really? What and when did I say anything about the proposed treaty that was not true? What stuff am I talking about that is supposedly pandering?

Since you have called me out by name, put up or shut up.
 
Thallub --

I think most of us here know that even a treaty cannot supersede the Constitution but that doesn't tell the whole story.

Before, McDonald and Heller, it was not firmly established that the 2A had anything to do with protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms. In fact, most lower courts had ruled otherwise. Even after these cases, the lower federal courts have generally read these cases very narrowly, some so narrowly that they believe the 2A applies only to a revover kept in your home. There are lots of posts on these cases and Al Norris has done a herculean job in keeping up with the major cases.

Given the fledgling nature of 2A jurisprudence and demonstrated hostility of many on the bench, it would be unwise to assume the courts will take on the mantle of champions for 2A rights. Some members of the Supreme Court believe it is perfectly appropriate to consider current international law in interpreting our constitution. Thus, it is entirely plausible for the Court could refer to the U.N. treaty and other international law to help define the scope of our 2A rights, especially if we are signatories to the treaty.

So, what might the treaty do to infringe upon our rights, or, rather, upon our privileges? We don't know for sure since the treaty has not been drafted. However, a look at CIFTA might provide some insight as to what many countries believe to be appropriate regulation of small arms.

The operative provision of the treaty starts out with a BANG! It defines "illicit manufacturing" as the manufacture or assembly of firearms or ammunition from components illicitly trafficked or manufacture or assembly without a license from the government. Art.I, sec.1. Thus, every reloader would have to be licensed. Even reloading with the little Lee Classic Loader would require a license. Article VIII would require confiscation of any illicitly manufactured firearms or ammo and would prohibit auction or sale to private business or individuals.

Is there a constitutional right to reload ammo? My copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about it and I'm not sure how many shooters would consider this a fundamental right. Certainly, a hostile judiciary would not.

Furthermore, the president would likely have authority to implement many aspects of the treaty without Congressional approval. The treaty, ratified by the Senate as contemplated by the Constitution, would give the president that authority. The national government would not implement full changes immediately; but creeping, incremental change would occur.

Don't let the hyperbole of a few people blind you to the real possibility of what might happen. Maybe I'm wrong about all this but I, for one, do not wish to take that chance.
 
"Don't let the hyperbole of a few people blind you to the real possibility of what might happen."

Yep...

Then again, the skies might go black, the earth split open, and a host of Rosie O'Donnells from Hell might crawl forth to scourge the land. :rolleyes:

Right now NRA and Chuck Norris are ignoring the treaty guidance as it has been published and conveying the image that 5 seconds after US ratification, Obama will open the doors to secret staging areas and a powder-blue helmet army will issue forth to confiscate privately owned firearms.

It's a bit... disingenuous.
 
Since you have called me out by name, put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Well, Al: i didn't mean to get you on my case. :eek: Next time i'll specify Chuck Norris.


Furthermore, the president would likely have authority to implement many aspects of the treaty without Congressional approval. The treaty, ratified by the Senate as contemplated by the Constitution, would give the president that authority. The national government would not implement full changes immediately; but creeping, incremental change would occur.
Click to expand...

If one dares to violate the new UN mandate; the bluehats could haul you off to one of those FEMA internment camps that Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno personally manage. The spectre of Janet Reno in leather, carrying a whip is just too much for some. :D
 
Last edited:
3. If there is a treaty it will have the following caveat:

Quote:
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...

While I generally agree that the UN Treaty doesn't represent a credible threat at this time (in part because of the work of the NRA), I wouldn't rely too much on the above resolution. It merely indicates where the U.S. wanted to go with the treaty when John Bolton was still ambassador. The new U.S. ambassador is the former Mayor of Seattle who attempted to implement gun bans even when the state of Washington's preemption law prohibited it - he fought it all the way to litigation even. And beyond that, this is only the U.S. view and may not prevail in any case.

So when the treaty is actually drafted, I would expect this provision to be eliminated entirely or rendered toothless. The good news is that as long as the Senators mentioned earlier hold true; we could suffer massive losses in 2012 and still be able to defeat ratification of a treaty until at least 2014.
 
Not to divert but from what alternate dimension would the UN get enough troops to do anything in the USA?

Mike - I think the earthquake in VA was the portal opening up for those troops to come to our Earth? :D

But Chuck can take them on. Didn't he save Florida from invasion single handedly? :confused:
 
"Not to divert but from what alternate dimension would the UN get enough troops to do anything in the USA?"

The Chinese look very fetching in powder blue helmets...

Indians, not so much, but they can pull it off. ;)

Come on, Glenn, you know a "threat" doesn't have to be realistic in order for it to be effective. The big lie, and all that...

Or, in this case, the big fib.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top