Arms Treaties and Second Amendment Problems

Glenn,

Did not intend to irritate you just simply wanted to make sure I resolved all my questions. Sometimes it is better to ask even a stupid question and get a very spot on answer. Some claim the 5th amendment, I claim Newton's unspoken law of physics I am just dense sometimes LOL
 
Nico Testosteros said:
Reid v. Covert established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties.
Click to expand...
That's true, however that which a past Supreme Court has decided can be UNdecided by a future Supreme Court. Remember that Justice Ginsberg (the same Justice Ginsberg who thinks the United States Supreme Court should look to international law rather than to the language and original intent of our Constitution for interpreting said Constitution) has gone on record as believing that the SCOTUS should reverse some previous decisions.
 
On a related side note.. I just got a call from the NRA about this.. Apparently they are supposed to be launching the biggest NRA TV advertising campaign in the NRAs history on this subject.

Its supposed to be a unpresidented media blitz.
 
Last edited:
Apparently they are supposed to be launching the biggest NRA TV advertising campaign in the NRAs history on this subject.
Click to expand...

Too bad the organization i've belonged to for over 50 years is spending money on this misinformation campaign. That money could be better spent in a campaign to reform the BATFE.
 
Last edited:
From the proposed treaty, Preamble item 9:

Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
Click to expand...

From the Protocol mentioned above:
Article 3:
(d) “Illicit manufacturing” shall mean the manufacturing or assembly of firearms, their parts and components or ammunition:
(ii) Without a licence or authorization from a competent authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place;

Article 5:
1. Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the following conduct, when committed intentionally:
(a) Illicit manufacturing of firearms, their parts and components and ammunition;
Click to expand...
 
Also note what is missing from this description:

Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
Click to expand...

Looks like the invidious sporting purposes clause written on a global scale. No mention of self-defense in the context of lawful private ownership.
 
Wouldn't 'cultural and historic' include the USA's view. Esp. since Heller noted the historical precedents for self defense here?

Just asking.

I grant you that sporting and hunting is still the bleat of some folks who claim to support the 2nd but are clearly gun banners.
 
Im no legal scholar... so those of you that are what are we looking at if this thing ever gets ratified? What is the probable end result? Certainly the Supremes must have some say here? Right? Wrong?
 
Last edited:
Obviously a treaty cannot override the Constitution but there's arguably room for regulations and restrictions that would impact a lot of us without violating the Constitution. For example, the possible requirement to obtain a license to reload or perhaps magazine capacity limits. I'm not saying either of those actually are constitutional, just that an unfriendly administration might think they are and impose them.
 
Informative article by Reuters that gets into the actual treaty ratification process - though it raises as many questions as it answers. It looks possible that the treaty will not make it out of the Arms Trade Treaty conference due to dissent among the various participants.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/arms-treaty-idINL2E8IO8XK20120724

That would not be the end of the treaty as it could still be brought up in the UN General Assembly; but there appears to be a decent chance that it doesn't pass even the UN. It also appears that ammunition was dropped from the treaty.
 
Before you think the UN Arms Treaty isn't a problem read the draft, pay attention to Article 20, Amendments.

After the treaty is radified, any member state can submit amendments, to be voted on by 2/3s of present members, then they become part of the treaty without having to go back to the Senate for radification.

Looks to me like this treaty is nothing more then a Pandora's Box.

I know my two senators wont vote to ratify it, but that's only two, we need at least 1/3 +1 senater to kill the treaty.
 
Well as I said in 2010 no interest in Senator Reid of rocking the political boat. The problem will be if Obama gets a second term. Listening to him lately he seems to live in his own world of reality. He might try some shenanigans via executive order.

In the Senate it only takes 34 to oppose a treaty to sink it..pardon the pun.

However, are there not USSC Rulings on treaties that say they can not over ride the U.S Constitution?
 
However, are there not USSC Rulings on treaties that say they can not over ride the U.S Constitution?
Click to expand...
Yep, in Reid v. Covert.

At this point, good luck finding many congresscritters willing to stick their heads up and vote for ratification. This thing is too public and too controversial. I really wish this whole thing would die down so folks could find something else to panic about.
 
I really wish this whole thing would die down so folks could find something else to panic about.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
And c'mon folks, do we really have to panic about something to begin with?
 
I really wish this whole thing would die down so folks could find something else to panic about.
Click to expand...

Panic with the current administration seems to me a good thing we've been sticking our head in the sand and saying I'm ok for far too many years and we're losing.
 
wingman, where and what are we losing?

Paying attention to what is going on is helpful. Panic however, is non-productive.
 
Panic with the current administration seems to me a good thing we've been sticking our head in the sand and saying I'm ok for far too many years and we're losing.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but who's this "we" you're referencing?
 
At this point, good luck finding many congresscritters willing to stick their heads up and vote for ratification. This thing is too public and too controversial. I really wish this whole thing would die down so folks could find something else to panic about.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you Tom but lets face it at some point this or another treaty will almost certainly be a serious contender for ratification... It might be 10 year or 100 years down the road..

I look to how the SCOTUS did not affirm the 2A for what? Well over 200 years.... Im sure someones got a more exact number but basically it seems the assumption was the 2A would always stand and then over time political winds changed. The absence of a ruling was tantamount to saying the 2A had little standing and every anti gun law in the world was allowed. I personally see it as a epic failure and one Im not proud of as a citizen..

A government that truly understands the constitution and the rulings of the SCOTUS you would think would make some clear points about the language of such treatys... Truly what does it say about our government?

We the people will pay for our ever continuing lack to understand the people we are electing and the laws and treatys they are willing to pass in our names..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top