Obama starts gun control

S

Sefner

New member
Obama, The UN, and Guns

Well, looks like it's that time again, with the NRA email going around about the Small Arms Treaty and Obama taking our guns over the head of Congress via the UN and the HuffPo article about Obama's new gun control agenda.

So before it even starts:

The United States Constitution said:
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"
Click to expand...

And from the SCotUS case Missouri v. Holland, the case many claim lays the groundwork for treaties being supreme over the Constitution:

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said:
Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention.
Click to expand...

There are two cases, Reid v. Covert (1957) and Medellin v. Texas that state that no treaty can come in direct violation of the Constitution and cast doubt on how broadly Missouri can be defined respectively.

Reid v. Covert said:
"... this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty"
Click to expand...

And this was all via Wikipedia... this stuff isn't hard to find. Let's try to use this opportunity to educate some on our side about this issue so we can focus on more pressing and real matters.

It's sad that some on on our side resort to the same unreasonable scare-tactics that those on the other side also use.
 
I recollect when this first came up months ago. The real problem is that, if signed and ratified by the Senate, it would give the President the power to legislate via executive order or federal regulation. For example, it requires registration of anyone manufacturing ammunition. That means the Executive Branch could require every reloader to register and be regulated by the federal government.
 
Even if this is true (and there's no corroboration yet), executive orders are not a blank check. Congress can nullify them, and the courts can rule them unconstitutional.

Attempting to bypass the legislature to fast-track an unpopular agenda would be surefire political suicide.
 
He's working with the DoJ and the AG on this??? Aren't they both dealing with a few other little problems at the moment? Quite laughable, really....
 
Tom Servo said:
...and he'll find 2/3 of Congress willing to ratify this treaty where, exactly?
Click to expand...

That's the point I'm making.

To be more clear: It seems that every 6 months or so the UN Small Arms Treaty makes the e-mail rounds, sometimes a book comes out, sometimes it makes Drudge, about how Obama/Clinton/George Soros is going to take our guns via the Small Arms Treaty without having to go through Congress. It cannot happen this way, it is scare mongering.

I got an email earlier today from the NRA about it so that Wayne LaPierre can sell his new book. So I'm expecting it to make the rounds again. Just trying to head it off.
 
That's the point I'm making.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I ran across the Huffpo thing this afternoon as well, and I fully expected doom and gloom. I misread your post at first as that. As it turns out, you and I are in total agreement. That makes you a really sharp guy.

To be more clear: It seems that every 6 months or so the UN Small Arms Treaty makes the e-mail rounds, sometimes a book comes out, sometimes it makes Drudge, about how Obama/Clinton/George Soros is going to take our guns via the Small Arms Treaty without having to go through Congress.
Click to expand...
Well, the HR45 thing burned itself out finally. The "expiring primer" thing petered out. Gosh, what's left? The gun culture can't go a day without some sort of drama, so folks keep dredging up the treaty.

(I'm also getting very weary of LaPierre's chicken little act)

Lately, that seems to be the idea that the President will try de facto gun control via executive order. Know what? I want him to try that. The other two branches of government would be all over it like hyenas on a limping zebra.

You know what worries me? That big asteroid they say is going to hit us next year. I know that no astronomer has ever seen it, that its trajectory defies the laws of physics, and that the culture that predicted it is now extinct, but the guy passing out pamphlets seemed pretty sure. Maybe I should panic and make drastic decisions.

Start hoarding ammo! Again!
 
Here's what worries me.

On April 2, 2007, SCOTUS ruled that the EPA has power to regulate greenhouse gasses.
"On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision"...
Click to expand...

http://www.populationmedia.org/wp-c...e-court-rules-epa-has-statutory-authority.pdf

A recent EPA regulation effectively inflicts Cap and Trade on America, completely circumventing congress, where it failed miserably.

"President Obama will veto the bill passed by the Republican House on Thursday, which prevents the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse emissions."
Click to expand...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42790

I'm wondering if a similar tactic couldn't be used to regulate access to ammunition by the BATFE, also bypassing congress, in compliance with the U.N. Treaty. That neat little trick would theoretically comply with 2A, (arms are still available, but ammunition is regulated), but strip it of its meaning, thus complying with the treaty.
 
This is going to put Senate Democrats in an awkward spot. They will be forced to shoot down the inevitable nullification bills from the House and take the hit in their own campaigns, or pass it and put the President in the position of vetoing the bill and taking the hit o his campaign or nullifying his own EO.

Politically, I have no idea why the Administration would think pushing gun control now is a wise move. They are standing in a house fire bathed in gasoline and apparently their first thought was "Hey, let's kiss that rattlesnake while we're at it."
 
As stated not good any sort of "new" laws and I am really concerned with the small arms treaty. Absolutely low down back door gun control:eek::eek:
 
The UN is still working on a proposed draft of the Small Arms Treaty and the next meeting on it isn't until 2012. If you want something to worry about, look at the CIFTA Treaty. It has already been signed (by Clinton) and ratifying it was something that President Obama listed as one of his top 19 priorities in 2008.

Which is not to say we don't need to be concerned about the UN Small Arms Treaty; but at this time I would rate it lower in priority than the ongoing Second Amendment litigation, the impending Executive Orders affecting firearms, and the ATF run amok in Gunwalker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top