Obama starts gun control

Sefner wrote: "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."

^^^^^THIS^^^^^;)
 
HH, one proviso - treaties do NOT require the approval of the full Congress. They pass when approved by 2/3 of the Senate (and subsequent presidential signature, which is a foregone conclusion).

Getting a 2/3 vote in the Senate is certainly a daunting proposition on a controversial matter; however it is arguably more difficult to get majority approval in both houses of Congress.

And when you look at the composition of the Senate, getting this horrific treaty approved is not out of the question, especially if the WH decides to make it a high priority.
 
obama gun control.

First be suspicious of anything on wikipedia-it is not a verifiable source.Anyone can post anything and often due.I have American Riflemans back to 1943.Through the years the same concerns about gun control have been raised and yet there have been few national pieces of legislation that heve seriously affected most of us.The 68 gun control act being the worst in my opinion.The assault rifle ban has come and gone and as one person has stated many things have gone in our favor.Do we need to remain vigilant?Yes of coarse.Do we need to panic and wring our hands?I think not.I think a lot of this ranks right up there with the black helicopters and Mark from Michigan crap.The UN has less influence than it ever has and no president or political party is going to commit political sucicide by alowing any such an organization to dictate to us.Continue to support our friend in congress,support the NRA and keep your eyes and ears open.Hysterical "gun nuts" do not do us any favors.I consider myself to be a non hysterical gun nut but a vigilant one.
 
And when you look at the composition of the Senate, getting this horrific treaty approved is not out of the question, especially if the WH decides to make it a high priority.
Click to expand...

Given the current makeup of the Senate, getting any UN Small Arms Treaty approved without the support of NRA would be extremely difficult. Only 41 votes would be necessary to filibuster. However, the current make up of the Senate is irrelevant as it is the 2012 Senate that will decide whether to take it up.
 
However, the current make up of the Senate is irrelevant as it is the 2012 Senate that will decide whether to take it up.
Click to expand...
Which means it won't happen at all, what with the asteroid scheduled to hit us in 2012.
 
Bart/Tom, you're apparently discounting the possibility of the so-called "lame duck" session of Congress being able to approve the treaty. Seems to me we had one of them just a few months back that passed a significant piece of legislation through TWO houses of Congress.

I'm not saying it's likely. It's probably a thousand to one possibility. But it's a possibility. And that's enough for me to stay vigilant.
 
Bart/Tom, you're apparently discounting the possibility of the so-called "lame duck" session of Congress being able to approve the treaty.
Click to expand...
The phrase "lame duck" refers to a person or body that's near the end and has nothing to lose politically. While that may apply to one particular branch, I don't see it applying to the legislature.

We've got a lot of freshmen in Congress. They have to prove themselves, and they have promises to uphold. While a small core of hardliners might push for ratification of such a treaty, they'd be a very insignificant minority. Many who might have some sympathy for the treaty simply wouldn't vote for it because it would represent political suicide.

Joe Sixpack isn't too fond of the UN. Nor would he be very fond of his congressman voting for a treaty that puts them in charge of our domestic policy.
 
The UN Small Arms treaty is a red herring issue: The folks who start this stuff are counting on the fact that many gunowners will react to threats to their Second Amendment rights, real or imagined, without first vetting them.

No UN treaty trumps the US Constitution. The SCOTUS ruled so in 1957. Read Reid Vs. Covert:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html


It is the policy of the UN not to interfere with the rights of gunowners in member countries. It says so in the proposed Treaty outline:

http://www.disarm.emb-japan.go.jp/statements/Statement/N0958107.pdf

Read the last two paragraphs on the first page.

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...
 
Last edited:
The SCOTUS ruled so in 1957. Read Reid Vs. Covert
Click to expand...

I hope and wish this statement is held to be true by our legislatures but one only needs to look at Calfornia or Chicago to see governments that clearly ignore supreme court decisions or invents ways to try enact endless laws that each seem to have to be faught individually over and over in the courts.

I understand you provided facts but I am under no illusion that all parties will honor these facts....
 
Seems to me we had one of them just a few months back that passed a significant piece of legislation through TWO houses of Congress.
Click to expand...

Not with a 2/3 majority they didn't... and realistically, if the Senate wanted to ratify an international arms treaty that had horrendously intrusive effects on lawful firearms ownership in the United States, they could ratify the already signed CIFTA Treaty and not wait until 2012.
 
San Francisco Gate has a story today on one of the apparent first steps the Administration is taking with gun control. They have declared that semi-automatic rifles sold by FFLs in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico will be subject to the same multiple sales requirements as handguns.

It will be interesting to see where they have the Congressional authority to make that requirement since the law specifically says "handguns."
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
It will be interesting to see where they have the Congressional authority to make that requirement since the law specifically says "handguns."
Click to expand...
In fact, the instructions on the form itself read,

This form is to be used by licensees to report all transactions in which an unlicensed person acquired two or more pistols or revolvers or any combination of pistols or revolvers totaling two or more at one time or during five consecutive business days. This form is not required when the pistols or revolvers are returned to the same person from whom they are received.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight. Justice wants to generate (by their estimates) an extra 18,000 reports per year, most of which will do nothing more than tie up payroll and manpower the ATF doesn't have, and which will end up sitting in boxes in the West Virginia office.

And this will achieve what? After all, Lone Wolf and J&G Sales were reporting these sales, in real time, to the ATF, and the weapons still made it across the border.

Or am I missing something? :confused:
 
San Francisco Gate has a story today on one of the apparent first steps the Administration is taking with gun control. They have declared that semi-automatic rifles sold by FFLs in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico will be subject to the same multiple sales requirements as handguns.
Click to expand...

They're going to blame the guns in mexico on US instead of on OBAMA and the ATF?!
 
Well Tom, if the federal agency charged with enforcing gun laws can break those laws so easily, clearly we need stricter gun control laws.

Seriously though, you would think that making an extra reporting requirement that seems to have no statutory basis in law and can't help but highlight the idiocy of Fast and Furious wouldn't be the first choice; but I've given up guessing what they'll do next.
 
Well Tom, if the federal agency charged with enforcing gun laws can break those laws so easily, clearly we need stricter gun control laws.
Click to expand...
The mind reels. Thing is, it's not going to help one bit. The guns are showing up at domestic crime scenes, and we still don't know what damage Melson's testimony is likely to incur. Any chance the administration might have had at redirecting blame or controlling blowback is gone.
 
This is a political distraction for his buddy Holder to use as a smoke screen for cover -- because if Holder goes down, he could take O with him, and maybe other senior cabinet members. (imagine if everybody went down in flames except Biden because he was kept out of the loop)

Joe Sixpack isn't too fond of the UN. Nor would he be very fond of his congressman voting for a treaty that puts them in charge of our domestic policy.
Click to expand...
The Senate ratifies treaties, not the whole congress. And 2/3 of the Senate is always not up for reelection.
 
Last edited:
thallub said:
The UN Small Arms treaty is a red herring issue: The folks who start this stuff are counting on the fact that many gunowners will react to threats to their Second Amendment rights, real or imagined, without first vetting them.

No UN treaty trumps the US Constitution. The SCOTUS ruled so in 1957. Read Reid Vs. Covert:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0001_ZO.html


It is the policy of the UN not to interfere with the rights of gunowners in member countries. It says so in the proposed Treaty outline:

http://www.disarm.emb-japan.go.jp/st...t/N0958107.pdf

Read the last two paragraphs on the first page.

Quote:
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...
Click to expand...
Sir, I think you are being very naive. The danger is never that they're going to break down our doors and take our guns today. It's the creeping incremental approach that is worrisome.

The constitutional "right" has only been recently recognized by the Supreme Court. Litigation abounds about what is and what will be permissible. The Supreme Court has already said some regulation will be allowed. While a treaty may not directly result in handguns being banned, it may certainly impact gun owners a great deal.

Like shooting that Eastern European AK-47? Kiss it goodbye as imports of the gun could easily be banned (where are all those nice Chinese Norincos?). All the European guns could be banned. Springfield Armory would probably be forced out of business. All the ammo from both Europe and Mexico could likewise be banned.

That's just some of the low hanging fruit. It could get much worse.
 
Sir, I think you are being very naive
Click to expand...

Gee, thanks. i've followed federal gun control very closely for 55 years. i dared to debunk a UN gun control myth and you called me naive. Go figure. Too many gunowners are wasting time on rumors and conspiracy theories to see the real threats to gun ownership.

BTW: The AWB expired in 2004 like it was supposed to and we re-gained the right to carry in national parks. Maybe it's creeping the other way.
 
Last edited:
KyJim, if all it took was a treaty, then why hasn't CIFTA been ratified? It's already signed.

Thallub is correct, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top