President withdraws from arms treaty?

Since it was never ratified, it's basically just house keeping. Trump threw it out at the NRA meeting as a teaser to get support and votes. Another shrewd move by the master.
 
Trum wasn't talking about ITAR, but the Arms Trade Treaty.

Two different animals.

ITAR is U.S. federal law/regulations.
The Arms Trade Treaty is a UN sponsored treaty.
 
Isnt there another treaty that the UN sanctions?

And that one is about regulation or eventual confiscation of your personal arms .. they use Australia..England etc. As examples
 
Another point to be aware of, is that treaties are ticking time bombs. Even though THIS Congress may not ratify a given treaty, unlike our proposed laws that do "expire" if not passed, and have to be reintroduced in a future session, they don't just fade away, the treaty "hangs around" kind of in limbo, and a future Congress COULD ratify it at a later date.

As far as I know, this has never happened, yet, but it could happen, and it would be legal.
 
I read through the Arms Trade Treaty when it was first announced in 2011. It has nothing to do with domestic firearms ownership or commerce. It's an agreement (with no enforcement mechanism) that countries won't sell or funnel guns to other countries in which there are civil wars and such.

(A brief review of our actions during the Cold War shows how hypocritical it would be for us to ratify it.)

Even so, we never signed it. It's a non-issue.

The only reason I can see for the President to dredge this up is because he needs to use it as a smokescreen to distract us from his wretched lack of support for the 2nd Amendment. I'm sad to see that it's working.
 
Since it was never ratified, it's basically just house keeping. Trump threw it out at the NRA meeting as a teaser to get support and votes.
Click to expand...

This. Good drama to generate support but the precise reason it got done was because it was easy to undo and had no real effect since we never ratified the treaty.
 
44_AMP said:
Another point to be aware of, is that treaties are ticking time bombs. Even though THIS Congress may not ratify a given treaty, unlike our proposed laws that do "expire" if not passed, and have to be reintroduced in a future session, they don't just fade away, the treaty "hangs around" kind of in limbo, and a future Congress COULD ratify it at a later date.
Click to expand...
This is VERY true.

If anyone wants/needs an example, look at the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. This convention originated in 1993, and the United States signed it in 1994. But ... the Senate didn't ratify it in 1994, and without Senate ratification it didn't apply to the United States.

Around 2006, my late wife and I began the process of adopting her granddaughter, who lived in my wife's native country. We were within weeks of having the adoption finalized in that country when the United States finally got around to ratifying the convention. It became effective in the U.S. in April of 2008, FIFTEEN YEARS after it was originated.

The effect on us was devastating. Instead of having the adoption finalized within weeks, we had to go back and start the process over again, from the very beginning, following all the Hague Convention procedures. And, since the U.S. didn't accredit any adoption services agencies from that country and they didn't accredit any adoption services agencies in the U.S., it meant that we were entirely on our own. It took us another two and a half years, with the adoption being finalized in December of 2010. Another month and the granddaughter would have turned 16 ... which would have created yet another bureaucratic nightmare. In the end, I knew more about how the process works than the assigned government staffers from both countries.

All of which I mention only to reinforce that a treaty that has been signed but not ratified is a ticking time bomb. It can be ratified at any future date.
 
In order to ratify a treaty, you need 2/3 of the Senate to agree. That’s a steep hill to climb. Even in 2013, there were only 46 votes to ratify.

What Trump did doesn’t hurt us for sure; but the chances that a party that controls 2/3 of the Senate doesn’t control the Presidency are pretty slim and that’s the only scenario where Trump’s action helps us.

It’s fantastic P. T. Barnum level showmanship; but that’s what it is. I’ll take it; but it is small change. Despite being a dud on legislative action, Trump has been making choices for the judiciary that will be critical to the future of the Second Amendment. Since I don’t have a crystal ball, I can’t say if those choices will help us; but I’m more optimistic about that than I’ve been in a while.

Fun fact: oldest unratified treaty on the books dates back to 1949.
 
If the President completes this action,is the treaty still subject to being ratified,or does this close that door?

Part "B" to the question.
If this action by the President does free us from the treaty, why the cynicism?

Is it just hate?

It seems to me it just does not matter what this President does,the collective "We" are somehow incapable of just saying "Good job,Thank You"


t seems to me if this President did EXACTLY what anyone hoped for,the response would be "He did it for sinister reasons,he has ulterior motive"


FWIW,I opposed Trump as a candidate. I opposed Hillary more. I shrugged,voted,and said "Wait and see"


Yes,the Man is far from Perfect. As were Woodrow Wilson, JFK,LBJ,Nixon,Ford,Carter,Clinton,the Bushes,and Obama. Even Ronald Reagan was not perfect.

Looking at SCOTUS,Taxes,GDP,Employment,And the International scene in general,I'm pleasantly surprised by our imperfect President.


Especially when I consider what the ONLY ALTERNATIVE ON THE BALLOT would have done to us by now.(Hillary,if that's too deep)


I don't thnk I would be close friends with our President. But I'm grateful he won. I'll still oppose what I disagree with.

But I can apprecate what he gets right without running a CNN commentary on it. A lot of folks project their own Dark Side
 
If the President completes this action,is the treaty still subject to being ratified,or does this close that door?
Click to expand...

We signed it in 2013 but never ratified. Essentially, he's "un-signing" it. Since it was never ratified, it never had any force of law. The measure is symbolic.

It seems to me it just does not matter what this President does,the collective "We" are somehow incapable of just saying "Good job,Thank You"
Click to expand...

I can't do that at this point. Not after the bump-stock ban (which was a shockingly illegal and dangerous abuse of executive power), the full-throated support for red-flag laws ("take the guns now and worry about due process later"), and his refusal to push Congress on the HPA and other pro-gun measures.

We avoid general political discussions here, but on the gun issue, it's hard not to see him taking a ton of money from the NRA, then abandoning us. Or worse.

It's like having a town firefighter who sleeps through the alarm while Main Street is ablaze and drunkenly runs the fire engine into a parked car. As he stumbles away from the wreckage, he pulls a kitten out of a tree. I'm glad Fluffy is OK, but that doesn't begin to address his glaring shortcomings.
 
The initial precept of the "Arms Trade Treaty", was (IMHO) decent, and that was to prevent / impede the sale of arms to fringe groups, narcos and smaller countries that often end up in serious regional or localized conflicts.

"SOME" politicians wanted to claim that the language in the treaty could be used to disarm lawful owners of firearms in the US. Not. True.

There is a more (but not totally) objective :) overview of the treaty here:
ATT details on Wikipedia link on Wikipedia here:

ATT Overview

Here's a picture of who was involved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty#/media/File:Arms_Trade_Treaty_UN_adoption.svg
 
Last edited:
I can't do that at this point. Not after the bump-stock ban (which was a shockingly illegal and dangerous abuse of executive power), the full-throated support for red-flag laws ("take the guns now and worry about due process later"), and his refusal to push Congress on the HPA and other pro-gun measures.
Click to expand...

Your points are valid.I join you in opposing those actions. No argument.

Given the options we had,"What would Hillary do?" That's the only real alternative scenario I can consider.The last candidates to go down were Cruz and Kasich. "What would Kasich do?" Lose to Hillary,IMO.

Cruz? IMO,good man. Likely (IMO) would have taken the Constitutional path in dealing with the quoted issues. Ted was my #1 choice. It unknown and unknowable if Sen Cruz has thick enough skin to take the sustained daily bludgeoning to himself and his family ,friends,and associates that happen to Trump. I do not think Sen Cruz would be treated any better.


For nearly every executive action the President has taken,its blocked by the Dems and some Fed Judge injunction.

Tell me,where was the GOP Congress and Judicial when it comes to fighting Trumps indiscretions? I don't think Trump s a gun guy.He's an NYC guy. He trusted the NRA on issues like bump stocks,red flags,etc….Yes or No? What did the NRA say?


How would Trump know any better? Was t Trump or the NRA that failed us on these issues?

Getting some campaign plugs in? Would you rather he passively handed 2020 to Bernie or Joe? AOC? Or maybe a late entrance like Michelle?
What can the guy do that is "right"?


I'm not a blind Trump apologist. I just have my eyes open enough to see what that one imperfect human being is up against,and I do not know of any imperfect human being on the face of this earth(including myself and Clark Kent) that would step up and take the job,and then do t better under the same circumstances.
 
Last edited:
and I'm sure you would also be excusing Obama or Hillary if they took the same executive action and redefinition of bump stocks and supported nationwide red flags laws as Trump has done. Its funny how people rationalize the unconstitutional actions and policies of a president if they otherwise support them.
 
nd I'm sure you would also be excusing Obama or Hillary if they took the same executive action and redefinition of bump stocks and supported nationwide red flags laws as Trump has done. Its funny how people rationalize the unconstitutional actions and policies of a president if they otherwise support them.
Click to expand...


What part of my following words did you not understand?

Your points are valid.I join you in opposing those actions. No argument.
Click to expand...
I suggest you go read my comments on the red flag posts.

Trump has done things I disagree with. Like I said,on gun matters I'm sure he listens to the NRA.
If you read the NRA turmoil post,note the NRA apparently backs red flag laws and banning bump stocks

Assuming Trump is not particularly into firearms(I don't know) What would you expect him to do but rely on the NRA?

Do you really compare Obama and Hillary? Would they go to speak at an NRA Convention?

If you really can't see the difference,it says a lot.
 
Last edited:
heyjoe said:
you are still excusing him for violating the constitution via an executive order. there is no excuse.
Click to expand...
First, who is "him" -- Trump for "unsigning" the treaty, or Obama for signing it?

Second, whichever President "him" refers to -- how does his action violate the Constitution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top