In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Iran, North Korea and Syria block Firearms Tready
kissgoodnight
Member Posts: 4,063 ✭✭✭
Iran, North Korea and Syria block UN weapons treaty that the NRA opposes
By Julian Pecquet - 03/28/13 04:43 PM ET
A controversial United Nations arms treaty opposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) was blocked Thursday by a rogue's gallery of North Korea, Iran and Syria.
The Obama administration did not object to the treaty even as the other countries prevented it from moving forward.
Because the treaty conference operates by consensus - a U.S. requirement - the objections mean the conference broke Thursday without an agreement. The treaty could still go before the U.N. General Assembly for a vote next week, however.
The NRA has attacked the treaty as violating the Second Amendment, and argues it could restrict U.S. citizens' abilities to purchase or possess firearms or ammunition. The group warned the Obama administration not to endorse it.
Advocates for the treaty say it would have no impact on domestic arms sales and would simply require the rest of the world to adopt arms export regulations in line with those in the United States.
The Syrian delegate who objected to the treaty Thursday said it would not prevent the provision of weapons to "terrorists," the Bashar Assad regime's word for the armed Syrian opposition. The treaty would require arms exporters to verify that their weapons did not have a high risk of being used to violate humanitarian law.
Even if the treaty were to clear the U.N. General Assembly with the Obama administration's support, it would face a tough slog in Congress.
Last week, the Senate voted 53-46 in favor of an amendment from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) that calls for preventing the United States from joining the treaty. Ratification of the arms pact would require 67 votes in the Senate.
"We're negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms," Inhofe said on the Senate floor. "This is probably the last time this year that you'll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights."
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/290867-un-arms-trade-treaty-stumbles-over-objections-from-syria-iran-and-north-korea#ixzz2OsYwkGgQ
By Julian Pecquet - 03/28/13 04:43 PM ET
A controversial United Nations arms treaty opposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) was blocked Thursday by a rogue's gallery of North Korea, Iran and Syria.
The Obama administration did not object to the treaty even as the other countries prevented it from moving forward.
Because the treaty conference operates by consensus - a U.S. requirement - the objections mean the conference broke Thursday without an agreement. The treaty could still go before the U.N. General Assembly for a vote next week, however.
The NRA has attacked the treaty as violating the Second Amendment, and argues it could restrict U.S. citizens' abilities to purchase or possess firearms or ammunition. The group warned the Obama administration not to endorse it.
Advocates for the treaty say it would have no impact on domestic arms sales and would simply require the rest of the world to adopt arms export regulations in line with those in the United States.
The Syrian delegate who objected to the treaty Thursday said it would not prevent the provision of weapons to "terrorists," the Bashar Assad regime's word for the armed Syrian opposition. The treaty would require arms exporters to verify that their weapons did not have a high risk of being used to violate humanitarian law.
Even if the treaty were to clear the U.N. General Assembly with the Obama administration's support, it would face a tough slog in Congress.
Last week, the Senate voted 53-46 in favor of an amendment from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) that calls for preventing the United States from joining the treaty. Ratification of the arms pact would require 67 votes in the Senate.
"We're negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms," Inhofe said on the Senate floor. "This is probably the last time this year that you'll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights."
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/290867-un-arms-trade-treaty-stumbles-over-objections-from-syria-iran-and-north-korea#ixzz2OsYwkGgQ
Comments
That it can be accepted by the USA without Congressional approval...
That the POTUS can push it through without consideration by congress...
That the UN Arms Treaty can effectively remove the 2A...
And then I read that NO Treaty can be accepted by the USA that is in direct opposition to the US Constitution...
That the US Constitution effectively "trumps" any treaty... period.
Does ANY ONE ACTUALLY KNOW... If this UN Arms Treaty is something to be concerned with or not?
Or is it just propaganda fodder for our politicians... ?
And of course the special interest groups... Like the NRA.
This thing has me all out of sorts and beside myself... Cornfused yet again. [B)]
OK... I've read a lot of bunk about this UN Arms Treaty...
That it can be accepted by the USA without Congressional approval...
That the POTUS can push it through without consideration by congress...
That the UN Arms Treaty can effectively remove the 2A...
And then I read that NO Treaty can be accepted by the USA that is in direct opposition to the US Constitution...
That the US Constitution effectively "trumps" any treaty... period.
Does ANY ONE ACTUALLY KNOW... If this UN Arms Treaty is something to be concerned with or not?
Or is it just propaganda fodder for our politicians... ?
And of course the special interest groups... Like the NRA.
This thing has me all out of sorts and beside myself... Cornfused yet again. [B)]
Get yourself a copy of the UN Charter and give it a read. Note the part where it says the UN will not interfere in the internal affairs of nations and then consider how many times it has anyway.
The UN and all it's conventions and treaty's is all about one thing. Control and what the traffic will bear.
Since we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy- they cant legaly ratify anything that goes against the constitution...
But if they did it would be years before the supreme court overturned it and the damage will have already been done to citizens rights before it is overturned.
If the senate didnt ratify it our beloved dictator in chief would just sighn an executive order. Then here comes DHSs MRAPs and 1.6b rounds
Dang, did everyone sleep thru Civics class?? It's no wonder our Country is in trouble.
Tin foil too thin, allowing the brain deteriorating waves spewed from the black helocopters to penetrate your hats?
ANY Foreign Treaty would have to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate, period...the following not withstanding
A treaty may not do or exceed what the Congress is charged to do or what it is forbidden to do. Constitutional authority supersedes, overrules, and precludes any contrary treaty authority.
Thus, if a proposed treaty would violate any provision of the Constitution, it may not even be seriously considered or debated, much less be ratified and implemented because the same restrictions that were placed by the Constitution on the U.S. Federal government are also imposed on any treaty provision.
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.
"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here?
No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT.
I think that this administration believes it can do what it wants to do. Therefore I believe it is possible that all those who have said "From my cold, dead hands" will get a chance to prove if they will stand or if they are merely hot air balloons. Notice I said "possible". I do not think we are that far down that road. Yet. I do think we are getting close.
+1
"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
That could change. Once the Court is completely stacked with progressives, ti will be Katie bar the door!
Signing a treaty is a promise, not law. No American laws are changed by signing a treaty or by ratifying a treaty.
There is very little support in the Senate to approve any UN Arms Trade Treaty. Too many American arms makers are making too much money for that to play well politically.
Iran did not kill the ATT negotiations, the USA did. The USA killed it because of some "Red Lines" we said we would not tolerate if crossed:
1. Iran was named to a senior position on the ATT Committee.
The USA properly saw that as an insult and an absurdity. Iran is an exporter of terrorism and weapons of terrorism. Giving them authority over the ATT negotiations is like hiring a cannibal to regulate the Organ Donor Program.
2. The USA said flat out no ATT would be acceptable if it addressed private citizen small arms ownership in any country, most especially the USA. Had to be about conventional military arms, the original intent of the treaty. The little piss-ant countries wouldn't stop, they kept pushing and the US State Dept said "screw you idiots we're going home".
Not going to happen and if it did it would be meaningless to American gun owners.
The UN has zero authority over American law. The Supreme Court has said so repeatedly.
Signing a treaty is a promise, not law. No American laws are changed by signing a treaty or by ratifying a treaty.
There is very little support in the Senate to approve any UN Arms Trade Treaty. Too many American arms makers are making too much money for that to play well politically.
Iran did not kill the ATT negotiations, the USA did. The USA killed it because of some "Red Lines" we said we would not tolerate if crossed:
1. Iran was named to a senior position on the ATT Committee.
The USA properly saw that as an insult and an absurdity. Iran is an exporter of terrorism and weapons of terrorism. Giving them authority over the ATT negotiations is like hiring a cannibal to regulate the Organ Donor Program.
2. The USA said flat out no ATT would be acceptable if it addressed private citizen small arms ownership in any country, most especially the USA. Had to be about conventional military arms, the original intent of the treaty. The little piss-ant countries wouldn't stop, they kept pushing and the US State Dept said "screw you idiots we're going home".
Not going to happen and if it did it would be meaningless to American gun owners.
Well maybe and maybe no! Marijuana recreational misuse is much less controversial than firearm misuse so keep your powder dry!
I think they UN will allow marijuana recreational use to pacify them all the while be very stern on small arms use by citizens in The NWO.
serf
http://www.infowars.com/united-nations-moves-to-impose-international-treaties-on-states-legalizing-marijuana/
The President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Raymond Yans, has voiced "grave concern about the outcome of recent referenda in the United States of America that would allow the non-medical use of cannabis by adults in the states of Colorado and Washington, and in some cities in the states of Michigan and Vermont," according to an INCB press release. The INCB is a quasi-judicial "control organ" for the implementation of the United Nations drug conventions.
Signing a treaty is a promise, not law.
How many times have we heard we need to raise the debt ceiling because "the US can't go back on promises made" to those we give all sorts of expensive things to? And how many sheeple agree because that sounds morally correct? You're talking principles, and we as a nation just don't know them or value them anymore.