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.
UN Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun
FrancF
Member Posts: 35,279 ✭✭✭
The U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty, which seemed dead last July, is beginning to wrap up negotiations. The Obama administration is committed to getting it passed . Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed: "The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty."
The treaty was resurrected on Nov. 8 - the very day after President Obama's re-election. Very conveniently, that the Obama administration delayed the U.N. vote in favor of renewing negotiations delayed until the president was no longer constrained by public opinion.
The Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership all across the world. Each country will be obligated to "maintain a national control list that shall include [rifles and handguns]" and "to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms." In fact, the new background check rules approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee include just those rules -- a registration system and a record of all transfers of guns.
More~
http://tinyurl.com/bpb76ed
The treaty was resurrected on Nov. 8 - the very day after President Obama's re-election. Very conveniently, that the Obama administration delayed the U.N. vote in favor of renewing negotiations delayed until the president was no longer constrained by public opinion.
The Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership all across the world. Each country will be obligated to "maintain a national control list that shall include [rifles and handguns]" and "to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms." In fact, the new background check rules approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee include just those rules -- a registration system and a record of all transfers of guns.
More~
http://tinyurl.com/bpb76ed
Comments
So no, it will not do any such thing.
Nor would it be signed by Obama in that form. That was one of the two reasons the Administration shot it down last year and nothing has changed on the point.
Nor would the Senate ratify such a thing. There are not even enough Demoncraps to support it let alone enough Republistains to put it over the 2/3 majority required.
Nor would the House and the Senate pass the same set of laws to enforce it. That's a required step under our form of government, Civics 101 and all that sort of thing. Not about to go that far.
Nor would Obama sign such laws, he has said so and backed it up by killing the last UN ATT negotiation.
Nor would any US Supreme Court, regardless of who appointed the Justices, accept such laws under such a treaty as constitutional or binding. The traditions in the rarefied academic world of US Supreme Court Justices regard the concept of "Settled Law" with intense religious reverence.
they couldn`t do anything about it here until the 1996 massacre because the federal government only controled what could be imported/exported. gun laws were up to the individual states. once they go the massacre they wanted the feds blackmailed the states by threatening to cut all federal funding.
it will probaly go the same way in the u.s. as well some time down the track.
i`d love to be dictator here for a month, the first thing i`d do is withdraw this country from the u.n. immediately, and for good!!
they are only interested in controlling the whole planet and everything and everyone on it!....buzzards![:(!]
my country signed up to it....or one basically the same in the 1980`s.
they couldn`t do anything about it here until the 1996 massacre because the federal government only controled what could be imported/exported. gun laws were up to the individual states. once they go the massacre they wanted the feds blackmailed the states by threatening to cut all federal funding.
it will probaly go the same way in the u.s. as well some time down the track.
i`d love to be dictator here for a month, the first thing i`d do is withdraw this country from the u.n. immediately, and for good!!
they are only interested in controlling the whole planet and everything and everyone on it!....buzzards![:(!]
It is a sad thing what happened to Australia.
However, can't happen here under the UN. Our system of checks and balances doesn't allow it. Our legal and judicial structure make it impossible.
The only potential hit upon Americans is to companies exporting conventional military arms.
Potential impact upon private American citizens owning guns?
ZERO.
[:D] With all due respect- You just stepped in it...
It's no wonder our Country is in trouble.
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.
Dang, did most everyone sleep thru Civics class??
It's no wonder our Country is in trouble.
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.
But yet the second amendment is still infringed upon along with all the others.
Here's an excerpt, go to the web page to read more. Or Google yourselves silly, have a good time learning how our Constitution is a pretty tough document:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm
The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy. In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective, and ten of those ratifications occurred almost immediately--as the Bill of Rights. The very difficulty of amending the Constitution greatly increases the importance of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution, because reversal of the Court's decision by amendment is unlikely except in cases when the public's disagreement is intense and close to unanimous. Even unpopular Court decisions (such as the Court's protection of flagburning) are likely to stand unless the Court itself changes its collective mind.
That's my premise, How many lawyers will dig that deep to block these issues? How many Judges and Lawyers are left in this country that would make that decision out of popularity?
FrancF it makes no sense whatsoever. At the rarefied academic levels of the the US Supreme Court Justices the strength of Settled Law is held with a nearly religious reverence. There is zero possibility of overturning or nullifying the 2nd Amendment via the actions of any court.
You are more likely to be stung to death by Bees while wrestling with Slim Pickens for his cowboy hat while riding a falling atom bomb downward from a B52 over pre-collapse USSR than to see the Supreme Court suddenly reverse over 200 years of Settled Law.
Infringements by local, city, county, state and Federal legislative activity yes. We've had that since 1934, though to be fair progress has been made against it.
Additional progress back toward normalcy will continue. Lawsuits against many infringements are going on all the time. The Good Guys have been winning. A slow process, but it works.
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
That's my premise, How many lawyers will dig that deep to block these issues? How many Judges and Lawyers are left in this country that would make that decision out of popularity?
FrancF it makes no sense whatsoever. At the rarefied academic levels of the the US Supreme Court Justices the strength of Settled Law is held with a nearly religious reverence. There is zero possibility of overturning or nullifying the 2nd Amendment via the actions of any court.
You are more likely to be stung to death by Bees while wrestling with Slim Pickens for his cowboy hat while riding a falling atom bomb downward from a B52 over pre-collapse USSR than to see the Supreme Court suddenly reverse over 200 years of Settled Law.
Infringements by local, city, county, state and Federal legislative activity yes. We've had that since 1934, though to be fair progress has been made against it.
Additional progress back toward normalcy will continue. Lawsuits against many infringements are going on all the time. The Good Guys have been winning. A slow process, but it works.
quote:Infringements by local, city, county, state and Federal legislative activity yes. We've had that since 1934, though to be fair progress has been made against it.
And that's were it starts, along with UN agenda 21.
With the Current administration they will do their best to betray the US citizens anyway they can in my opinion.
Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it
quote:Originally posted by ChrisInTempe
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
That's my premise, How many lawyers will dig that deep to block these issues? How many Judges and Lawyers are left in this country that would make that decision out of popularity?
FrancF it makes no sense whatsoever. At the rarefied academic levels of the the US Supreme Court Justices the strength of Settled Law is held with a nearly religious reverence. There is zero possibility of overturning or nullifying the 2nd Amendment via the actions of any court.
You are more likely to be stung to death by Bees while wrestling with Slim Pickens for his cowboy hat while riding a falling atom bomb downward from a B52 over pre-collapse USSR than to see the Supreme Court suddenly reverse over 200 years of Settled Law.
Infringements by local, city, county, state and Federal legislative activity yes. We've had that since 1934, though to be fair progress has been made against it.
Additional progress back toward normalcy will continue. Lawsuits against many infringements are going on all the time. The Good Guys have been winning. A slow process, but it works.
quote:Infringements by local, city, county, state and Federal legislative activity yes. We've had that since 1934, though to be fair progress has been made against it.
And that's were it starts, along with UN agenda 21.
Ah yes, I am familiar with this. When one nonsensical conspiracy theory cannot stand, switch to another nonsensical conspiracy theory.
Enjoy!
I heard the Treaty was a big Flop because Seria and a couple other Middle East Countries didnt want it. Heck,Why would They want to stop how They get Their Guns.
Exactly, those piss-ant counties did not stop it.
The USA stopped the treaty last time. Because Iran was named to the committee and because small countries were pushing to expand the treaty into civilian owned guns.
When did our schools stop teaching Civics?
Here's an excerpt, go to the web page to read more. Or Google yourselves silly, have a good time learning how our Constitution is a pretty tough document:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm
The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy. In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective, and ten of those ratifications occurred almost immediately--as the Bill of Rights. The very difficulty of amending the Constitution greatly increases the importance of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution, because reversal of the Court's decision by amendment is unlikely except in cases when the public's disagreement is intense and close to unanimous. Even unpopular Court decisions (such as the Court's protection of flagburning) are likely to stand unless the Court itself changes its collective mind.
You do understand that "true believers" and "those who know" aren't really interested in provable, factual reality, right?
Abject fear is their only concern, and it is their security blanket to answer the multitude of issues they do not understand and for which they have no answer.
Easier to be afraid than to do the work to discover truth.
quote:Originally posted by dan kelly
my country signed up to it....or one basically the same in the 1980`s.
they couldn`t do anything about it here until the 1996 massacre because the federal government only controled what could be imported/exported. gun laws were up to the individual states. once they go the massacre they wanted the feds blackmailed the states by threatening to cut all federal funding.
it will probaly go the same way in the u.s. as well some time down the track.
i`d love to be dictator here for a month, the first thing i`d do is withdraw this country from the u.n. immediately, and for good!!
they are only interested in controlling the whole planet and everything and everyone on it!....buzzards![:(!]
It is a sad thing what happened to Australia.
However, can't happen here under the UN. Our system of checks and balances doesn't allow it. Our legal and judicial structure make it impossible.
The only potential hit upon Americans is to companies exporting conventional military arms.
Potential impact upon private American citizens owning guns?
ZERO.
How do you manage to spread pure BS with a straight face? Are you really that ignorant of reality?
See middle finger here.[:D]