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.
Does your Senator oppose UN Gun Grab
TooBig
Member Posts: 28,559 ✭✭✭
Do Your Senators Oppose UN Gun Grab?
Tuesday, 19 July 2011 14:32
The good news is that 30 Senators have signed onto a letter opposing any UN treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment.
The bad news is that a global small arms treaty could still pass unless more Senators come out in opposition.
Last week, a so-called UN "preparatory committee" met for the third time to work on the massive Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
The ATT is the most comprehensive treaty of its kind and would regulate worldwide trade of weapons on everything from battleships to bullets. Few details of the treaty have been made public, but it is widely expected that the final draft will:
* Require gun owner registration
* Require ammunition "microstamping"
* Define "manufacturing" so broadly that any gun owner who adds so much as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license
* Include a ban on some types of semi-automatic firearms
* Include a ban .50 caliber firearms
* Demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.
Of course, we know that the Obama administration supports all of these proposals and would love to get them passed into law. Obama's negotiators at the UN have already expressed full support of the treaty and will work to include gun control provisions they haven't been able to push through the Congress.
The deadline for a final version of a treaty is July 2012, at which time it will be sent to the various member countries for ratification.
Kansas Senator Jerry Moran (R) drafted a letter to President Obama stating that our Second Amendment rights are "not negotiable" and pledges to "oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition, and related items."
In the Untied States the treaty will go to the Senate, where it requires 67 votes to be ratified. Conversely, we need 34 votes to kill the ATT.
So we're still four commitments short of defeating the treaty - and that doesn't account for any Senators who are "playing politics" and who may end up supporting the ATT with the right amount of pressure.
And you can bet that the pressure will be on to get this treaty ratified before the 2012 elections.
So far, the following Senators have joined Sen. Moran in publicly opposing any anti-gun treaty:
Ayotte (NH)
Blunt (MO)
Boozman (AR)
Burr (NC)
Coburn (OK)
Cochran (MS)
Corker (TN)
Cornyn (TX)
Chambliss (GA)
Crapo (ID)
DeMint (SC)
Enzi (WY)
Graham (SC)
Hatch (UT)
Heller (NV)
Hoeven (ND)
Hutchison (TX)
Inhofe (OK)
Isakson (GA)
Johanns (NE)
Kyl (AZ)
Paul (KY)
Roberts (KS)
Rubio (FL)
Sessions (AL)
Shelby (AL)
Thune (SD)
Vitter (LA)
Wicker (MS)
But 30 Senators is not enough. We need at least 34 to come out publicly in opposition to the ATT - and a few extra as "insurance."
ACTION: Contact your Senators and urge them to cosign the Moran letter opposing any UN treaty that infringes on our Second Amendment rights. The pre-written letter thanks those who have already signed, and urges other to do so right away. So please send the letter even if one or both of your Senators already signed on.
And if you are not already a member of GOA, please consider contributing today to help us continue the fight against UN-imposed gun control.
Click Here to send your Senators a prewritten message.
Tuesday, 19 July 2011 14:32
The good news is that 30 Senators have signed onto a letter opposing any UN treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment.
The bad news is that a global small arms treaty could still pass unless more Senators come out in opposition.
Last week, a so-called UN "preparatory committee" met for the third time to work on the massive Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
The ATT is the most comprehensive treaty of its kind and would regulate worldwide trade of weapons on everything from battleships to bullets. Few details of the treaty have been made public, but it is widely expected that the final draft will:
* Require gun owner registration
* Require ammunition "microstamping"
* Define "manufacturing" so broadly that any gun owner who adds so much as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license
* Include a ban on some types of semi-automatic firearms
* Include a ban .50 caliber firearms
* Demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.
Of course, we know that the Obama administration supports all of these proposals and would love to get them passed into law. Obama's negotiators at the UN have already expressed full support of the treaty and will work to include gun control provisions they haven't been able to push through the Congress.
The deadline for a final version of a treaty is July 2012, at which time it will be sent to the various member countries for ratification.
Kansas Senator Jerry Moran (R) drafted a letter to President Obama stating that our Second Amendment rights are "not negotiable" and pledges to "oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition, and related items."
In the Untied States the treaty will go to the Senate, where it requires 67 votes to be ratified. Conversely, we need 34 votes to kill the ATT.
So we're still four commitments short of defeating the treaty - and that doesn't account for any Senators who are "playing politics" and who may end up supporting the ATT with the right amount of pressure.
And you can bet that the pressure will be on to get this treaty ratified before the 2012 elections.
So far, the following Senators have joined Sen. Moran in publicly opposing any anti-gun treaty:
Ayotte (NH)
Blunt (MO)
Boozman (AR)
Burr (NC)
Coburn (OK)
Cochran (MS)
Corker (TN)
Cornyn (TX)
Chambliss (GA)
Crapo (ID)
DeMint (SC)
Enzi (WY)
Graham (SC)
Hatch (UT)
Heller (NV)
Hoeven (ND)
Hutchison (TX)
Inhofe (OK)
Isakson (GA)
Johanns (NE)
Kyl (AZ)
Paul (KY)
Roberts (KS)
Rubio (FL)
Sessions (AL)
Shelby (AL)
Thune (SD)
Vitter (LA)
Wicker (MS)
But 30 Senators is not enough. We need at least 34 to come out publicly in opposition to the ATT - and a few extra as "insurance."
ACTION: Contact your Senators and urge them to cosign the Moran letter opposing any UN treaty that infringes on our Second Amendment rights. The pre-written letter thanks those who have already signed, and urges other to do so right away. So please send the letter even if one or both of your Senators already signed on.
And if you are not already a member of GOA, please consider contributing today to help us continue the fight against UN-imposed gun control.
Click Here to send your Senators a prewritten message.
Comments
An indicator of support ?
I'm dense tonight; why do we give a flying foo-fah what the UN does? They can ratify whatever crazy stuff they want, but in order for it to be law here it has to go through the house and the senate.
What am I missing?
well, I would imagine that it would become rather difficult to get surplus .30-06 from Greece, .303 from the Brits, etc.
Oh and goodbye cheap Russian ammo.
Speaking of Russia...I would think that they'd stand with us here, not that they are very pro-gun at home, but they sell enough ammo, firearms, and surplus components to US civilians to care [:D]
of course if neither the US nor Russia recognize this treaty, does that mean we can still import guns and ammo from over there? Would the blue helmets want to bleen with both US AND Russia?
I'm dense tonight; why do we give a flying foo-fah what the UN does? They can ratify whatever crazy stuff they want, but in order for it to be law here it has to go through the house and the senate.
What am I missing?
The house has nothing to do with a treaty 2/3 of senate is what is required
Still, the suggestion to write your senator is a good one. Remind them that their primary allegiance it to the Constitution and the American citizens, NOT the U.N. Let them know that we are all watching and there are elections coming up. Most will be more concerned with the second than the first for motivation so we might as well use it.
Then, since a treaty has not greater standing than any other federal law, it is subordinate to any SCOTUS ruling on its conflicts with the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Contrary to some fear mongers, it does NOT overrule the Constitution. With recent SCOTUS progun rulings, I highly doubt that the treaty would stand up if it contradicts the Justices prior rulings. [:D]
just 1 justice away from it being a different outcome. To many 5 to 4 rulings to suit me
quote:Originally posted by Flying Clay Disk
I'm dense tonight; why do we give a flying foo-fah what the UN does? They can ratify whatever crazy stuff they want, but in order for it to be law here it has to go through the house and the senate.
What am I missing?
The house has nothing to do with a treaty 2/3 of senate is what is required
You are correct. If Obama and the majority Democratic senate so desired, between the two of them we could find the government of America having formally signed a treaty with many other countries in the world that agrees to basically ban guns for civilians. The US House has no say in the matter. As far as I know, this idea is a brand new way, new idea for the gun grabbers to disarm American civilians. Unless someone else knows, it looks like uncharted legal territory that has never come even close to being attempted before by the anti-gun crowd.
Of course anti-gun treaty would be obviously violate our constitutional 2A. It doesn't take a lawyer to recognize that. And it would be an outrage. But I doubt there are many legal scholars who know enough about this unusual situation (potential situation anyway) to know how this would play out after all was said and done by all effected parties. I hope we don't have to find out.
You are correct. If Obama and the majority Democratic senate so desired, between the two of them we could find the government of America having formally signed a treaty with many other countries in the world that agrees to basically ban guns for civilians.
I, citizen, do not agree with it and I, citizen, will neither recognize such treaty nor comply with it's provisions.
Then, since a treaty has not greater standing than any other federal law, it is subordinate to any SCOTUS ruling on its conflicts with the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Contrary to some fear mongers, it does NOT overrule the Constitution. With recent SCOTUS progun rulings, I highly doubt that the treaty would stand up if it contradicts the Justices prior rulings. [:D]
Still, the suggestion to write your senator is a good one. Remind them that their primary allegiance it to the Constitution and the American citizens, NOT the U.N. Let them know that we are all watching and there are elections coming up. Most will be more concerned with the second than the first for motivation so we might as well use it.
The justices, in both Heller and McDonald have recognized the power of Government to License firearm owners, Register firearms, Regulate the types of firearms people can have, and dictate where they can have them. There is nothing in this proposed treaty that contradicts these two recent anti 2nd Amendment rulings.
The Constitution grants the President the power to enter into Treaties. These Treaties are binding upon the United States when ratified with a 2/3 vote in the Senate. If this is accepted by POTUS and the 2/3 of the Senate, it becomes Federal Law, and our current crap of SCROTUS Justices will not overturn it.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
You are correct. If Obama and the majority Democratic senate so desired, between the two of them we could find the government of America having formally signed a treaty with many other countries in the world that agrees to basically ban guns for civilians.
I, citizen, do not agree with it and I, citizen, will neither recognize such treaty nor comply with it's provisions.
I don't know why you are quoting me and making your statement. I'm not the one to tell because I won't be coming for you, kicking in your door to take your guns. Why don't you tell Obama and his anti-gun cronies and maybe that will cause them to change their mind about outlawing guns?