GET US OUT OF THE UN..
UN Arms Trade Treaty: would it supersede the Second Amendment?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/07/20 21:47:31
|
|
|||||
|
40 votes
|
|
19% | |||
|
18 votes
|
|
8% | |||
|
34 votes
|
|
16% | |||
|
107 votes
|
|
50% | |||
|
14 votes
|
|
7% | |||
The UN Arms Trade Treaty is an idea that various intellectuals have kicked around since 2003. George W. Bush wanted nothing to do with it, on US sovereignty grounds. But Barack H. Obama reversed that.
The question is whether the UN Arms Trade Treaty would be binding as soon as it's signed, or not. The Vienna Convention seems to say so. There's just one catch: the USA never ratified the Vienna Convention. Just signing a convention like that is not enough. And even if the treaty passed the Senate (with two-thirds of the members present), the 1956 case of Reid v. Covert plainly said that "supremacy" does not let a treaty amend the Constitution.
That ought to be the end of it. But: two Justices of the Supreme Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) have both said that international law ought to take precedence over US law. And Barack H. Obama has played fast and loose with the Constitution and various laws and precedents before this.
Add to it that Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to have her fingerprints on Operation Fast and Furious, with a specific view to skew the statistics and make the case for draconian gun control in the United States.
The linked article goes into this in much greater detail, and has further links to the Vienna Convention, the Control Arms Group, the Reid case, and other relevant documents and reports.
So what say you? Would the UN Arms Trade Treaty supersede the Second Amendment? And can it take force and effect after BHO and HRC sign it, but before the Senate ratifies, it, if the Senate would be so inclined?
The question is whether the UN Arms Trade Treaty would be binding as soon as it's signed, or not. The Vienna Convention seems to say so. There's just one catch: the USA never ratified the Vienna Convention. Just signing a convention like that is not enough. And even if the treaty passed the Senate (with two-thirds of the members present), the 1956 case of Reid v. Covert plainly said that "supremacy" does not let a treaty amend the Constitution.
That ought to be the end of it. But: two Justices of the Supreme Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) have both said that international law ought to take precedence over US law. And Barack H. Obama has played fast and loose with the Constitution and various laws and precedents before this.
Add to it that Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to have her fingerprints on Operation Fast and Furious, with a specific view to skew the statistics and make the case for draconian gun control in the United States.
The linked article goes into this in much greater detail, and has further links to the Vienna Convention, the Control Arms Group, the Reid case, and other relevant documents and reports.
So what say you? Would the UN Arms Trade Treaty supersede the Second Amendment? And can it take force and effect after BHO and HRC sign it, but before the Senate ratifies, it, if the Senate would be so inclined?
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/20...
Top Opinion
-
CHUCK 2012/07/20 22:43:37The Second Amendment trumps any arms-control treaty.
sign the Un Arms Trade Treaty.
Why do Right-Wingers love criminals and terrorists?
If this treaty is ratified and enforced by the United States, I can almost guarantee it will cause a revolt from the American people, and possibly even another revolution. But, I don't know for sure. Let's hope we don't have to find out.
In addition, treaties are agreements between sovereign states. The US is not a sovereign state.
The Law of Nations (as codified by Vattel and others) does take precedence over the US constitution but "international law" is not the same.
I shall not comply. If anybody comes for my guns I shall pry their cold, dead fingers from their guns.
What are you prepared to do about it?
If the Obama administration has no intention of taking personal weapons away, then why are they so hot to add the President's signature to the treaty?
It would literally be impossible to affect our 2nd Amendment rights in any way, shape or form.
Anyone suggesting anything else is either fear mongering through ignorance, or they just really like terrorists getting their hands on small arms as easily as possible.
I AM A FREE MAN A CITIZEN OF AMERICA I WILL NOT STAND FOR A MARXIST TO DO THIS ODIOUS JOB ON MY WATCH..
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The "supreme" court has lost respect by many Americans and honest officials!
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights
The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
http://movetoamend.org/
". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
~Su...
The "supreme" court has lost respect by many Americans and honest officials!
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights
The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
http://movetoamend.org/
". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010
Even law enforcement officials find these guys to be clowns! check out these videos from CSPOA - Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.
The videos below are from the Las Vegas 2012 conference.
http://www.cspoa.org/videos.php
and according to senator crapo (idaho ) "i can post his letter back to me " that this isnt gonna happen , not without full house approval congress ,then a vote by the people ..
Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to gun control measures promoted by the United Nations. I agree with you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
The United Nations (U.N.) is currently working on drafting an international arms agreement popularly referred to as the “U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.” According to the U.N., the goal of this treaty is to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” At present, preparatory meetings are being held ahead of an anticipated 2012 conference to negotiate the treaty. No official drafts have been released, and the U.S. has not signed onto the Arms Trade Treaty. As you may know, any treaty that the U.S. signs must first be ratified by the Senate before it can take effect.
The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act (S. 2205) was introduced on March 19, 2012 by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and would prohibit funding to negotiate the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that restricts the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. The bill is currently under consideration by the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, I am a co-sponsor of this measure.
You may be interested to know that I joined several of my Senate colleague...
Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to gun control measures promoted by the United Nations. I agree with you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
The United Nations (U.N.) is currently working on drafting an international arms agreement popularly referred to as the “U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.” According to the U.N., the goal of this treaty is to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” At present, preparatory meetings are being held ahead of an anticipated 2012 conference to negotiate the treaty. No official drafts have been released, and the U.S. has not signed onto the Arms Trade Treaty. As you may know, any treaty that the U.S. signs must first be ratified by the Senate before it can take effect.
The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act (S. 2205) was introduced on March 19, 2012 by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and would prohibit funding to negotiate the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that restricts the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. The bill is currently under consideration by the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, I am a co-sponsor of this measure.
You may be interested to know that I joined several of my Senate colleagues in writing to President Obama expressing strong concerns about the treaty and the need to uphold our constitutional protections for personal firearm ownership. Let me reassure you that I do not support gun control. I firmly believe that international organizations like the United Nations cannot deny American citizens the right to bear arms. We must protect and preserve our constitutional right to bear arms. I will not support any legislation or treaty that requires a waiting period for the purchase of a firearm, bans the ownership of firearms, promotes or requires the rationing or taxation of firearms, or the taxation of ammunition.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I firmly believe this provision prohibits the federal government and the United Nations from denying citizens this right. Please rest assured that I will continue to protect our rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.
Upon being sworn in as a United States Senator, I took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. The delicate relationship that exists between federal and state government is vital to the effectiveness of the United States’ system of government and must be protected. I will continue my commitment to support legislation that protects and upholds the rights of individuals as established by the U.S. Constitution.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mike Crapo
United States Senator
So bottomline is all the crazy gun ban talk is just the usual RWNJ's ignoring facts and reality..
Torrijos–Carter Treaties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Both treaties were subsequently ratified in Panama by a two-thirds vote in a
referendum held on October 23, ...
The UN will effectively control small arms sales in the world.
then decide ...I make no qualms with him nor anyone else about my protecting my rights ..
now it this B/S ??
i dont know !
I suspect that your response was a CANNED response put out by the PARTY.
My understanding is that they are discussing BEHIND CLOSED DOORS and OBAMA will sign and it will BE BINDING.
We shall see. I have received NUMEROUS of the same CRAP from my Senators and Congressmen.
they will never get my weapons from me while I'm alive !