I knew it. As usual conservatives are massively exaggerating if not outright lying in their never ending compulsion to create threats and "enemies". It turns out this small arms treaty is aimed at keeping countries from selling weapons to other countries where they're liable to end up in wars. It's not expected to have any effect on Americans' ability to own guns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fact check: U.N. treaty unlikely to curb U.S. gun rights Negotiators at the United Nations are working to put final touches on a treaty cracking down on the global, $60 billion business of illicit trading in small arms, a move aimed at curbing violence in some of the most troubled corners of the world. In the United States, gun activists denounce it as an attack on their constitutional right to bear arms. "Without apology, the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms," National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told the U.N. this month. "Any treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership in its scope will be met with the NRA's greatest force of opposition." And treaty opponent John Bolton, who was President George W. Bush's ambassador to the U.N., wrote that gun control advocates "hope to use restrictions on international gun sales to control gun sales at home." But what both ignore is a well-enshrined legal principle that says no treaty can override the Constitution or U.S. laws. In fact, a draft of the treaty circulated in New York this week has been criticized by arms control activists for containing too many loopholes. For instance, it doesn't include a proposed ban on ammunition trade. Gun activists are standing firm in near-blanket opposition to such a ban, as last Friday's deadly Colorado theater rampage puts pressure on the issue. A later draft closed some of those loopholes and negotiators hoped to reach a final agreement by a Friday deadline for action. While the treaty controversy is simmering in Congress and on the Internet, it hasn't yet become a burning issue in the presidential race. President Barack Obama supports the treaty effort but hasn't talked about it on the campaign trail. Presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney hasn't specifically addressed the treaty but broadly opposes what he sees as overreach by the U.N. on many fronts. "I'm willing to talk there. I'm not willing to give the United Nations sovereignty in any way or form" over U.S. citizens or law, Romney said July 18. Romney and Obama did touch on the issue of U.S. gun control laws this week, with Obama suggesting stiffer regulations in a speech Wednesday night to the National Urban League and Romney arguing in an NBC interview from London, where he is traveling, that America does not need new gun laws. The Constitution's Second Amendment offers broad protection for weapons ownership by civilians. As recently as 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed it when it struck down a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, ruling that individuals have a constitutional right to keep guns for self-defense and other purposes. The court also has ruled separately that treaty obligations may not infringe on individual constitutional protections and rights within U.S. borders. This goes back at least to a 1920 ruling that a migratory bird treaty with Canada, which prohibited the hunting or capturing of certain birds, was an unconstitutional interference with states' rights under the 10th Amendment. Treaties are government-to-government agreements and do not subject citizens of one nation to laws of another or to those of an outside body. Also, the U.N. resolution that authorized drafting of the small arms treaty recognizes the clear-cut right of nations "to regulate internal transfers of arms" and says nothing in the treaty that emerges will affect "constitutional protections on private ownership" of firearms. Beyond that, there are many court rulings spelling out the limits of treaties. And if an act of Congress is inconsistent with a treaty obligation, the law passed by Congress prevails. Legal scholars say this has been well established.... Even so, fears have spread on the Internet and on social networks lately, with some pro-gun activists suggesting the Obama administration was capitalizing on the Colorado killings to advance its case for gun control and others portraying it as a darker plot by the U.N. to expand its reach.... The controversy feeds into suggestions by many conservatives that Obama ultimately hopes to ban possession of firearms, even though he has stood up for protecting Second Amendment rights. Some gun rights advocates acknowledge that a treaty by itself wouldn't likely undercut these Second Amendment guarantees. "There is no doubt that the Constitution is superior to any international treaties," said Rona, who also teaches international law at Columbia University. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018787290_apusarmstreatyfactcheck.html
How is an OP-ED from the glaringly Leftist "Seattle Times" a "FACT CHECK"? "FACT CHECK": Any member of the US Senate voting to ratify this blatant incursion into US sovereignity, will be doing something else for a living very (*)(*)(*)(*)ed soon after....
What does other countries selling guns to war zones have to do with our sovereignty?? Or do you plan to make a living by arming rebels, drug dealers and terrorists?
Our courts probably won't protect our rights since its obvious that Roberts has Obama's dick so far down his throat he will do whatever hes told. If we sign this you can expect any lawsuit to be thrown out and have your guns stripped away. That important ruling in 2008 which protected our rights to carry fireams was voted AGAINST by every single democrat appointed Justice. It only passed because the conservatives had the majority. Had there been one more liberal on the Court then States would have the power to ban any or all types of weapons they wanted too. Now that Roberts is the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) of the left I would not trust them to vote the same way anymore.
There is an easy way to solve this question. If the Senate rejects the treaty then we don't have to worry about whether it would harm American gun owners or not. No treaty, no problem.
if we dont make fire then we wont have to worry about being burned. This is not a very logical way of looking at it. This bill was meant to reduce the ability of larger countries to fuel wars fought in smaller countries by providing weapons. This means that situations such as in vietnam (incase you can't be bothered to do the research, The russians armed the north and the US armed the south) are less likely to happen. It is very doubtable this bill will even stop the government from selling arms. Powers such as Russia, China, and the USA will no doubt ignore UN rulings if they have something to gain from it. Ignoring facts in a situation like this is just mindless fear-mongering.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Editorial from liberal newspaper who hopes and prays for taking away gun rights says everything is A-OK! ROFLMAO!!!
Wow, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Obama administration facilitating gun sales to Mexican drug lords. I have a strong feeling you're not as outraged about gun sales as you're pretending to be.
Do you honestly believe that this treaty is merely going to prevent our government from selling arms to people in foreign countries, Fast and Furious-style? Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Allowing any type of foreign treaty to dictate U.S. law violates our sovereignty and therefore should be struck down and destroyed at all costs, lest we all end up on the short end of the stick like the Native Americans; a sovereign nation, sure, but look what it has become.
looks like it is moot point now anyway http://www.voanews.com/content/united-nations-talks-fail-to-produce-arms-trade-treaty/1448255.html
Well said. Now you're getting the idea. As long as there is the SLIGHTEST risk of starting a fire and burning up our gun rights it isn't worth it. Better safe than sorry.
thinking of another thread I wonder if this would have prevented the US from arming the UK during WWII
Thank you, JackDog, for providing us with proof that this was an international conspiracy to take guns away from the citizens of the United States, along with every other freedom-loving nation allowing its citizens the right to bear arms.
Read the ACTUAL attempted legislation, before commenting further. The UN would assume the authority of deciding WHO CAN , and CANNOT be armed. Let's see that'd soon be ALL TERRORIST GROUPS CAN BE ARMED,and ISRAEL CANNOT, if the UN has its way...
CarlB, I'm not one to usually point out blatant stupidity, but what is wrong with this sentence: Fact check: U.N. treaty unlikely to curb U.S. gun rights Maybe someone needs to look up what "unlikely" means, eh
The ostensible purposes of the law are often morphed into something else via creative lawyering and "interpretation" of the already nebulous legalese. That is why I vehemently oppose any legislation aimed at controlling the movement of arms across the globe. In fact, I want to make it harder for international governments to track arms, not easier. So, I could care less what the globalist scum claim this treaty is aimed at; they have zero credibility and I do not want to empower them in anyway, shape, or form, especially as it concerns the ability of free people to obtain firearms. Eject the UN!
Have you read the entire treaty word for word? If not, then why are you defending it? For my part, I can oppose it without reading it because I oppose international governance as a general principle. These lawyering weasels can write the treaty one way and, when it suites them to do so, interpret it a hundred different ways, depending on what the agenda of the day is. I will never trust a bunch of globalist lawyers to regulate international arms movements via a binding treaty. I want no part of their statist schemes. Bottom line: Their agenda is obvious, even if they hide it beneath a mountain of legal sophistry.
No. We didn't sell them armaments. We lent them armament through the Lend Lease. Nominally they were to return all armaments not destroyed or too badly damaged.
Provisions regulating firearms ownership and use are legally null and void. The Fifth Amendment protects liberty and property (guns) against deprival without due process. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The Fourteenth Amendment reaffirms these two Constitutional provisions due to stare decisis which reverse incorporated the due process clause of the amendment in regards to the gun rights in the Supreme Court case McDonald vs. Chicago. In other words, if the UN Arms Treaty is passed, all provisions attempting to confiscate weapons or hinder utilize of weapons (with exception for where one employs such to deprive others of life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness) are illegitimate, and government attempts to circumvent warrant exercise of the natural right of revolution, freedom of assembly/speech, and/or right to petition for redress of grievances.
Regarding the OP, the particulars of the treaty are still in flux, so part of the opposition is to keep nasty stuff out of it. However even as is the treaty could be used to gimp Americans ability to aquire weapons with components produced abroad at all, or at least to do so without having to register, which American gun owners heavily oppose. The second amendment doesn't provide any explicit protection against either of those things.
All American gun owners and collectors love their foreign guns, but if it came right down to it, we would back our American gun manufacturers, of which there are still plenty, and leave the foreign manufacturers to fend for themselves. This treaty, if passed and actually enforced, would harm gun imports and exports in the U.S., but it would not cripple the industry outright.
