U.N. passes sweeping international arms regulation viewed by some as Second Amendment override

washington times ^ | 4/2/13 | David Sherfinski

[ColdOne]

The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday signed off on a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade, brushing aside worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the American gun market.

The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to a countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions.

[sarge83]

It’s entirely up to them. I have no quarrel with them and support law enforcement, as I currently have family members who are retired LEOS’s and active duty LEO’s, but if they choose to obey an illegal order the Nuremberg, “I was just following orders and doing my job” line won’t cut it.

They are messing with a “civil right” after all.

Again, it is entirely up to them.

[Tzimisce]

The Senate is also working to cut the budget and lower taxes. :)

[DBrow]

“two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

So how many Senators does it take if three are present? Or fifty?

[Carry_Okie]

Don’t worry: there are a lot of Democrats in the Senate in tough re-election campaigns. It’ll never pass the Senate. :)

It only takes 34 Senators out of a minimum quorum.

Feeling so confident now?

[Dubh_Ghlase]

Time to go “Cartel”...

[Innovative]

A ‘MUST READ”:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

“Executive Agreements

In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law. “

[Darren McCarty]

It won’t be blue helmets. It will be BATF or DHS.

[Gaffer]

There aren’t any cops in my town that will be doing that.

[big'ol_freeper]

[hal ogen]

It will be interesting over the next few years to see what it takes to have JUSTICE.

[SMARTY]

It’s a joke how they pretend to care for our well being. Right....disarm us, rewrite history, reduce education to propaganda, withhold medicine, control information, criminalize dissent... etc.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” Albert Camus

[Gaffer]

BATF got their ass handed to them on a platter by the Branch Davidians on their first encounter. They only lost the battle when the US Military aided the ATF, FBI et al in assaulting the compound with tanks and setting it on fire, killing dozens of children, women and men needlessly.

[Carry_Okie]

Obamacare is not a treaty, you can’t EO a treaty, can’t ram through a treaty without creating a lot of bodies

It's been done, many times. I suggest you educate yourself on the topic.

[Skepolitic]

An unconstitutional treaty is no treaty at all. I think the ABA has already made that case.

However, with a living constitution, a treaty can change the meaning of the constitution such that what was once unconstitutional magically becomes constitutional.

It really doesn’t make much difference, because the Constitution as written and amended is pretty much a dead letter. The SCUSA always sides with the political elite regardless of what’s written. Otherwise the SC “justices” wouldn’t get invited to all the cool DC cocktail parties.

[Skepolitic]

“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
— Claire Wolfe

[Skepolitic]

Similarly, I never imagined that Orwell’s 1984 was a warning about what the US could become.

I thought it was about the USSR, and what would happen if the USSR ultimately prevailed.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

No need to get the House on board, since only the Senate votes on treaties.

[KarlInOhio]

Here it comes. The President will sign it and expect the Senate to do the same in kind. He will shame them and blame them for violence around the world if they don’t.

I've heard that there is some trickiness in international law that says that if a country signs a treaty it in in force unless in is specifically not ratified by that country's legislature. That is the opposite of what the Constitution specifies that the President can make treaties only with the advice and consent of the Senate.

There are a lot of signed treaties that have never been brought before the Senate because they would likely be rejected and this will be added to the pile. Then Obama will try to treat it as if it has the effect of law.

If the Republicans ever get control of the Senate again, they need a session just to vote to reject outstanding treaties which won't be ratified. Clear the deck of the junk.

[Drawn7979]

viewed by some as Second Amendment override? now that's odd.