Posted on 12/02/2014 7:29:03 AM PST by SisterK
Fairfax, Va. – Today, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty on behalf of the Obama administration. The National Rifle Association strongly opposes this treaty, which is a clear violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...
current admin leaves me paranoid
***********
Not paranoid at all. You just see reality and it scares you. Many of your countrymen feel the same way.
Actually treaties are first signed by the executive branch. They are then ratified by the Senate.
The Senate doesn’t vote until a treaty has been signed.
To infer a transferable obligation to me would require re-ratification...said simply, “it should have been in the treaty if it was so damned important.”
Further, a current body cannot obligate a future one, save only for passed law (and not ruled Unconstitutional by the SC), Constitutional Amendments, or for those instances dictated by the Constitution, duly ratified treaties being one.
May favorite. If I could get an HD res of this, I’d make it my screen background. :o)
This is old news. John Kerry signed onto this UN treaty in Sept. 2013 but the US Senate has yet to ratify it and probably never will. If so, why hasn’t the democRAT-controller Senate ratified it yet? Because they can’t come close to 2/3 votes. With the new Senate being controlled by the Republicans, it is even more improbable that this this would ever be ratified by the US.
That being said, from my research online, it appears that 50 nations have ratified the UN treaty and, as a result, it will “go into force” on December 25th, 2014, but only for those nations who have ratified it. The US, again, is not one of them.
I believe that our 2nd Amendment gun rights under our Constitution will be the last straw to break the camel’s back and cause Americans to rise up and say NO. American gun owners far outnumber some countries’ military might and we will never give up our arms. It is what makes us unique in the world I believe. There are too many people, who own too many guns, for our government or the UN to ever succeed in taking them away from us. Just ain’t going to happen.
It doesn't have the force of US law until ratified by the Senate. However, international arms trade involves other nations who may be signatories and willing to implement the treaty's restrictions. How many firearms are imported from such countries? I think this is the bite of the apple that Obama is after and why he's not concerned with the Senate ratifying. His goal is to use his overseas leftist allies to choke off the flow of arms and ammo from elsewhere to the US.
Fortunately, the unintended consequence will be to invigorate US based arms manufacture.
Oh....I agree one particular administration can treat the unratified treaty as ‘law’ but it is temporary and can be undone by the next President.
No.
While treaties, properly ratified by the US Senate, can trump law, they cannot trump Constitutional guarantees. Ever.
Only Constitutional Amendments, either via the Congressional/State ratification process or a Convention, can do that.
No offense to you but IIRC on my reading in days gone by, Treaties can. I’d have to revisit it to be sure.
Hang him as a traitor!It is in violation of the Constitution 2nd amendment.
The NRA had an article on this in the Dec addition. Their take was the president has certain executive ‘options’ (my word) by just signing the agreement. Certainly it takes the Congress to ratify but it doesnt mean nothing negative happens until they do.
To celebrate I think I’ll buy a couple more AK’s and ammo.
In theory that would allow the US to enter into a treaty with South Eastovia that would override the 1st Amendment, with only 2/3rds of the Senate concurring.
I’m positive that the hierarchy is Constitution (as amended), then treaties then laws then regulations.
I’ll have to go back and look at the actual language.
NICE.
I didn't make myself clear. Let me try again. My point is that the effects of treaties are multipolar. Arms trade happens both into and out of the US and is governed both by US law and the laws of the counterparty nation. Suppose country A makes AK47 clones and has been exporting them to the US. Now, along comes a treaty that says that one cannot engage in international trade in AK47 clones. If the treaty is in force in country A then we still don't get country A's AK47s regardless of whether the treaty is signed by Obama or ratified by the Senate. It's this aspect of the treaty's action that Obama is after. He wants to end the supply of guns from Brazil, Argentina, Croatia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Phillipines, etc, etc, etc, to the US. He doesn't need the treaty to be in effect here to accomplish that. He just needs the treaty to be in effect in those other countries.
No it does not go into effect in this country. Barry can sigh that treaty 100 times and it will not change the fact that he long ago received a letter from the Senate telling him the treaty will never be ratified. And of course its in violation of the 2nd Ammendment. Treaties do not trump the Constitution.
TREATY EMBROILMENT IS SO DANGEROUS AND SO IMPORTANT, THAT TO FURTHER LIMIT AND RESTRICT THEIR MAKING, ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 2 ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT: "...SHALL HAVE POWER, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, TO MAKE TREATIES, PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT CONCUR; [EMPHASIS ADDED.]"
It seems as though the 2/3 present statement agrees with my original assertion...
Not that I know for certain that text is authoritative.
Just a reminder: Treaties, all treaties, require a 2/3rds ratification.
Not gonna happen.
There has been significant debate on the question of Treaties being able to override Constitutional guarantees, but the end result of such debates always point to the Constitutional language itself, and the conclusion always seems to be that NO treaty can trump the Constitution.
Sooner or later some activist judge(s) will attempt to rule that treaties DO trump the constitution (including the subject of this thread), and that will be the last straw as far as our Constitution is concerned.
Even the arrogant bastards in this administration will (or already have) argued that since we signed this treaty, we must treat it as the “Law of the Land”, even though our Senate has not ratified it. If we let these cretins get away with such treachery, we have only ourselves to blame as we enter the fast lane towards slavery to the Federal Government, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.