Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

United Nations Push for Gun Control Treaty Continues (ATT: Arms Trade Treaty)
Ammoland.com ^ | Friday, July 15th, 2011 | n/a

Posted on 07/16/2011 11:42:16 AM PDT by DTogo

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- A UN committee wrapped up a week-long series of meetings on a massive treaty that could undermine both U.S. sovereignty and the Second Amendment.

This is the third round of meetings by the so-called “preparatory committee” on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as the UN gears up for final negotiations in 2012.

The most comprehensive treaty of its kind, the ATT would regulate weapons trade throughout the world on everything from battleships to bullets.

And as information trickles out of Turtle Bay in New York City, it is obvious the UN is getting more clever about taking the focus off of “small arms.”

With an eye cast in the direction of the U.S. —in particular, toward the U.S. Senate which must ratify the treaty— the most recent Draft Paper for the Arms Trade Treaty recognizes in its preamble “the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.”

That statement, taken by itself, is troubling. Americans’ right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not it is “recognized” by some UN committee. The right enshrined in the Second Amendment predates our own Constitution, and does not need an international stamp of approval.

(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: att; banglist; bloat; bloodoftyrants; communism; congress; democrats; donttreadonme; fuun; govtabuse; liberalfascism; malonlabe; obama; shallnotbeinfringed; tyranny; un; unitednations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: Joe Brower

21 posted on 07/16/2011 1:41:45 PM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

Still doesn’t apply. They need two thirds. I doubt they could get 20 Pubbies today.


22 posted on 07/16/2011 2:11:27 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Concho

Hillary is pro-UN agenda. Our State Department needs to be reined in and replaced with people that respect our sovereignty.


23 posted on 07/16/2011 2:16:30 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chode

That kid about sums it up.


24 posted on 07/16/2011 2:34:40 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Way too much backdoor with this Administration?

BOHICA!

25 posted on 07/16/2011 2:35:40 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
They wouldn't get them, not by a long shot!

Several hundred meters at least, depending on what they'd be Molon 'ing to Labe !

26 posted on 07/16/2011 2:41:22 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
This could result in turning a good many law abiding citizens into Felons. I would become one.

There was a proposed ban on magazines over 10 rounds here in CT a few months back that fizzled out in committee after several hundred CT Patriots showed up at the Judiciary hearings to testify against it (myself included). The idea was to either surrender them, without compensation, or become a Felon.

"Don't Tread On Me" was my closing statement to the Judiciary Committee!

27 posted on 07/16/2011 2:45:57 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

NO law binding on Americans can contravene the United States Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights. Any attempt at such would merely be overturned by the Supreme Court - provided anyone paid any attention to the UN, anyway.

Again for emphasis - Under NO circumstances can ANY law contravene the constitution or the Bill of Rights. Any such attempt would simply be null and void; dead on arrival.


28 posted on 07/16/2011 2:48:38 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, just a simple Army officer who swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
29 posted on 07/16/2011 2:49:37 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
; - )

And I have my favorites for every distance.

30 posted on 07/16/2011 2:56:26 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Good for you.

I agree with your tag line and if you look at my profile draft, you’ll see the flags I fly. I think I’ll buy a Sons of Liberty flag to go with my collection.


31 posted on 07/16/2011 3:26:06 PM PDT by Gator113 (Palin 2012, period.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gator113

This could result in turning a good many statists and tyrants into biodegradable scenery.


32 posted on 07/16/2011 3:45:48 PM PDT by Noumenon (The only 'NO' a liberal understands is the one that arrives at muzzle velocity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
No, it still requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to go into force, so it doesn't work as a way to do an end run around the legislature, and besides some experts say that a treaty conflicting with the Constitution would be null and void, i.e. a treaty is not interpreted as a mini-amendment if there is a Constitutional conflict.

You would be correct.

There is a basic principle of constitutional interpretation regarding "surplusage."

Basically, every sentence in the Constution must mean something and not conflict with any other part.

Applying that principle to an international treaty that would modify portions of the Constitution requiring an amendment, the principle would favor the treaty being illegal/unconstitutional...

since there is a section of the Constitution that creates a mechanism for modification - the amendment process - that process must be followed to modify the document and no other provision of the document can be used as a mechanism to modify it. (IOW, an international treaty)

allowing an international treaty to have the effect of modifying the constitution makes the amendment process surplusage (uncessary) and therefore that treaty would be null and void.

I probably didn't explain that very well...sorry...first year Con Law was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

I'm surprised our Constitutional Scholar in Chief didn't jump on this right away and put the UN on notice that the treaty won't fly here in the US. /SARCASM

33 posted on 07/16/2011 9:28:48 PM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

They already have the guns; those with badges operate with near-impunity, and those with illicit dealings are not hampered by firearms laws.

But that’s not the ultimate goal for the UN.

If you haven’t read Unintended Consequences, I’d suggest finding it and reading it.


34 posted on 07/16/2011 10:06:59 PM PDT by wastedyears (SEAL SIX makes me proud to have been playing SOCOM since 2003.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

not if they violate unalienable rights.

teeman


35 posted on 07/16/2011 10:19:51 PM PDT by teeman8r (armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Congress passing that treaty would cause me to get out the torches and pitchforks, and everything implied by the ellipsis.


36 posted on 07/17/2011 2:58:46 PM PDT by Old Student (Do NOT make me get out the torches and pitchforks...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson