Posted on 05/31/2013 7:16:08 PM PDT by forty_years
We already full-well know that President Obama has tried to severely restrict Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. Not only has he been pushing gun control at the national level, but he has also been working at the international level. On June 3, Obama plans to sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). He aims to cede American sovereignty to the corrupt United Nations, made up of many countries openly hostile to the U.S. How would you like your Second Amendment rights to be dependent on the likes of Venezuela or Iran? YOU CAN ACT NOW TO STOP OBAMA'S ATTACK ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS BY CLICKING HERE. The treaty is already opposed by Senate Republicans and some Democratic senators.
This arms treaty attacks the very heart of the freedoms granted Americans by the Second Amendment, according to the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR):
... Marketed as a treaty to stop piracy, international crime syndicates, terrorism and state-sponsored murder, the reality is FAR different.
Article V of the newly-drafted Treaty mandates an INTERNATIONAL gun registry imposing new regulations on everything from rifles to handguns to even ammunition!
Article 12 states the registry must include "the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms" and the identity of the "end user."
And it's not just our federal government that would get a copy. International bureaucrats at the United Nations and foreign governments would have access to the registry as well...
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is equally stern in its warnings about the treaty:
... The draft treaty the delegates are working from has several areas of concern for gun owners. Most problematic is the treaty's requirements that governments take domestic measures to combat unintended "end use" of items which include "Small arms and light weapons." Under Article 5, concerning "General Implementation," the treaty states, "Each States Party involved in transfer of conventional arms shall take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use." Under Article 7, states importing firearms are tasked with "tak[ing] measures to prevent the diversion of imported conventional arms covered under Article 2(1) to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use." The Obama administration is currently pushing legislation that would criminalize private transfers, which it argues is to accomplish a similar goal, and the effectiveness of which is dependent on gun registration. The ATT could give the administration another avenue, or a mandate, with which to pursue this end. Even if such measures were restricted to imported firearms, the effect would be immense; in 2010 close to three million firearms were imported into the U.S.
The recordkeeping requirements of the treaty are also troubling. Article 7 encourages states to "maintain records of... end users," going on to note, "Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years." Further encouraging cooperation, the treaty requires states to, within the first year the treaty is in force, report on "activities undertaken to implement this Treaty, including national laws, regulations and administrative matters." ...
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is so heinous that some Senate Democrats oppose it:
... Even before the international document was drafted, the Senate last month voted to prevent the United States from entering into such an arms treaty with all 45 Republicans and eight Democrats, supporting an amendment drafted by Oklahoma Sen. James M. Inhofe. The measure would require two-thirds approval for ratification by the upper chamber, which has a total of only 100 seats. ...
"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is another attempt by internationalists to limit and infringe upon America's sovereignty," said Inhofe in a statement. "Such a treaty would require the United States to implement laws as required by the treaty, instead of the national controls that are currently in place. This would also disrupt diplomatic and national security efforts by preventing our government from assisting allies like Taiwan, South Korea, or Israel when they require assistance. I will continue to mount strong opposition to any effort by Secretary Kerry and the State Department to ratify this treaty." ...
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate's second-ranking Republican stated:
...that the treaty contained "unnecessarily harsh treatment of civilian-owned small arms" and violated the right to self-defense and United States sovereignty. ...
According to FOX News:
... Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, of Montana, also said he could not support the treaty, claiming it doesn't do enough to "uphold the rights of Americans."
Critics of the treaty claim that, while it's aimed at combating the vast illegal weapons trade, it could end up burdening law-abiding gun owners and businesses with a new web of red tape. ...
While the ATT would require a Senate vote of 67 to 33 to pass -- an almost insurmountable obstacle -- this is no time to be complacent. We must act to protect our Second Amendment rights and send a clear message to the "gun control" crowd: "Stay away from our guns." Please act now by signing all the petitions shown below and -- if you're interested -- joining organizations dedicated to protecting the right to bear arms:
Organizations advocating for the Second Amendment (I belong to all of these personally):
Nah.
I’m tired of the same crap coming up over and over and having to call these useless bastards and tell them not to stomp all over my rights.
If they do it, they do it.
I’m just going to respectfully disagree and go on about my business. I’m mean, what’s the worst that could happen?
Is Joe Leiberman going to be disappointed with me and tell me that I need to do better? Is he going to flash his upper teeth at me?
I’m tired of playing this game.
America`s Sword is mightier than Obummer`s pen.
So what? Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocols. The Senate refused to ratify it, and even voted 95-0 for a resolution opposing its key tenets.
Won’t ever make it through the Senate.
I’m busy with other stuff.
Thatz one thing he can sign and I could care less.
i know this regieme craps all over the Constutution so i guess suggesting that nothing can happen because ALL treaties have to be passed in the senate would be insulting to fellow freepers. maybe all of us should just ignore amy law we don’t like and use “well the president does it all the time” as an explanation.
means nothing without
2/3rds of the Senate.
You tink you have trouble getting ammunition and guns NOW???
Quit the hyperBS. See Post #9.
While all treaties require ratification be the senate...which is unlikely....
Oboingo may attempt an end run around that obvious impediment
via Executive Order. Such an order implementing the treaty would NOT
be constitutional but the executive branch controls all the guns....thus
they can pretty much do whatever they want with impunity. He evil
antics of Holder and the Just Us department is an obvious bellweather
if how this administration does as it wishes without regard to the rule of
law.
No,they do not. They may want to, but they do not and will not.
I don’t, though, ZULU. I made all those purchases a good while back.
I can’t go to the range or anything like I’d like to, because I don’t want to dwindle my supply, and I’d feel like I’m just firing off money into paper, but I’m set otherwise.
Thing is, man, I’m tired as hell of playing this game with these ********. I’m not going to do this every six months. I’m not going to beg them for my rights. My rights don’t come form them and aren’t subject to their whims.
I am keeping my rights right here in this body until the day I leave this earth. That is all there is to it, and there isn’t a damn thing they can do about it. They can stuff their pens and paper in their butts.
They do not control mine and they never will.
how is anything we do online going to stop Obama from signing it?
bunkerhill7 ~:” America`s Sword is mightier than Obummer`s pen.”
Don’t forget , only 3 % of the early American colonists refused to submit to colonial imposition of taxes.
It was this 3 % that became the core or resistance.
Resistance that grew ...
The colonists fought TYRANNY ..
I haven’t seen much of anything but tyranny in the last two or three years , and I am not the only one who see’s it ...
So ,...
More specifically, first note that the writings of Thomas Jefferson indicate that concern that the federal government might use its power to negotiate treaties to rob our constitutional protections is nothing new. In fact, based on his experience as vice president and therefore president of the Senate, Jefferson had officially clarified the limits of federal government power to negotiate treaties.
"In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793."Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.
Next, reflecting on Jefferson's expert understanding of federal power to negotiate treaties, the Supreme Court has officially clarified the following. Essentially the feds cannot use treaties as a back door to force US citizens to comply with foreign laws based on powers which the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution (emphasis added)." --Reid v. Covert, 1956.
That is a very good question, GeronL.
I would also like to pose a question of my own.
How is Obama’s signing it going to stop me from ignoring it?
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.