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):
The U.S. news media will completely hide this treason by Obama from the American people. expect more doses of Angelina Jolie, OJ, sports, Hollywood bs, etc. .How many Americans even know about this UN arms treaty? I bet less than 5% of Americans do.
How can we win with the media misinforming people?
The media is also hiding the Amnesty bill they are trying to sneak through congress.
Several on this site berated me for pointing out the last Jolie distraction ( that Jolie planned at the time the IRS scandal breaking). several on this site that posted those Jolie articles HERE also berated me
lol.
Very true.
It only takes 34 Senators to ratify a treaty with a minimum quorum. Do you really believe that is so impossible?
Not true. The Constitution specifies "two thirds of the Senators present."
Quit the hyperBS. See Post #24.
It's been done for seventy years.
The Supreme Court has NEVER thrown out a treaty on Constitutional grounds, despite the fact that there are treaties on the books that WILDLY exceed the enumerated powers of the Federal government with laws that cite said treaties as their source of authority.
Reid v. Covert is dicta.
And the US government has been instituting a system of carbon reductions and offsets ever since, pursuant to the signature per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (which the US never ratified but respects as a matter of "customary international law"). That is why Bush went to the trouble of rescinding Clinton's signature on the treaty governing the International Criminal Court.
You were saying?
Really? I’m thinking 2/3rds majority.
But I’m just some redneck and u skeweled in the constitution .
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitutions specifies "two thirds of the Senators present," not two thirds of the Senate. With a minimum quorum, that's 34 Senators, which Harry Reid just might be able to pull off.
But I’m just some redneck and u skeweled in the constitution .
You can fix that here.
You should worry. it requires only 2/3rds of the senate present at the time of the vote. expect the vote to come unannounced at midnight on Saturday or Sunday.
No President can bind us to any Treaty. Requires 67 vote Super Majority of Senate. Will never happen with 2014 election coming on like a freight train.
This is just another in the long line of fakeroo ‘sky is falling’ scare tactics nobama loves to crank up conservatives with.
Wrong. The Constitution specifies "two thirds of the Senators present," for ratification. With a minimum quorum, that's 34. Worse, a treaty now has practical effect upon signature alone, pursuant to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (a treaty about treaties, one that we never ratified).
Feeling so cocky now?
You countered each of your contrary points, thank you.
Oh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling..... Why would 66 Senators find themselves absent when something as significant came up for vote? The non-chicken answer, they would not.
The Vienna Convention treaty was NOT RATIFIED, thus we do not abide by any of its rules.
Nobama may try to pull this on his own, but he sure as hell won’t get by with getting it into law.
Feeling so wimpy now?
It's been done before. Treaties wildly exceeding enumerated powers of the Constitution have been ratified without record of a committee vote or quorum.
The Vienna Convention treaty was NOT RATIFIED, thus we do not abide by any of its rules.
The government has been doing it anyway for thirty years. That's why Bush bothered "unsigning" the ICC treaty.
Nobama may try to pull this on his own, but he sure as hell won’t get by with getting it into law.
That would be Harry Reid sonny, and he has a record of pulling similar parliamentary stunts in the Nevada legislature.
Feeling so wimpy now?
Never was. It's proper caution, and well aware of the peril of hubris, as you should be.
LOL
I’m just messing with you.
NO, really. I’m an Okie.
Yes, I am fully aware of the 2/3rds majority present.
I’m a Mason and most of our procedures are similar to how our legislative process works.
Like Congress, we have factions as well but, we don’t have parties .
Even if a quorum were met, that would likely mean less Dems show up than republicans.
That aside, very few sane reps would vote in the affirmative for this if any.
Kyoto was signed by Clinton and it was roundly rejected by a quorum at 95-0.
Bozo’s???
You’re the one with big feet.
It isn’t going to be ratified anymore than Kyoto was.
Witness the last round of gun control and its abject failure to pass.
They ain’t ratifying some international turn.
Do you really think it beneath Harry Reid to rig it? He's well-known to have pulled ugly parliamentary stunts in Nevada. No, I suggest a 24-7 watch on the Senate chamber with two Republicans designated to be on call at all times. Really, and I'm not joking. The stakes are that high.
It won’t freaking happen.
It is an unconstitutional document with so many issues that would infringe on that which shall not be infringed .
Further, we are the largest arms dealer in the world.
Egypt, Libya, Africa....
Obama will sign this window dressing so he can look good and as if he his a principled leader.
Yeahhhh!!!!!
But, will never, ever be ratified.
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.