Posted on 08/07/2011 7:49:11 AM PDT by yoe
A controversial U.N. proposed treaty aimed at regulating guns worldwide has been shrouded by confusion and misinformation.
Known informally as the 'Small Arms Treaty,' its detractors have charged the proposed agreement with secretly trying to take guns out of the hands of Americans and circumventing the 2nd Amendment.
While that is unlikely, a working draft proposal obtained by FoxNews.com contains language that some gun advocates say could have a real impact on American gun makers.
Last month a U.N. committee met in New York and signed off on several provisions, including the creation of a new U.N. agency to regulate international weapon sales, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide.
Tom Mason, who represented the World Forum on the Future of Sports Shooting at the U.N. conference, told FoxNews.com the provisions are worrying.
“No, there are no black helicopters. There is no secret treaty that Hillary Clinton has signed,” Mason said. “But on the other hand, the treaty is a significant threat to gun owners. I think the biggest threat may be the body that would administer the treaty,” he added, referring to a new U.N agency the treaty would create, to be called the “Implementation Support Unit.”
Under the latest draft of the treaty, every country would be required to submit a report to the ISU outlining “all activities undertaken in order to accomplish the implementation of this Treaty, including… domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures.”
It also requires countries to set up their own government agencies to track any guns that could be exported. “Parties shall take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within its territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms into the illicit market……….
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I’m not much for proposing constitutional amendments, but we really need one that says that no treaty can supersede anything in the constitution. And maybe that treaty terms must be implemented with a 60% majority vote on separate legislation in both the House and Senate.
Never gonna happen. There will never be 67 votes for this monstrosity.
Worry about something that could really happen.
Globalist lawyers can spend much time and money on wishful thinking, if they want to put themselves at even more risk. This is a good time for all annoying people to spend more.
Did you flunk high school civics? I suggest you read that article, because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
It does not take two thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty. If one takes the language in the Constitution literally, it can be done with two. Allow me to quote the relevant passage from Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States,
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Not two thirds of the Senate, not 67 votes, but two thirds of whoever happens to be in session. Treaties have been ratified without even a quorum. Hence, in theory, a treaty can be ratified by but TWO (2) Senators and voila! there your have the Supreme Law of the Land per Article VI. It was a Trojan Horse in the Constitution to which Patrick Henry's objected intensely in the Virginia Ratifying Convention.
I suggest you read the article.
Further, the United States has committed to abiding by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which was itself not ratified but is considered "customary international law." That Convention states that a treaty may be considered in force upon the signature of any government official appointed to represent the head of state.
That is the reality of this situation. I suggest you get your callow head out of your butt and fight this "monstrosity" because that is indeed what it is.
Hate to remind you, but the Senate is run by hardcore leftists.
Elections have consequences America. You chose wrong, now you’re going pay.
“Did you flunk high school civics?”
No I have a 4 year collee degree in Political Science. I know how govt works.
Presidents have signed all kinds of treaties in the past that were never ratified. This treaty will never come to the floor of the Senate for a vote. It will never get out of the Foreign Relations Committee. If it does come up for vote look for the full Senate to vote and there are not 67 votes for this treaty.
That is my opinion on the matter. You obviously have your own opinion and thats fine. Notice I don’t feel the need to call you names.
rotflmao
Presidents have signed all kinds of treaties in the past that were never ratified.
Then why, pray tell, did President Bush rescind Clinton's signature on the ICC treaty? If it had no force, why would he bother?
It is because of the Vienna Convention.
That is my opinion on the matter. You obviously have your own opinion and thats fine. Notice I don’t feel the need to call you names.
Your opinion, apparently, need not be supported by cited fact, as if reality were subjective. The reality is that it does not take 67 votes to ratify a treaty. You were dead wrong.
If I were you, I'd ask for my money back on that degree.
Like I said to the other poster, worry about something that is going to happen. This isn’t.
Yes, Darth,
The U.S. Senate sent an overwhelming vote fo support against this abomination of a U.N. gun grab.
Course that was a show of support and when and IF the bill comes to a real vote before the U.S. Senate would U bet your farm the Senators would not trade their votes for a formidable bribe, “Lucre’”?
I personally have NO confidence in any aspect of this federal Gub Mint.
Maybe in 2000 years, he can try again. Aint happening now.
“US out of the UN, UN off US soil...”
Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the US ceded all rights and title to the land donated for the UN building back in 1945 or so. We are NO LONGER SOVERIGN in that area of New York City, I believe! They can tell us to take a flying leap and we CANNOT evict them, alas.
Thanks for posting the link (Patrick Henry), an excellent, interesting essay.
Well said.
This treaty will never be ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate. Its irritating and even infuriating but it will not ever go into effect.
With The 0 in charge he will just adopt it. remember, stroke of the pen, law of the land.
“Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the US ceded all rights and title to the land donated for the UN building back in 1945 or so. We are NO LONGER SOVERIGN in that area of New York City, I believe! They can tell us to take a flying leap and we CANNOT evict them, alas.”
We could, of course, plant dynamite all around the building and blow a 20’ deep/wide trench. And plant guards to keep people from intruding into the space.
Thank you, it was a lot of work.
The original post from which it came, Skinning Cats: Legal Means to Disarm the Second Amendment, was well received here at FR. Between it and its successor on my page, it has probably had 15,000 readers over the years.
The rest of the articles on the articles page to which it links should pique your interest as well. Together, the first three explain the regulatory tyranny we see today as a resource racketeering system analogous to the 18th Century mercantilism our Constitutionally limited government was (supposedly) intended to preclude.
Scary! It's a wonder they haven't started replacing all of the American flags out here with Chinese ones if that's the case!
For how this works, read the article on Patrick Henry in Post 18.
It would take approximately three companies of soldiers to rout the scum out of the building, escort them a few blocks to a waiting boat, and then maybe a few minutes to announce that the US has unilaterally withdrawn from the UN. All treaties are scraps of paper if one of the parties no longer wishes to abide by it, and has the ability to use force to make it so.
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.