(Thanks!!)
Posted on 08/14/2013 1:28:02 PM PDT by LucyT
Before Stalin could confiscate the guns he needed a national gun registry.
In April the United Nations passed sweeping legislation that will regulate the international arms trade and could lead to a national registry in the United States.
Barack Obama is reportedly going to sign the treaty this month while Congress is on vacation.
In April the United Nations passed sweeping legislation that will regulate the international arms trade and could lead to a national registry in the United States.
Barack Obama is reportedly going to sign the treaty this month while Congress is on vacation.
Ammoland reported:
You heard it straight from the horse’s mouth. Jay Carney said Obama will sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty “before the end of August…We believe it’s in the interest of the United States.”
This is very strategic timing considering Congress is on a 5 week vacation lasting thru the month of August!
These back door tactics are nothing new for the Obama Administration, which is why we are using tactics of our own to stop his anti-gun agenda. We have the home fax numbers of every Senator so while they are absent from the Capitol we can demand they must not ratify the UN Gun Treaty once Obama signs it.
.............................................................................................................................................
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Won’t be waiting that long.
You ever bought ammo for them? On a credit card or bank card? Even at Walmart if you used cash there’s video of you going through the checkout line.
Ever talk about them on a phone to anyone? Via email? Any of your kin done this about family guns?
They gotcha if you have done any of this stuff.
(Thanks!!)
I think it is important to recognize the distinction between
Fundamentally, the Constitution is an instruction manual for the citizenry, telling them how to distinguish between lawful actions which they should abide and lawless actions which they should resist. What the government can get away with is ultimately going to be determined by what the citizenry will tolerate. While it is possible that unratified treaties might result in outside political pressures being brought on the government which are sufficient to justify actions of the second category above in response, there is a huge difference between actions in that category and those in the first. Among other things, someone who is deciding among multiple alternative lawful courses of action should be presumed to be acting legitimately if he chooses a lawful course of action, even if some other lawful course of action might have been in some way "better". By contrast, someone who selects an unlwaful course of action has an obligation to show that every possible alternative would have been just as unlawful, if not more so. Actions may be unlawful but legitimate, but unlawful actions should not be given any presumption of legitimacy.
I deal with those distinctions all the time, particularly as regards this topic.
This is where the tyranny of the courts enters the picture. If, for example, the matter is one of interpretation of international law as regards a treaty, it is very difficult for a citizen effected by such legal distinctions to gain standing in bringing suit by which to effect redress. This is actually far more common than most people realize, particularly as regards the (supposed) "treaty authority" underlying environmental regulations that have destroyed our economy for the fun and profit of investors in foreign competitors.
As to what the citizens can do, this cuts to Patrick Henry's main complaint about the Constitution: There is no physical penalty for unconstitutional usurpation of power on the part of officers of the government, no prison time, no execution, nada. Unless and until we get such provisions enacted into law, the Constitution will remain in the minds of said officers as it has, an artifact to which lip service only is given.
They should fear its bounds like we should fear G_d.
Actually, there is, if one recognizes that illegitimate activities can by definition form no part of a government agent's legitimate duties. A person who illegitimately breaks into another person's dwelling for the purpose of accosting the occupants is a robber. A person who illegitimately detains others is a kidnapper. A person who claims to have performed such actions in a reasonable good-faith belief of their legitimacy is entitled to have a jury decide whether they believe that they were in fact done in a reasonable good faith effort to uphold the Constitution; the fact that a judge declared something to be legitimate should only be a legitimate basis for belief in its legitimacy if a reasonable person would have had no reason to question the legitimacy of the judge's declaration.
By "physical" I mean specified prison time, execution, etc. The only one in the Constitution is for treason. There is no penalty specified for usurpation of power.
Because in the interim, between the President's signature and the Senate's ratification, the treaty is considered "in effect" by the UN -- and might also be by the administration, whose agencies can then be instructed to take executive actions to enforce the treaty.
In the meantime, the UN gets to feel fulfilled. And we'll see how far Obozo is willing to push his luck domestically.
Check out # 89.
.
What good is a constitution when there is no one to enforce it? Boehner and the rest of the rock sucking Rinos have been willing to look the other way any time Obama crosses the line.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, “this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,” although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a “treaty” in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.
It's true that the Constitution doesn't specifically forbid robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc. but my point is that if it is the Supreme Law of the Land, that would imply that the same laws against such things which would apply to ordinary people should also be applicable to government agents who do such things in ways which the Constitution would forbid. Recognition that cops who break into a dwelling in unreasonable fashion for the purpose of accosting the occupants thereof are robbers and should be treated as such would do more to curb such illegitimate "searches" than would any other prescribed statutory punishment [among other things, I suspect the fear of not only being shot, but afterward being regarded as a dead criminal, would be a stronger deterrent than would be fear of court proceedings].
For example, there was a case a couple years ago where someone (I think his name was Ryan Frederick) had his house raided by police who had deliberately parked their vehicles out of sight, and failed to announce themselves as police in such a fashion that a reasonable person could have been expected to hear them. One of them was shot after a police battering ram had breached the door, but before the police (who, btw, had weapons drawn) were visible. Mr. Frederick's attourney punted and got a conviction for manslaughter rather than murder on the basis that Mr. Frederick had failed to negligently failed to adequately ensure he'd properly identified the people outside as robbers before shooting. I would posit that he correctly identified the people outside as robbers (since they had by their own admission tried to avoid being identifiable as police); if the statute had made clear that police who behave in such fashion should be regarded as robbers, the defense attorney would have been able to safely cite the statute in claiming that they were.
One way or the other. You are either going to die on your feet fighting like a man or on your knees begging for a crust of bread in one of Obama’s camps. Either way you are going to die. You decide how. obama has a few more ducks to get in a row, but time is on his side as more of us die of old age each year he gets thousands from colleges and high schools dependent upon the good graces of the Government for their existence. The military, police agencies and political system becomes more corrupt. He has the rest of 2013, all of 2014, all 0f 2015 to work with before 2016. And his minions have demonstrated the speed they can work.
So, yes he will sing the treaty. And then when he decides to, he will begin to enforce it.
You are right. obama knows this also.
Like they did with the Affordable healthcare Reform Act ,a/k/a ,obamacare?
You (conveniently) excerpted my post. There are no state or Federal statutes for usurpation of power, nor is there any in the Constitution for enacting a treaty whose terms of enforcement violate the specifically enumerated powers listed therein.
If the President were to draft, and Congress were to ratify, a treaty which required the government to confiscate all privately-held firearms, the fact that such a treaty would contradict the Second Amendment would make it illegitimate. Anyone who tried to go from house to house rounding up people's weapons would be doing so without legitimate authority, and citizens would have just as much right and duty to shoot such a person as they would any other robber.
There are treaties that have been ratified and enforced for 70 years that massively violate the Constitution, promising Federal control of all property and the entire economy. They are cited as authority for the Endangered Species Act because there is otherwise no Constitutional authority for their necessary enforcement provisions. No treaty in the history of this country has ever been invalidated because its terms constitute a usurpation of power.
QED.
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.