When you absolutely, positively have to reach out and touch something powder-blue in color over 6,000 meters away.Good thing it is established precedent that treaties do not supercede the constitution when in direct conflict of the constitution. I don’t even think Roberts could find a way around that one.
Is that because liberal judges are too stupid or read? Or that they're corrupt?
And this is why we have Fast and Furious: to garner support for treaties like this.....
Is that because liberal judges are too stupid to read? Or that they're corrupt?
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
There are a number of FReepers who feel that way too. They got on my case during the runup to ObamaTAX.
Now that the Dread Pirate Roberts has made his ruling, they've largely shut up. Funny how that works...
,,,,,,,, from my cold dead fingers maybe . . .
Molan Labe!
Don’t think even the stupids in the Senate would ratify that one, and not live in serious fear.
And NO that is not a threat, just an observation so don’t send some fed baboso around for a talk.
Well, there is that thorny problem for the gun-grabbers of needing a 2/3rds Senate ratification of such treaty.
When you absolutely, positively have to reach out and touch something powder-blue in color over 6,000 meters away.That's already built into the Arms Treaty in such a way that even Kennedy/Roberts may swing with them and here is why.
First, a link to the text of the treaty: "The Arms Trade Treaty (A/RES/64/48)"
Excerpted below is the section of this Treaty that calls on States{nations} for an implementation:
"Calls upon all States to implement, on a national basis, the relevant recommendations contained in section VII of the report of the Group of Governmental Experts (See A/63/334)."Next is a link to the text of the referenced report: "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms (A/63/334)"
Excerpted below is the only one of three section (27-29) in above referenced "section VII" ("Conclusions and recommendations") dictating the responsibilities and required actions of signatory States:
29. The Group acknowledged the respective responsibilities of exporters and importers. In order to begin improving the current situation, the Group recognized the need for all States to ensure that their national systems and internal controls are at the highest possible standards, and that States in a position to do so could render assistance in this regard, upon request. {Emphasises added.}How can America agreeing to implement UN requested "internal controls" of our "nation system" of gun regulations not be surrendering American 2nd Amendment rights?
Once signing such a treaty, what should Americans expect if the UN should "request" a tighter "standard" of US "internal controls" on guns and America's elected government officials refuses to comply?
All out LAWFARE, financed by the same leftist front groups (Soros' included) to force compliance through US courts! Note the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution which provides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” {Emphasis added}
What could possibly go wrong?
Something tells me if they tried to take Americans guns away, literally, they’d be starting the war they want so bad.
That’s quite a sales pitch. But the scenario won’t fly in our nation, where vast majorities on both the left and right are now so much in favor of Second Amendment. Firearms are in style.