I don't believe this is the case.
It will pass the Senate, I fear. It will pass on the narrowest margin, but it will pass.
I wonder if shoot-n-see makes “UN-blue” target stickers?
This is an impeachable offense, attempting to bind US citizen to laws that they, through congress, have explicitly rejected.
...and yet the answer is still “NO”. Regardless of how they decide to kill our 2A rights, just “NO”. Why is this so hard to understand?
I fail to see how a mere treaty with a foreign power or corrupt organization can trump the US Constitution. Could a UN treaty end free speech, allow UN “peace keeper” troops to be housed in private residences, end trial by jury or allow UN “inspectors” to enter my residence without a warrant? If a treaty only ratified by the US Senate can end the Bill of Rights why are we signing such treaties?
I’ve talked to several active and reserve members of the Armed Forces and they all said that this will be regarded by the military as an act of war upon the Constitution and the American people.
The democrats have always liked the UN because they look at it as a tool to get around the Constitution.
I thought Kerry was pro-hunting, isn’t that the same as a friend to the 2A? Sliding around on his snake belly with his trusty double barrel hunting deer...
Remember the Kyoto Treaty on global warming? It didn’t get one vote to ratify in the Senate.
Did that stop Clinton and Gore ? They implemented much of the accord anyway.
Case law shows treaties don’t trump individual constitutional rights, and Heller makes 2A rights individual. So legally, the door is securely barred. The only way the left has around this is just plain lawlessness, and hoping enough people go along with it to make it work (ignorance and depravity are the left’s greatest allies). Not saying that can’t happen, but if attempted, it will precipitate a robust response from those who know it is just a putsch.
Stay out of my gun rights, I need my gun and permit, my son’s killer only served 14.5 yrs of his plea bargained sentence, socio path had threaten to kill any who testified against him, well I forced him to max out his “gooh” err bad behavior time. He is now free to kill again. Thank God I am changing counties and getting out of rat infested criminal loving Memphis!
Small repair.
Allow me to repeat myself:
Article 2, section 2, paragraph 2 of The Constitution says, regarding Presidential powers: “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...”
The operative word there is “present.” Joe Biden is President of the Senate. He could call a special session at 3:00 am at which only Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, and selected other gun-control die-hards would be invited. The treaty would then be approved unanimously and we would be screwed... again.
Point 8 of the Preamble of the Declaration of the UN Arms Trade Treaty?
That is where the stink starts. Because the Treaty only references the “Guidelines” of United Nations Disarmament Commission.
Yeah, there really is a Disarmament Commission.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/
Pull it up.
Right there is a video proclaiming the wonders of . . . UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, 2-27 July 2012 New York!
The links under “Conventional Arms” include one directly to the New York Conference and one on “Small Arms.”
Go to “Small Arms.”
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/
Scroll down a bit to the “you are ska-rood” part. You will know it when you see it.
Small arms and the UN...
“Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety and they have an interest in providing human security and development to their citizens. So they should ensure that small arms from Government stocks or from private ownership are not misused and do not enter illicit circuits, where their use may contribute to instability and to exacerbating poverty.”
“or from private ownership” Yep, YOU.
Then it is back-linked to guess what?
The Treaty’s Programme of Action on small arms which is ALL of the control, reporting, infrastructure and point of contact language in the pdf files linked above.
“To attain those goals, within the UN, countries have agreed on several commitments on small arms control: the Firearms Protocol, the Programme of Action on small arms - including an Instrument on marking and tracing - and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.”
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/
It is also where we find this steaming pile...
Marking and tracing
“If national law enforcement officials were able to trace small arms back to their last legitimate owner, who might then be held accountable, “
What does THAT remind you of? Universal background checks that create a national registry of guns.
How about that!
And that’s right bud, this means tracing it back to and holding accountable... YOU.
No matter where that firearm turns up or how long ago you sold it.
And once jugears signs the treaty does anyone actually believe he will not declare all this legal and applicable to American Citizens?
.
More specifically, based on his expert knowledge of the Constitution, knowledge which all patriots should have, and also his experience as Vice President and therefore president of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson had officially noted that the president and the Senate cannot use their constitutonal power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor to force US citizens to comply with foreign laws based on powers which the states have never degated to Congress via the Constitution.
"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.
One of the reasons that the Founding States undoubtedly made the Constituton's Article V where treaties are concerned is the following. When the Senate needs to negotiate a point in a treaty which Congress actually has no Section 8, Article I authority to address, the Senate is required to do the following. The Senate is to comply with Article V by rallying Congress to propose to the states for ratification an amendment to the Constitution which would grant Congress the specific power that it needs to negotiate the treaty. And if the states chose to ratify the proposed amendment, then the Senate would have the constitutional authority that it needs to proceed with the treaty.
But while activist justices wrongly ignored Jefferson's words when they decided Missouri v. Holland in 1920 in Congress's favor, a case where corrupt Congress had deliberately tapped the Senate's power to negotiate a treaty in order to bypass the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court subsequently seems to have overturned Missour v. Holland as evidenced by the following excerpt from Reid v. Covert.
"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.
And since we cannot trust Fx News to get the word out concerning Congress working with the UN as a constitutionally indefensible backdoor to take away our 2A protected gun rights, it's up to patriots to spread the word around.