Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John Kerry Praises New UN Gun Treaty – Could Lead to National Registry
Gateway Pundit ^ | June 3, 2013 | Jim Hoft

Posted on 06/03/2013 12:40:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed the opening of Arms Trade Treaty for signature today.

The Obama administration plans on signing the treaty “as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.”

The United Nations passed sweeping legislation in April that will regulate the international arms trade and could lead to a national gun registry in the United States.

No wonder Democrats love it!

There’s more… In March the pro-Second Amendment Senate Bill 139 passed 53-46. 46 Democratic Senators voted against the bill which would: “Uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: aidingterrorists; att; backoffbarry; banglist; bhofascism; bloodoftyrants; commumism; cwii; democrats; donttreadonme; govtabuse; guncontrol; gunregistry; guns; johnkerry; molonlabe; nocompromise; nwo; obama; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; treason; tyranny; un; unglobalgov; unitednations; waronliberty; wewillnotcomply; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 last
To: OneWingedShark
There are two republican parties... one of them... the one with leaders like Cruz and Paul are not... the mccain wing is.

LLS

121 posted on 06/04/2013 7:40:05 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The Senate cannot be in valid session unless a quorum is present. Of course, I believe a member must demand a quorum call to put this provision into effect.


122 posted on 06/04/2013 7:41:56 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Will this include fast and furious?


123 posted on 06/04/2013 7:44:18 AM PDT by ForAmerica (Texas Conservative Christian Black Man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

.
.

Blue Glasers

S-S-S

get real Lucille

.
.


124 posted on 06/04/2013 8:22:12 AM PDT by devolve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The Blue states that contain most of the population, are on the move to further restrict 2nd Amendment Rights. That Nebraska and most other red states have loosened their laws is small comfort to those that reside in a formerly red but now blue state.

That Alaska, Arizona, and New Hampshire all have Constitutional carry laws means little to those residing in a “may issue” (not/never) state like California, whose population in any of its major cities out strip the total combined populations of those states.


125 posted on 06/04/2013 9:47:10 AM PDT by Forty-Niner ( the barely bare, berry bear formally known as Ursus Arctos Horibilis...Hear me roar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner

In 1986 41 states were no-issue or may issue. By 2013 41 states were shall-issue or unrestricted, with IL poised to at least partially leave the gun-control camp.

Here’s a really neat graph showing the change over this period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc2.gif

Less than 30 years. Going from 41 states for gun control (using broad terms) to 41 states with fewer gun restrictions. And gun rights are losing ground? Can’t you take yes for an answer? This sounds much like the civil rights groups who are constantly complaining that racism is no better or maybe even worse than 50 years.


126 posted on 06/04/2013 10:46:24 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Please write Gov.s Hickenlooper (D-Co) and Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown (D-Ca) and set them and their legislatures straight!


127 posted on 06/04/2013 2:07:04 PM PDT by Forty-Niner ( the barely bare, berry bear formally known as Ursus Arctos Horibilis...Hear me roar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They don’t. The Constitution is crystal clear on this, and an EO attempt by Obama will not pass legal scrutiny.


128 posted on 06/04/2013 2:29:02 PM PDT by patriotsblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Even if they ratified, how can any treaty supersede the Law of the Law...the Constitution?

If they pass a U.N. treaty that says all power belongs to the U.N., that’s the ‘new law’? What other Rights do they think they can give away w/out Our say? Don’t think so.


129 posted on 06/04/2013 2:32:46 PM PDT by i_robot73 (We hold that all individuals have the Right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives - LP.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

US out of the UN, UN off US soil!


130 posted on 06/04/2013 5:45:49 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

I wonder how long Lurch’s coffin needs to be?


131 posted on 06/04/2013 5:46:29 PM PDT by angcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Well, it’s like this. There are “the Rojos on one side of town, the Baxters on the other, and” they’re all retarded liars. The Senate has to ratify, but that wouldn’t even do it. Our Constitution rules.


132 posted on 06/04/2013 5:49:46 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty" (Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17).

Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
Justia.com
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

Excerpt:
“As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.”

TREATIES DO NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/Treaties.htm


133 posted on 06/04/2013 5:53:15 PM PDT by familyop (And anyone who disagrees with that proof is a queer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

What you say is true.

LLS


134 posted on 06/05/2013 4:10:14 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson