Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: UN Treaties and my guns?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kennewick
    Posts
    19

    UN Treaties and my guns?

    Hey all,

    There has been talk about the US signing a UN treaty banning most if not all privately owned guns in the countries of it's signing members. Is this true? What do we know about this? I've been so busy with school lately that I haven't had the time to wade through all the ******** that usually accompanies these kinds of things.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlywog View Post
    Hey all,

    There has been talk about the US signing a UN treaty banning most if not all privately owned guns in the countries of it's signing members. Is this true? What do we know about this? I've been so busy with school lately that I haven't had the time to wade through all the ******** that usually accompanies these kinds of things.

    Thanks in advance.

    Oh boy not this again..........LOL

    Yes. There has been talk in the UN about a "small arms treaty" however, the chances of the US signing are very slim. Remember that even if Obama signs it, the treaty still needs the approval of 2/3rds of the Senate to actually be adopted.(Article 2 section 2 clause 2) Also no treaty can trump the Constitution For The United States. So any treaty violating the Constitution, would be null and void.
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 07-03-2012 at 02:57 PM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kennewick
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Oh boy not this again..........LOL

    Yes. There has been talk in the UN about a "small arms treaty" however, the chances of the US signing are very slim. Remember that even if Obama signs it, the treaty still needs the approval of 2/3rds of the Senate to actually be adopted.(Article 2 section 2 clause 2) Also no treaty can trump the Constitution For The United States. So any treaty violating the Constitution, would be null and void.
    Why are the chances very slim? What is that based on? Our elected officials stellar record of keeping with the letter and spirit of the Constitution? Or their obvious desire to put the wishes of the people first? It's not as if they haven't adopted legislation in direct violation of the constitution before.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlywog View Post
    Why are the chances very slim? What is that based on? Our elected officials stellar record of keeping with the letter and spirit of the Constitution? Or their obvious desire to put the wishes of the people first? It's not as if they haven't adopted legislation in direct violation of the constitution before.

    Very true. And your concerns are valid. I just do not see 2/3rds of the Senate agreeing with the "small arms treaty".
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  5. #5
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlywog View Post
    Why are the chances very slim? What is that based on? Our elected officials stellar record of keeping with the letter and spirit of the Constitution? Or their obvious desire to put the wishes of the people first? It's not as if they haven't adopted legislation in direct violation of the constitution before.
    Howdy!
    Did you know that any proposed treaty would need to have a 2/3 vote of the senate to be ratified?
    Did you know that the Constitution requires Senate ratification of any treaty before it can be acted upon?
    Did you think there would be no Constitutional challenges from every state in the union?

    Chances are not only slim, they're almost insurmountable. Not completely, but highly unlikely.

    You might want to check this particular source in its entirety:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    Last edited by M-Taliesin; 07-03-2012 at 03:32 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    And actually the particular UN treaty that most people talk about has to do with exporting small arms. The treaty would mean that certain small arms and their parts/kits could not be exported. The aim was to keep military weapons out of the hands of "terrorists".

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kennewick
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy!
    Did you know that any proposed treaty would need to have a 2/3 vote of the senate to be ratified?
    Did you know that the Constitution requires Senate ratification of any treaty before it can be acted upon?
    Did you think there would be no Constitutional challenges from every state in the union?

    Chances are not only slim, they're almost insurmountable. Not completely, but highly unlikely.

    You might want to check this particular source in its entirety:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    Yes,
    Yes,
    Yes,

    Hasn't stopped congress and the POTUS from enacting constitutional-inviolate legislature before.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kennewick
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by sirpuma View Post
    And actually the particular UN treaty that most people talk about has to do with exporting small arms. The treaty would mean that certain small arms and their parts/kits could not be exported. The aim was to keep military weapons out of the hands of "terrorists".
    You say that, and I'm reading that in a lot of locations (mostly MSM)... but the following:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OAUYDMqrA8

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sirpuma View Post
    And actually the particular UN treaty that most people talk about has to do with exporting small arms. The treaty would mean that certain small arms and their parts/kits could not be exported. The aim was to keep military weapons out of the hands of "terrorists".
    Operation Fast and Furious proved it would not work anyways.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Ladies and Gentlemen, keep control of your bowels. Just because a treaty is proposed by an organization like the UN it still has to be ratified by the Senate.

    Take some time and read of all the treaties that have been floating around for decades that the US has yet to ratify. The US does not accept legislation passed by others. This is still a Sovereign Country no matter what those in the UN might think.

    Rather than expending all the energy on who should or shouldn't be President, people need to pay more attention to who the elect as Senators and Representatives. That's where the real damage can occur.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Very true. And your concerns are valid. I just do not see 2/3rds of the Senate agreeing with the "small arms treaty".
    Two words: Socialized Medicine.
    Who would have thought that would have gotten past the Senate?
    Or the SCOTUS?..

    "Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves."
    Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom First View Post
    Two words: Socialized Medicine.
    Who would have thought that would have gotten past the Senate?
    Or the SCOTUS?..

    "Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves."
    Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
    Everyone did. Why? Because it only took 51 votes in the Senate to pass the healthcare bill. SCOTUS? It was the right decision to uphold the healthcare act. Why? The people duly elected the house of representatives and they passed the bill and the people duly elected their Senators and they passed the bill and the people duly elected the President (via the Electoral College) and he signed the healthcare bill. It is not SCOTUS job to overturn bills that the people had their representatives pass. The one correct way to get rid of the healthcare bill is to overturn it in the other two branches of government.

    Why will the UN treaty not pass the Senate? Because it will take 67 Senators to vote to do so as provided by the Constitution and not a simple majority vote. If you can name less than 34 Senators that will vote against the treaty I would like to hear their names. Remember the GOP has 47 Senators and none of them have expressed that they will vote for the treaty. Only a few years in American history has either party had a 2/3 majority in the Senate and the last time was 45 years ago.
    Live Free or Die!

  13. #13
    Regular Member 07Altima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    131

    I called my senators :)

    called and left a message to let them know that I oppose the treaty I know that is the best thing I can do at this point, and just do a wait and see from there. I think that worrying about it will not gain us any thing, we must act when we can, and avoid the worst as long as possible

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    It is not SCOTUS job to overturn bills that the people had their representatives pass.
    Yes it is, their job to strike down unconstitutional laws, they are supposed to be the third check. Yet statist judges have consistently failed to do this. Their main job was to determine what law is constitutional or not, not to define what is constitutional.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    The law is constitutional.

    It does not apply to the average citizen because it's being applied under Subtitle C of the IRC.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    The senate won't enact the law because one of the US's number one exports is military equipment, including small arms.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    The law is constitutional.

    It does not apply to the average citizen because it's being applied under Subtitle C of the IRC.
    Only if you want to change the meaning of the "commerce clause", I guess it is now constitutional to force us to buy broccoli.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Only if you want to change the meaning of the "commerce clause", I guess it is now constitutional to force us to buy broccoli.
    I study tax law. It cannot be forced on the citizens that is why it's constitutional.

    You have to REQUEST to be subjected to it.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  19. #19
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Only if you want to change the meaning of the "commerce clause", I guess it is now constitutional to force us to buy broccoli.
    That's why SCOTUS said it was either an illegal mandate under the commerce clause or a legal tax which is an enumerated power. They chose tax so the commerce clause is no longer in play.

    If you read the opinions carefully, there is a remark about how the Court didn't decide on the "wisdom" of the act, just the Constitutionality. There is a subtle message there that says the Court won't oppose any efforts by Congress to repeal it. They merely decided that if it was considered a "tax" it was good to go.

    Now, since it is a tax, it's one of the largest tax increases in a long time. Everyone wanted to avoid that label because now voters will really wake up and see it for what it is. There are members of congress that are saying "oh $h!t", we're in for it now.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  20. #20
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?...89&source=GBTV

    gogodawgs
    The problem with the treaty is that it has the force of a constitutional ammendmant and until the US congress actually votes on it it is still in play and enforcable.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlepnier View Post
    http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?...89&source=GBTV

    gogodawgs
    The problem with the treaty is that it has the force of a constitutional ammendmant and until the US congress actually votes on it it is still in play and enforcable.

    No. A treaty can not, and does not overrule the Constitution For The United States. It is not equal to a constitutional amendment. The constitution always overrules treaties.

    And a treaty is absolutely NOT enforceable, unless and until it is signed by the president AND approved by 2/3rds of the senate.

    Where on earth did you get the idea that the treaty is valid unless congress votes it down? If it was from your linked video it is either wrong, or you misunderstood something it said.

    I am at work and unable to watch the link, and will watch when I get home.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlepnier View Post
    http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?...89&source=GBTV

    gogodawgs
    The problem with the treaty is that it has the force of a constitutional ammendmant and until the US congress actually votes on it it is still in play and enforcable.
    FALSE. Please cite. (Even the Glen Beck video you attached does not support your statement)

    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    No. A treaty can not, and does not overrule the Constitution For The United States. It is not equal to a constitutional amendment. The constitution always overrules treaties.

    And a treaty is absolutely NOT enforceable, unless and until it is signed by the president AND approved by 2/3rds of the senate.

    Where on earth did you get the idea that the treaty is valid unless congress votes it down? If it was from your linked video it is either wrong, or you misunderstood something it said.

    I am at work and unable to watch the link, and will watch when I get home.
    ETF, correct.

    Again, I can not foresee a time where 67 Senators vote in favor of the ATT. If they were to ever.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    Live Free or Die!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    ....... it is its natural manure.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  24. #24
    Regular Member pfries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    182

    The Question remains where did WE lose it

    powers granted congress by the constitution

    "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    To provide and maintain a Navy;
    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."


    I am still being force to accept and or pay for socialist health care/put up with bands on firearms and the list continues on. The constitution was put in place to limit the power of Federal government and to guarantee they keep state powers within the confines of the constitution. Now who is left holding the bag for the Bill of rights? We are, the bill of rights is not law nor is the constitution, both of these documents are a set of ideals that our laws are written around and we need to be willing to hold our, yes our, government to them. The general populace seems to have forgotten that we are the government; they want to focus on one individual(POTUS) when the problem is much broader.
    Two Articles in the Bill Of Rights that seem to get overlooked all too often in my opinion are;

    Article 11. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    And

    Article12. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    We need to stand for all of it not just the parts that suit us at any given moment. Many things go on in this country that I do not agree with, I do however stand up for and believe that an individual maintains the right to do and say as they please as long as it falls within the scope of things afforded to all, and does not trample my rights in the process.

    Rant off for now
    Pat
    Last edited by pfries; 07-10-2012 at 12:58 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    FALSE. Please cite. (Even the Glen Beck video you attached does not support your statement)



    ETF, correct.

    Again, I can not foresee a time where 67 Senators vote in favor of the ATT. If they were to ever.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    Dick morris former aid to bill clinton and author of the book "screwed" made the comments about the force of the treaty and how it could be enforced.


    for more discussion on the topic-
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/real...ate-your-guns/
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •