• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

UN Treaties and my guns?

Ahlywog

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
19
Location
Kennewick
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.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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:

Ahlywog

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
19
Location
Kennewick
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.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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".
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
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:

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
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".
 

Ahlywog

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
19
Location
Kennewick
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.
 

Ahlywog

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
19
Location
Kennewick
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
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
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
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 

07Altima

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
131
Location
Monroe
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 :)
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top