Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Un arms treaty

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Un arms treaty

    I know we are all busy finding our way around and better understanding the nuances of our CCL and OC privileges. But this is very improtant too.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

    Please be proavtive on this issue because that dispicable organization, the UN with rouge members has the gall to trample on our second amendment. Worst yet, they are on our soil! Please put pressure on our senators to oppose it. I would not be surprised that Herb Kohl will sighn on to it. I wish I could post this on all blogs in the 50 states but I don't know how.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    I know we are all busy finding our way around and better understanding the nuances of our CWL and OC privileges but this is very important too.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

    Please be proactive on this issue because that despicable organization, the U.N. with it's rogue members has the gall to trample on our second amendment. Worse yet, they are on our soil! Please put pressure on our senators to oppose it. I would not be surprised that Herb Kohl will sign on to it. I wish I could post this on all blogs in the 50 states but I don't know how.
    I would bet that Kohl will definitely vote for it. Johnson won't and right now they don't have 67 senators to ratify the treaty.

    I seem to remember a year or two ago when a certain Mr. Gleason (IIRC) pointed this U.N. treaty out on this forum and was ridiculed by many.

    I've already written and emailed our senators and faxed all 100 as well.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Senator Ron Johnson's Reply to my Opposition to the Treaty

    WOW!!! this reply came within a few hours after I wrote to him about my concern.

    Dear ______


    Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding United Nations (UN) treaties .



    The United States has been the greatest force for good in the history of the world. This nation has promoted individual rights, free markets, self-determination, and religious freedom. Presidents of both parties have consistently promoted these goals, and at times they have used international alliances and coalition efforts to do so. I do not believe the United States should stop working internationally with our allies to promote these goals.



    That said, Presidents have at times used international organizations, treaties and agreements to promote controversial agenda items at home – both in the Congress and in the states. Examples include accords such as the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty, and others. Without first seeking Congressional approval, Presidents have touted the benefits of these accords, and called for laws, policies, and regulations that would begin to implement agenda items. Agreements like these have often been cited as a reason that the United States should – or might be required to – enact new laws and regulations that might be in conflict with American values or tradition, or be opposed by a majority of the American people.



    This is wrong.



    I do not believe Presidents of either party should enter into international agreements or other commitments in a secretive fashion, or without the full knowledge of the American people and the U.S. Congress. The President should not enter into international commitments that require the United States to adopt policies that the American people would oppose on their own.



    If the President requests that Congress approve or implement treaties that are in conflict with the Constitution, I will strongly oppose them. For example, I oppose the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty because it would transfer the rights of the United States to an unelected, unaccountable international body. Similarly, I will support efforts to prevent any U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty from curtailing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.



    Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts. It is important for me to hear the views and concerns of the people I serve. Since taking office, I have received over 500,000 pieces of correspondence and have had over 200,000 people participate in live forums and telephone town hall meetings. Please feel free to contact me in the future if I can further assist you or your family. It is an honor representing you and the good people of Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate.





    Sincerely,


    Ron Johnson
    United States Senator

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Fox Lake, Wi
    Posts
    33

    Exclamation It was dropped

    The treaty was dropped. Have a look:

    http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/27/a...#axzz21srG5Wrj

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by fadepoint89 View Post
    The treaty was dropped. Have a look:

    http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/27/a...#axzz21srG5Wrj
    That is great. But the UN won't stop at nothing. We all need to keep up the pressure.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
    Last edited by Law abider; 07-28-2012 at 01:28 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823
    They were trying this when Clinton was POTUS it never went anywhere. Like rcawdor57 said they won't have the votes in the Senate to ratify it. And just remember that the Chinese are on the Human Rights Commission and the UN was the result of a soviet spy
    Wisconsin Carry Member
    My Castle Doctrine Law

    Don't wish ill upon your enemy......plan it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    For the Last Time (but probably not)

    The Senate does not ratify treaties. It consents (or not) to ratification (which is done by the executive branch). Also be wary of implementation by administrative fiat. The current administration may decide it is a good idea to adopt some or all of the proposed treaty and start issuing regulations, executive orders, inaction, etc. Any doubts consider the Dream Act, DOMA, recess appointments,.......

  8. #8
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Anyone paying attention to the UN arms treaty that is going on in NY now?
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  9. #9
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    Un arms treaty

    Quote Originally Posted by self preservation View Post
    Anyone paying attention to the UN arms treaty that is going on in NY now?
    thought this fecal pile was done and gone, got any new info?
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by PFC HALE View Post
    , got any new info?
    The General Assembly of the United Nations has decided to convene a Final Conference on the ATT, in March 2013, to conclude the work begun in July 2012.
    https://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/d...onference).pdf

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    30
    From the majority of what I see on this .pdf the UN President is going to make a treaty that doesn't allow import/export of any arms. Also, tells countries to keep their gun laws strict and in accordance with the countries own laws. Lastly, it said that is encourages the country to register all arms pursuant with the countries own laws.

    Reminds me of Obama's Policy on guns.

  12. #12
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by self preservation View Post
    Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) offered an alternative amendment that clarified that under current U.S. law, treaties don’t trump the Constitution and that the United States should not agree to any arms treaty that violates the Second Amendment rights. His amendment passed by voice vote.
    Bwahahaha! What question is this that needs clarifying? See COTUS Article VI, Second Clause.

    O, what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive!
    Walter Scott, Canto VI, st. 17.

  14. #14
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Bwahahaha! What question is this that needs clarifying? See COTUS Article VI, Second Clause.

    O, what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive!
    Walter Scott, Canto VI, st. 17.
    Still a little confused...does this kill the arms treaty or just slow it down?
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Leakey's amendment is to a budget bill, it's not mandane and the budget will not pass.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by self preservation View Post
    Still a little confused...does this kill the arms treaty or just slow it down?
    Read the constitution, it is only 7 articles long and is written in plain English. It spells out clearly that any treaty that violates the law of the land is not valid.

    The Constitution gives the President the power to commit the United States to treaties, (but ONLY with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the US Senate), and (ONLY if the agreement does not contravene the Constitution).

    The resident of the White House can sign anything he wants but if the Senate does not back him up his signature is only an autograph signifying that he approves of the treaty. If the Senate would go brain dead and actually approve the treaty and he signed it it can still be knocked down with a trip to the Supreme Court who would find that it violates the letter of the law and it is null and void.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    Constitution of The United States, Article VI, Clause II

    This 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Notwithstanding, from Latin nōn obstante ("not standing").

    Paraphrasing, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States made in support thereof; and all Treaties 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 by them, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary don't matter.http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/ht...6toc_user.html
    Last edited by Nightmare; 03-29-2013 at 06:17 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    This 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Notwithstanding, from Latin nōn obstante ("not standing").

    Paraphrasing, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States made in support thereof; and all Treaties 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 by them, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary don't matter.http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/ht...6toc_user.html
    Are you sure Obama won't usurp it??
    http://conservativebyte.com/2013/04/...-all-handguns/

Posting Permissions

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