• 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 arms treaty

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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/201...ce-concerns-with-arms-treaty/?test=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.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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/201...ce-concerns-with-arms-treaty/?test=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.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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
 

XDFDE45

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
823
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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
raisedeyebrow.gif
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
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,.......
 

Tolerance

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
30
Location
Las Vegas, NV

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.
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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/html/art6toc_user.html

Are you sure Obama won't usurp it??
http://conservativebyte.com/2013/04/obama-can-simply-ban-all-handguns/
 
Top