• 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 Small Arms Treaty?

UtahJarhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
312
Location
Ogden, UT, ,
imported post

It's not possible as laws currently stand. Treaties the US agree to are still subject to our National Constitution and if certain portions of a treaty are contrary to the Constitution, then it's not legal to enforce it.
 

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
imported post

If the UN attempts to ban guns around the world, especially in the United States, they'll have a storm that I only hope will leave them in a few pieces past FUBAR.

We're talking about an organization that rarely uses their own guns to protect innocents in countries UN Soldiers are sent to as "peace keepers". I don't trust any organization that is meant to promote world peace but attempts to destroy it in the process.

That goes for any attempt from any organization, interstate or international, to remove my weapons from my possession.
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

UtahJarhead wrote:
It's not possible as laws currently stand. Treaties the US agree to are still subject to our National Constitution and if certain portions of a treaty are contrary to the Constitution, then it's not legal to enforce it.
Not to mention legislative uprisings fromstates. There's a movement afoot across the U.S. to nullify "unconstitutional" federal laws, as determined by the state legislature(s).

See http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
 

ufcfanvt

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
431
Location
NoVA, Virginia, USA
imported post

Treaties signed by 2/3 of the Senate DO trump American Law, including anything in the Constitution. It's actually right in the Constitution:
Article 6.
...
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.
 

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:
Treaties signed by 2/3 of the Senate DO trump American Law, including anything in the Constitution. It's actually right in the Constitution:
Article 6.
...
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.
In my understanding of this section, this still only applies to that which (treaties, in this case) are constitutional to begin with. It simply says those laws and treaties which are constitutional, are supreme law of the land.

"which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;" and "under the Authority of the United States" implies that the law or treaty is constitutional, and that they are not acting outside authority delegated by the states, and the people.

Either way, states can still repeal or amend parts of the U.S. Constitution.

"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
- Frederick Douglass
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Statesman wrote:
ufcfanvt wrote:
Treaties signed by 2/3 of the Senate DO trump American Law, including anything in the Constitution. It's actually right in the Constitution:
Article 6.
...
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.
In my understanding of this section, this still only applies to that which (treaties, in this case) are constitutional to begin with. It simply says those laws and treaties which are constitutional, are supreme law of the land.

"which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;" and "under the Authority of the United States" implies that the law or treaty is constitutional, and that they are not acting outside authority delegated by the states, and the people.

Either way, states can still repeal or amend parts of the U.S. Constitution.

"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
- Frederick Douglass
Yep. And it still would not have any affect on our right to arms since that right is recognized under the Bill of Rights as being sacrosanct and therefore, untouchable.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

phone guy wrote:
Rebeca Peters disagrees with you guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQEDk
I have that video and she is dead balls wrong. Wayne quotes a Supreme Court decision that states no treaty may be entered into which supersedes or circumvents the Constitution of the United States (paraphrased, of course). He is correct. And simply put, no president may propose a treaty or sign such that does anything of this nature because he would be in violation of his oath of office and subject to a charge of high treason. This ties the hands of any president who may have nefarious designs upon our liberty.

Lastly, Americans don't give a damn what Mrs. Peters or the UN have to say.
 

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:
phone guy wrote:
Rebeca Peters disagrees with you guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQEDk
I have that video and she is dead balls wrong. Wayne quotes a Supreme Court decision that states no treaty may be entered into which supersedes or circumvents the Constitution of the United States (paraphrased, of course). He is correct. And simply put, no president may propose a treaty or sign such that does anything of this nature because he would be in violation of his oath of office and subject to a charge of high treason. This ties the hands of any president who may have nefarious designs upon our liberty.

Lastly, Americans don't give a damn what Mrs. Peters or the UN have to say.

Agreed. I just watched that video, good stuff. I have to appreciate Wayne LaPierre's response, although I would love to see the entire debate. I would like to point out though, that I don't like the idea that we have to "seek" protection from a UN treaty from the Supreme Court but that has proven necessary time and time again (sometimes SCOTUS has proven against our favor). I say this because SCOTUS decisions are either marred in jurisdictional wars or some choose to ignore it and enact laws against it anyway.

With all that said... America contributes disproportionately to the worlds problems? I think not, Ms. Peters. The United States contributes disproportionately high to the world's solutions or attempts at gaining a solution to problems. The world's problems are caused by the world.
You think Afganistan's problems started with the U.S.? No, it at least started with Russia, we gave them a solution to survive the Red Onslaught.
Did the US start Iraq's hatred of Kurds and Iran? No, that is a hatred that has existed longer than the US has been around.
Did the US cause issues between Israel and the rest of the Middle East, especially Palestinians? No! It began because Britain didn't want to handle Palestine any more, so they got the UN to partition it!
How about the India-Pakistan disputes over Cashmier? NO! Once again, Britain left an entire subcontinent in shambles, partitioned it, and left the people to fight each other, like they did Palestine.
How about Russia and Chechnya? No, that's the Russians and the Chechens.
Genocide in the Sudan or in Rwanda? Nope, once again, that would be entirely the people that live in that region.
Piracy off the Horn of Africa? Nope, we're one of the solutions to stopping it; I seem to remember some awesomely effective SEAL sharp shooters rescuing a certain merchant captain last year.

Hmmmmm, disproportionate my butt....

Rebecca Peters, I would tell you to take your ideas somewhere else but I know they won't do ANY human being any good.
 

phoneguy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
447
Location
, ,
imported post

Rebeca's smug smile will be gone with the look off disbelief
if she is in some US city and gets attacked and one of us shows up.
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
imported post

UtahJarhead wrote:
It's not possible as laws currently stand. Treaties the US agree to are still subject to our National Constitution and if certain portions of a treaty are contrary to the Constitution, then it's not legal to enforce it.
Actually, most constitutional scholars will tell you that treaties override our constitution.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

rpyne wrote:
UtahJarhead wrote:
It's not possible as laws currently stand. Treaties the US agree to are still subject to our National Constitution and if certain portions of a treaty are contrary to the Constitution, then it's not legal to enforce it.
Actually, most constitutional scholars will tell you that treaties override our constitution.

Especially the ones named Obama.

Oh, wait. They also think anything overrides the Constitution.
 
Top