Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: The legality of UN Small Arms Treaty

  1. #1
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    The legality of UN Small Arms Treaty

    I have gotten in discussions about this topic in the past and would like to get folks' opinions on this once again. I maintain that the president cannot enter into a treaty which restricts or outlaws a class of firearms or all firearms with a foreign entity. I base this on two factors. 1) The president is required to take an oath of office before he can assume his position as president of the United States. The salient portion of this simple oath is, "and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". 2) The senate takes an oath as well to the Constitution with a bit more verbiage of sworn allegiance.

    With having taking these oaths, any president or member of the senate who acts outside of the oaths Constitutional confines is acting outside of the supreme law of the land which means any laws, treaties, or agreements so made are null and void.. i.e. dead on arrival.

    Now we all know that presidents and members of both houses of congress have made all manner of illegal laws and such pretty much since the creation of this nation. However, something as fundamentally important to the survival of our liberty as virtually disbanding the Second Amendment would not only be illegal, but a clear act of treason. No such treaty would carry any weight even if it did make it through the senate and the president's signature. Illegal laws do not carry the obligation of obedience.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/20...rs-up-in-arms/


    Thoughts?
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    I have gotten in discussions about this topic in the past and would like to get folks' opinions on this once again. I maintain that the president cannot enter into a treaty which restricts or outlaws a class of firearms or all firearms with a foreign entity. I base this on two factors. 1) The president is required to take an oath of office before he can assume his position as president of the United States. The salient portion of this simple oath is, "and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". 2) The senate takes an oath as well to the Constitution with a bit more verbiage of sworn allegiance.
    Before dealing with what is following the 'red' highlight we must confront what you have "maintained."

    You will have to offer example(s) of the Treaty, and what is within the Treaty. Please elaborate.


    With having taking these oaths, any president or member of the senate who acts outside of the oaths Constitutional confines is acting outside of the supreme law of the land which means any laws, treaties, or agreements so made are null and void.. i.e. dead on arrival.

    No, the Law is not "dead on arrival." If the Law(s) Constitutionality is in question then SCOTUS takes it up, and makes a Finding.

    You are assuming, or asserting that making a Treaty with another State is unConstitutional. The Treaty might be, but until SCOTUS finds the Law to be unConstitutional, it is in application Constitutional.


    Now we all know that presidents and members of both houses of congress have made all manner of illegal laws and such pretty much since the creation of this nation. However, something as fundamentally important to the survival of our liberty as virtually disbanding the Second Amendment would not only be illegal, but a clear act of treason. No such treaty would carry any weight even if it did make it through the senate and the president's signature. Illegal laws do not carry the obligation of obedience.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/20...rs-up-in-arms/
    No. You assert that such Law(s), whatever they might be, are unConstitution because you may not agree with them.

    If Congress were to move to remove the Second Amendment from the Constitution, they can. The Constitution provides for such a thing. So no, it is not a 'clear act of treason'.

    unConstitutional Laws only carry the obligation of obedience if you deem them to. Whether the Federal Government agrees with you or not is another issue -one which you might be required to pay a price for if you are wrong.

    You see, the Government (made up of individuals who basically become an extension of the Entity) engages in an illegal act, well, there is little recourse. You engage in an act that is deemed illegal by the Government, there is recourse.


    Thoughts?
    This thread is going to end badly.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    The legality?

    I am reminded of the movie Cleopatra (Liz Taylor, Richard Burton). Very early in the movie, Caesar, played by Rex Harrison, has just won a battle.

    He receives a report that his opponent has skipped out and headed for Egypt. Ceasar gives orders for disposition of his forces. He tells an officer to relay to Antony that he is to take several legions back to Rome. Adding:

    "Remind him to keep his legions intact. They make the law legal."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    If Congress were to move to remove the Second Amendment from the Constitution, they can. The Constitution provides for such a thing.
    The U.S. Constitution can only be amended (such as removing an offending amendment) by another amendment, such as the 21st Amendment revoking the 18th Amendment.

    Yes, Congress could very well pass an amendment removing the Second Amendment (which would not stand well with voting constituents). And then two-thirds of the States would have to concur (which would stand even less well with voting constituents). No two-thirds concurrence? Proposed amendment fails.

    Congress, no matter how swelled its collective head grows, can not do such a thing all by its lonesome.
    Last edited by Statkowski; 06-07-2011 at 06:58 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Treaty doesn’t override constitution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

    /thread
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Treaty doesn’t override constitution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

    /thread
    Doesn't mean they won't try...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Another of these threads? hasn't this topic been worked over enough?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Wolfgang1952's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mt Hermon / Franklinton,La ,
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Another of these threads? hasn't this topic been worked over enough?
    NO
    Pres. Florida Parishes Chapter of LOCAL www.laopencarry.org

    .308 Isn't an area code, but it can still make long distance calls.
    How may I help you? Press '1' for English. Press '2' to disconnect until you learn to speak English.


    Wolf

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Mind you, I was not posing what the government may try to do or what they might actually do illegally because they have already proven in other cases to have done such things. My intent with this was to get folks' ideas and opinions regarding this issue as they see it.

    A few mentioned that the Second Amendment can be removed but in fact, it cannot according to several of the Founding Fathers. Neither it nor the other nine items in the Bill of Rights are subject to alteration or removal. Does this mean that contemporary thought follows this reasoning? No, I rather doubt it. I suspect many people (and many on this forum) view the Bill of Rights as any other part of the amendment process. But there is logical reasoning for the fact that the Bill of Rights is unamendable. I'll leave it at that.

    Anyway, my purpose was simply this. If we assumption that a senate and a president can enter into and ratify any treaty they so desire, then we also take the assumption that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are more malleable than the Founders desired. That these documents are more prone to end arounds and modifications than their design permits.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    My thoughts are that the constitution is a law to protect us from our government. One of those laws is the 2A. If the government were to enact a ban with a U.N. treaty it is not a legal law and we are not obligated to follow it.

    To me it's like state pre-emption if a town bans firearms against state law (Washington has a strong pre-emption statute) than the law is "dead" on arrival I don't have to wait for a court to rule that it is.
    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)

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Um, perhaps you guys haven't noticed, but the constitution doesn't mean much anymore. Your president that has taken an oath to preserve the constitution has straight up supported an all out BAN on handguns. o_O

  12. #12
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Um, perhaps you guys haven't noticed, but the constitution doesn't mean much anymore. Your president that has taken an oath to preserve the constitution has straight up supported an all out BAN on handguns. o_O
    Nope, I've noticed this and a whole lot more over the years.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  13. #13
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Technically, international treaties are not laws they are contracts. They are enforceable if violated via a "international court" with civil penalties only. NAFTA is a good example. If any signatory to the treaty violates the agreement then one or more of the other signatories have to file a complaint with a "international court". Technically, a violation of a treaty is a contract law violation. Even if the violator is found to have violated the "contract" there ain't much anyone can do about it other than the violator.

    The rub is that Obama and the anti-gun crowd will have Big Sis joyfully enforcing this contract. Indiana will be the first state to comply with the contract via warrant-less search and seizure raids on LACs.

    This is the very thing that will test LEOs all across this country who claim to support our 2A right and not follow orders to search and then seize. Or, will they fear for their job and comply, begrudgingly of course, while begging for us to understand that they don't want to but it is their job.
    NAFTA is not a Treaty. It was never ratified. The North America Fee Trade Agreement has been unlawfully been given "Treaty Status" when it is not.

    If the Time comes when they want to "Attempt to Seize" Our Firearms, I for one, will have no problem giving them, One peice at a time.
    Last edited by Rattrapper; 06-08-2011 at 09:21 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member ~*'Phoenix'*~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    538
    I got one thought for this treaty, "legal" or not -

    Molon Labe.

    Most police and the US armed forces would side with the citizens, of whom they are a part. The rest, and all the forces of globalization wouldn't be able to fight through our "rifles behind every blade of grass."

    Should anyone try, the constitutional oath-honoring armed forces, LEO's, and 100million+ gun owning citizens would make this country a bloody maze of death for anyone trying to conquer or occupy us, which is the only way they could "enforce" it - militarily.
    Last edited by ~*'Phoenix'*~; 06-08-2011 at 09:52 AM.
    American Government 101:
    The Executive branch's job is to provide celebrity figureheads for the pandering populace.
    The Legislative branch's job is to progressively destroy our freedoms for the "safety" of "We the Sheeple."
    The Judicial branch's job is to look like they're defending our freedoms against the abuses of the Legislative branch, only by token gestures that do not interfere is this pivotal process, but enough to deceive "We the People" into a false sense of security.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    ...A few mentioned that the Second Amendment can be removed but in fact, it cannot according to several of the Founding Fathers. Neither it nor the other nine items in the Bill of Rights are subject to alteration or removal...
    That may have been there intent--or even their belief. However, I see nothing in the document that disallows amendment of amendments, even the BoR. I would even go so far as to decry the possibility that the Constitution could be changed in a way that could not be undone.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Technically, international treaties are not laws they are contracts...
    Actually, according to the Constitution, they are law.

    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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
    Of course, those treaties have to be made "under the authority of the United States," meaning that the federal government cannot enter into a treaty that is not within its authority as defined in the Constitution. Since the feds do not have the authority to infringe on the RKBA, they do not have the authority to enter into a treaty that would.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567

    Lightbulb

    If the Time comes when they want to "Attempt to Seize" Our Firearms, I for one, will have no problem giving them, One peice at a time.
    What does that mean?


    At what point would people resist gun grabbing in the name of unlawful laws? As long as they do it slowly it seems no one would resist. Didn't california confiscate "assault weapons" with no violent resistance from the wolverines? I didn't hear of good law abiding citizens returning fire on national guard and swat members attempting to confiscate weapons during the Katrina incident. (I know there was plenty of crime going down and shooting at helicopters, but I'm talking about people like the open carry community, just regular joes who had the cops and military at their door for guns. we never heard of militias rising up in Mississippi to protect the constitution - not saying it didn't happen, but i never heard of it) There was no militia uprising when carry PERMIT legislation began, which completely goes AGAINST the constitution that says it's a RIGHT.

    So in summation, I think the U.N. and Government will beable to yoke'em all up, it's just a slow slow process.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Actually, according to the Constitution, they are law.



    Of course, those treaties have to be made "under the authority of the United States," meaning that the federal government cannot enter into a treaty that is not within its authority as defined in the Constitution. Since the feds do not have the authority to infringe on the RKBA, they do not have the authority to enter into a treaty that would.
    True but do you think they would remember that? Ok we pass a treaty that we don't have authority to pass now let's make up something that says we have the authority. I can't tell if the govt is a snake eating it's tail or a donkey trying to decide to be in front of the cart or behind.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    2/3 vote of the Senate to ratify any treaty. 60 Senators are A or A+ rated by the NRA. Any UN gun treaty is DOA.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Uber_Olafsun View Post
    True but do you think they would remember that? Ok we pass a treaty that we don't have authority to pass now let's make up something that says we have the authority. I can't tell if the govt is a snake eating it's tail or a donkey trying to decide to be in front of the cart or behind.
    I am not speaking to that issue. My point was very narrow.

    If a treaty is ratified that violates the 2A, we will look to the courts for a remedy. Lately, the High Court has defended our 2A rights.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Good catch, I retract. Yet, I wonder the pratical application of treaties (law) when a violation of them occurs and the violator chooses not to abide by the penalties assigned to the violation. Sovreign nations make many treaties and then choose to abide by them or not at their convenience.

    +1 to you Sir.
    I don't think they would constitute criminal law, but law dictating what the feds can or must do, restricting (in a non-criminal way) what citizens may do, or providing justification for criminal statutes passed by legislatures.

    So, in answer to your practicality question, I don't think a citizen could be arrested or prosecuted based solely on provisions of an international treaty--as a matter of practicality.

    Also, Gunslinger made the point that anti-2A treaties face a Senate that is strongly pro-2A but need a Senate that is strongly anti. I don't see ratification of an overtly anti-2A treaty. Watch out for subtlety though.
    Last edited by eye95; 06-08-2011 at 11:03 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I am not speaking to that issue. My point was very narrow.

    If a treaty is ratified that violates the 2A, we will look to the courts for a remedy. Lately, the High Court has defended our 2A rights.
    Just have to make sure we still have 5 of the 9 and should not be a problem. I would have to be a supreme court justice. Your timing of retirement is really based on who is president at the time.

  23. #23
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang1952 View Post
    NO
    Saw the Forbes article and agree with Wolfie. Thought it was good that it was getting press at Forbes, even if only on their blog.

    Molon labe.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    Doesn't mean they won't try...
    This is a silly line of thought. Be afraid, your forbes blogger commands it!

    *rolleyes*

    Seriously, this nonsense has been going on far too long. Can we move to actual issues of import, not random fearmongering?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  25. #25
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    [QUOTE=Schlitz;1548674]What does that mean?[QUOTE]

    What do you think it means?

    I am prepared to make that decision.


    "If they mean to have war, Let it begin here" Capt. Parker on the Lexington Green

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
  •