• 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.

The legality of UN Small Arms Treaty

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/


Thoughts?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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."
 

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,141
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
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:

SouthernBoy

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

sudden valley gunner

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

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
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
 

Rattrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
218
Location
Swanzey,NH, ,
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:

~*'Phoenix'*~

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
538
Location
Florida
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
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.
 

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 
Top