The legality of UN Small Arms Treaty

eye95 · Jun 8, 2011

OC for ME said:
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.

Uber_Olafsun · Jun 8, 2011

eye95 said:
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.

riverrat10k · Jun 8, 2011

Wolfgang1952 said:
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.

Tawnos · Jun 8, 2011

xd shooter said:
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?

Rattrapper · Jun 8, 2011

Schlitz said:
What does that mean?

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

Click to expand...

Varmiter · Jun 8, 2011

Scaremongering

The follow is my posted comment on Forbes.

"Mr. Bell,

This time it’s not “Hillary signed United Nations Gun Ban Treaty”, and then “Obama’s efforts under the radar”. Now this article is total BS.

All of this under the guise of a UN treaty that will at best make us register all our guns and at worst take them all away.

For the professional journalists to go into print, without the needed research is inexcusable.

So, lets explore the known sequence of events followed by the required sequence of events that need to occur.

Last “Small Arms Conference in the UN was in 2006
http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/faq.html

The last UN action was a “list of recommendations in 2008.

Nothing has moved since then.

This so called treaty has yet to be put into print for the “Permanent Members” and “Temporary Voting Members” consideration.

IF…..repeat……IF, more than when, this gets into print and passes in the UN, then it needs to “Ratified” by the member states/countries. Obama would need to pass it to the Senate for it’s consideration and “Consent” which requires a 2/3 vote of the FULL senate….thats 67 votes.. Then he (Obama) would be the one to “Ratify” the treaty. In any event, if Ratified, Constitutionally, it would be legal so long as it did NOT infringe on America citizens rights while they remain within the CONUS. Of course, if not ‘consented to’ by the Senate, ( and who really thinks the votes are there in the Senate) then the treaty cannot be passed. And even if WE passed it ourselves, if just one other permanent member of the UN voted “NO” then the treaty fails. End of story.

This type of hype journalism is absolute rubbish and you should be ashamed of yourself. Totally deplorable."

Chris

papa bear · Jun 8, 2011

Tawnos said:
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?

fear can be a great motivator.

the fedral government has always passed laws and did things that were against the Constitution, remember never say never

Tawnos · Jun 12, 2011

papa bear said:
fear can be a great motivator.

the fedral government has always passed laws and did things that were against the Constitution, remember never say never

Great motivator for what, exactly?

PrayingForWar · Jun 13, 2011

~*'Phoenix'*~ said:
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.

I'd agree that the majority of the military and police would side with the citizenry, but don't forget that these groups are a reflection of the population. A certain segment of the people will certainly resist antything that stops the flow of free money, or compromises the power of the officials that provide it. A conflict that arose from an attempt to disarm the public would surely fall along the lines of the productive, and the sponges.

PrayingForWar · Jun 13, 2011

papa bear said:
fear can be a great motivator.

the fedral government has always passed laws and did things that were against the Constitution, remember never say never

This "Treaty" issue keeps coming up, and always proves to be over blown. Maybe Larry Bell just got wind of it and decided to blog about it, I don't know. AFAIK it hasn't advanced since I read about it here last year, and the same issues are in play.

1) It has to get through the bureaucracy of inept elitist marxist pigs at the UN, then voted on and agreed too.

2) Ratified by the US Senate.

Fat chance it would happen while Harry Reid values his skin. I wouldn't put anything past the POTUS though.

papa bear · Jun 13, 2011

Tawnos said:
Great motivator for what, exactly?

I think it was Jeff Cooper that said a dose of fear will keep you on alert and prepared
fear of default of your house loan will motivate you pay make your payments

fear of a fire will motivate you to be careful about flames and motivate you to keep a fire extinguisher

fear of a government will motivate you to keep an eye on it

Complacency is the thing to fear most

eye95 · Jun 13, 2011

Fear of my ideas being dismissed due to poor written structure motivates me to make an effort at using complete sentences, capitalization, punctuation, proper grammar, etc.

Gunslinger · Jun 14, 2011

PrayingForWar said:
This "Treaty" issue keeps coming up, and always proves to be over blown. Maybe Larry Bell just got wind of it and decided to blog about it, I don't know. AFAIK it hasn't advanced since I read about it here last year, and the same issues are in play.

1) It has to get through the bureaucracy of inept elitist marxist pigs at the UN, then voted on and agreed too.

2) Ratified by the US Senate.

Fat chance it would happen while Harry Reid values his skin. I wouldn't put anything past the POTUS though.

Reid would vote against it. With his million faults, being anti-2A is not among them. The Arkansas Sow can stick it up her fat ass. That's as far as it will ever go.

PrayingForWar · Jun 14, 2011

Gunslinger said:
Reid would vote against it. With his million faults, being anti-2A is not among them. The Arkansas Sow can stick it up her fat ass. That's as far as it will ever go.

I believe that sow was origionally from Chicago before latching on to ol' bill. In any case since it basically came from her fat ass, I agree that it should be stuck back in there for perpetuity.

jmlefler · Jun 14, 2011

Tawnos said:
Treaty doesn’t override constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

/thread

Nice cite...

Carry on

since9 · Jun 15, 2011

Schlitz said:
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.

Oh. You mean Obama has violated his oath of office? Is that what you're saying?

Perhaps it's time for him to stop running for a second term. We can't have someone with that severe lack of integrity in the Oval Office.

The legality of UN Small Arms Treaty

eye95

Well-known member

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member

riverrat10k

Regular Member

Tawnos

Regular Member

Rattrapper

Regular Member

Varmiter

Regular Member

papa bear

Regular Member

Tawnos

Regular Member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

papa bear

Regular Member

eye95

Well-known member

Gunslinger

Regular Member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

jmlefler

Regular Member

since9

Campaign Veteran