ALERT: Small Arms Treaty of 2012

Trent91 · Oct 5, 2011

I am very concerned about this as should be you all. I've done a little research about it and it seems that the U.N. is trying to, as Hillary Clinton has stated, "actively [pursue] a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons." I don't know about you all, but this looks to me like something that could snowball into something that could seriously infringe upon our rights as americans to keep and bear arms.

Cheers

Wolfgang1952 · Oct 6, 2011

Well what you expect from a bunch of socialist in the BLACK HOUSE and the UN. It’ been coming for a long time now. The Lefties just might there way this time, if we on the RIGHT are not carful.

RetiredOC · Oct 6, 2011

Wolfgang1952 said:
Well what you expect from a bunch of socialist in the BLACK HOUSE and the UN. It’ been coming for a long time now. The Lefties just might there way this time, if we on the RIGHT are not carful.

Hey now, don't assume that just because we are pro-gun means we are all on the "RIGHT."

I am loyal to neither the left or right. Just the constitution.

sudden valley gunner · Oct 6, 2011

Schlitz said:
Hey now, don't assume that just because we are pro-gun means we are all on the "RIGHT."

I am loyal to neither the left or right. Just the constitution.

+1

Trent91 · Oct 6, 2011

OC for ME,

This is what the bill is most likely to entail according to http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...eement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

That link is a really good article, and points out that

Obaba is an active anti-gun politician, as is Hillary Clintin. This "treaty" is actually a plot in disguise for the U.N. to achieve full international gun control!

ALL GUN OWNERS BEWARE!!

Redbaron007 · Oct 6, 2011

It currently doesn't have the votes in the Senate to be ratified; regardless of what King Obama and Queen Hilary want. They need either 60 or 67 votes to get it ratified. Last number I had read, there were only 15-20 senators that would vote for it.

The UN is hopeful it can use the other socialist members to put pressure on those countries that won't or can't get it to pass; but it doesn't seem to making any ground. IIRC, Glock came out against this and so did Austria. I don't think there is a lot of traction worldwide, except with the social dictators.

So, I understand the concern, we need to be cautious and not let something to slip by; but it has no chance of passing in the very near future, especially with the next re-election cycle coming up.

SFCRetired · Oct 6, 2011

OK, call me a dummy, but, even if the Senate were to ratify the treaty (Deity forbid!!), how could it be enforced within the United States? It would very clearly, at least to me, be a monumental violation of the Second Amendment's guarantees. I would also presume that, in the event of ratification, there would be a suit filed with the Supreme Court almost immediately.

Not to mention that such a treaty and its provision would be a violation of quite a few states' constitutions. I know Alabama's Constitution states very clearly that the citizens' right to keep and bear arms, being necessary for the defense of self and state, shall not be infringed. I would suspect that many of these states attorney generals would have to be prodded by the citizenry, but, since it is an elected position, they could not, if they want to be re-elected, ignore the screams of outrage.

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conspiracy theorist, but would any of you hazard a guess as to how long it would take before the UN decided to send foreign troops here to "enforce" that treaty?

Redbaron007 · Oct 6, 2011

SFCRetired said:
OK, call me a dummy, but, even if the Senate were to ratify the treaty (Deity forbid!!), how could it be enforced within the United States? It would very clearly, at least to me, be a monumental violation of the Second Amendment's guarantees. I would also presume that, in the event of ratification, there would be a suit filed with the Supreme Court almost immediately.

Not to mention that such a treaty and its provision would be a violation of quite a few states' constitutions. I know Alabama's Constitution states very clearly that the citizens' right to keep and bear arms, being necessary for the defense of self and state, shall not be infringed. I would suspect that many of these states attorney generals would have to be prodded by the citizenry, but, since it is an elected position, they could not, if they want to be re-elected, ignore the screams of outrage.

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conspiracy theorist, but would any of you hazard a guess as to how long it would take before the UN decided to send foreign troops here to "enforce" that treaty?

You move past the ratification portion...which is great. You hit on some very challenging thoughts.

In theory, if it did get passed...you are right, it would violate our 2A as well as many states'. Obviously, once it becomes enforced, the lawsuits would start flying, federally and in the states. In long and short of it, it would prolly be ruled unconstitutional. The question is, how long would that take and could an injunction be in place to prevent enforcement once it was ratified? I hope we never have to go down that road.

SouthernBoy · Oct 7, 2011

SFCRetired said:
OK, call me a dummy, but, even if the Senate were to ratify the treaty (Deity forbid!!), how could it be enforced within the United States? It would very clearly, at least to me, be a monumental violation of the Second Amendment's guarantees. I would also presume that, in the event of ratification, there would be a suit filed with the Supreme Court almost immediately.

Not to mention that such a treaty and its provision would be a violation of quite a few states' constitutions. I know Alabama's Constitution states very clearly that the citizens' right to keep and bear arms, being necessary for the defense of self and state, shall not be infringed. I would suspect that many of these states attorney generals would have to be prodded by the citizenry, but, since it is an elected position, they could not, if they want to be re-elected, ignore the screams of outrage.

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conspiracy theorist, but would any of you hazard a guess as to how long it would take before the UN decided to send foreign troops here to "enforce" that treaty?

Actually, it would be illegal for a president or senate to enter into such a treaty and such a treaty would have no power in law in this nation. The reason is the oath of office taken by these representatives chains them to the constitution. So if they attempt to enter into a treaty which is in violation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, they are in violation of the law and furthermore could be charge with high crimes and treason. The Constitution keeps them from doing anything more than thinking about such a treaty.

For example, I would wager most all Americans would be aghast if the president and the senate entered into a treaty which mandated that foreign born Americans were now eligible for the office of president. Or that periodic and unannounced inspections of citizens' home were to be conducted by local and/or federal authorities for firearms and contraband. I don't think that anyone on this website or just about anywhere else would entertain something this and would consider such a treaty completely illegal and unenforceable. So why on earth would controlling small arms be any different?

Now, am I foolish enough to believe that they won't try something like this because our hallowed documents prevent it? Of course not. But then again, these documents also give the states the authority and power to ignore any such treaty for the simple fact of its illegality. If a president and senate enter into a treaty which, in any way, violates the Constitution, that treaty is automatically null and void. Could be very interesting.

President's oath of office;
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (so help me God is added at the end as tradition)

Redbaron007 · Oct 7, 2011

SouthernBoy said:
Actually, it would be illegal for a president or senate to enter into such a treaty and such a treaty would have no power in law in this nation. The reason is the oath of office taken by these representatives chains them to the constitution. So if they attempt to enter into a treaty which is in violation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, they are in violation of the law and furthermore could be charge with high crimes and treason. The Constitution keeps them from doing anything more than thinking about such a treaty.

For example, I would wager most all Americans would be aghast if the president and the senate entered into a treaty which mandated that foreign born Americans were now eligible for the office of president. Or that periodic and unannounced inspections of citizens' home were to be conducted by local and/or federal authorities for firearms and contraband. I don't think that anyone on this website or just about anywhere else would entertain something this and would consider such a treaty completely illegal and unenforceable. So why on earth would controlling small arms be any different?

Now, am I foolish enough to believe that they won't try something like this because our hallowed documents prevent it? Of course not. But then again, these documents also give the states the authority and power to ignore any such treaty for the simple fact of its illegality. If a president and senate enter into a treaty which, in any way, violates the Constitution, that treaty is automatically null and void. Could be very interesting.

President's oath of office;
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (so help me God is added at the end as tradition)

So true....you are right....although it would be unconstitutional for them to sign it, their interpretation may be rationalized it isn't...but regardless, it would go through the courts to ultimately come to that conclusion, taking possibly years to bring to an end. Hopefully, an injunction would prevent any implementation during the legal process.

Daylen · Oct 7, 2011

Are we being trolled? UN joke ban? again? really?

DrakeZ07 · Oct 9, 2011

Wolfgang1952 said:
Well what you expect from a bunch of socialist in the BLACK HOUSE and the UN. It’ been coming for a long time now. The Lefties just might there way this time, if we on the RIGHT are not carful.

Pardon me, good sir; but I'm what some would consider a "lefty", and I don't appreciate the thought process that only right-wing party members would own firearms, and oppose such a treaty; while Left-wing party members would welcome it, and shun firearms. In short, I take offense to your ignorant comment. Or am I the only 2A supporter, Firearm owning, Democrat OC'er on these boards? if So, then please ignore my post, and continue about with the willful grouping of peoples based on stereotypes. Yes, because that worked SO well with the Nazi's, and the Committee on Un-American Affairs.

To prove my point further. Let the U.N. send troops to enforce a law. Assuming our military doesn't step in, I'm sure the roughly tens of millions of Americans who own firearms and are willing to defend that right, would be MORE than happy to give them a headache in doing so. But of course, nothing helps a headache like a 180grain aspirin. ;-)

Daylen · Oct 10, 2011

DrakeZ07 said:
... Or am I the only 2A supporter, Firearm owning, Democrat OC'er on these boards?)...

Are you? I ask because there are many people, even Republicans, who claim such things yet when asked about details fail to hold up to their claims. So do you truly want all federal firearms laws repealed other than the interstate travel protection? So do you really want it to be possible to buy a Thompson sub-machinegun at a local hardware store or through mail order as one could before 34', with no federal involvement or taxes? Or for individuals to be able to make lightning links, machineguns, and whatever else they care to and sell such things without getting federal permission? If so then you might be the only one. Owning guns, using permission slips and hunting do not by themselves a 2A supporter make, as I hope you know.

ALERT: Small Arms Treaty of 2012

Trent91

Regular Member

Wolfgang1952

Regular Member

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Trent91

Regular Member

Redbaron007

Regular Member

SFCRetired

Regular Member

Redbaron007

Regular Member

SouthernBoy

Regular Member

Redbaron007

Regular Member

Daylen

Regular Member

DrakeZ07

Regular Member

Daylen

Regular Member