• 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.

SAF REPORT LIVE FROM THE UN, 7/21/2010, from Julianne Versnel, Director of Operations

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=333

SAF Versnel said:
There appears little doubt that some sort of treaty will be adopted by 2014, if not by 2012. It is anticipated that the final treaty will attempt to register all firearms, require micro-stamping, destruction of surplus ammunition on a very set schedule, registration of all firearms and restriction on any transfer of arms including between private individuals and many other restrictions. If the United States is a signatory and this is ratified by the U.S. Senate, this UN treaty would be the law. On October 30, 2009, UN members voted in favor of an ATT. The United States voted in favor of an ATT.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
We might be led to think it would become the law of the land however, there is one small fly in the mix. The Bill of Rights. The Constitution lays down the design of the form of government we are to have and specifically describes those things which the government is allowed to do. Amendments to the Constitution have "refined" these descriptions over the years. However, the Bill of Rights is a different matter and is therefore separate from the Constitution because it outlines those rights which government shall never infringe and leaves open to the states and the people other rights not so outlined. So a treaty can be signed and whatever can be proposed. But the Second Amendment cannot be rescinded accept through the vehicle of rebellion. it is cast in stone just like the other nine Articles of the Bill of Rights.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
COTUS, Article Six

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.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
Just Ain't Gonna Happen

w/o 67 votes in the US Senate, and "consensus" from the Administration.

which means it just ain't gonna happen!
 

sudden valley gunner

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

Treaties do not superced U.S. Constitution only "state" constitutions.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Treaties do not superced U.S. Constitution only "state" constitutions.

Wow. I can see where that phrase could be interpreted against either the federal or State constitutions. However, your interpretation is the one I would say is correct according to a plain reading. Your interpretation is also the logical one. It makes no sense that the Founders would've allowed a treaty to override enumerated rights.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
We might be led to think it would become the law of the land however, there is one small fly in the mix. The Bill of Rights. The Constitution lays down the design of the form of government we are to have and specifically describes those things which the government is allowed to do.


Yeah, that will stop them...

I have just two words for you folks who actually still believe that the "Rule of Law" has ANY weight whatsoever with regards to the legislative process:

Patriot Act

Warrantless wiretaps. NSA sig-int hardware mandated in all telephone company Central Offices on the main trunks. "Extraordinary rendition". No-knock warrants. No-fly lists. "Secret" detainments.

The Constitution is considered to be a mildly annoying "speed bump" to these people. They pay VERY crafty lawyers VERY hefty salaries to find "alternate routes" around those annoying little barriers called "fundamental human rights." To them, its just a game, and YOU are merely pawns on a board.

And until the American People realize that even as pawns, we outnumber them 8-to-1 (metaphorically... Actually, it's more like 4 million to 1), thus it shall ever be...
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Yeah, that will stop them...

You're right and I know this. And that was one of my (hidden) points. We have these rights and the government has its limitations and boundaries. However, over the past 150+ years, and particularly in the last century, our Founding documents have been cast more and more aside as so much drivel.

However, just because our government has chosen to disregard its trust does not mean our power has died. The shame of it all is that whole generations have grown up believing what we have come to see in present America. Those of us who have lived long enough to have seen a different nation have a little more history on our side. I am not going to hold my breath and close my eyes in hopes that all will change for the better soon. But there does seem to be a ground swell at work. More people are starting to pay attention to our Founding documents, but is it enough? Not yet.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
"in pursuance of..." translates to IN ACCORDANCE WITH .

The framers of the U.S. Constitution did not intend for the foundational document for this nation's existence to be subject to, amended by , or nullified by any treaty .

SIGNED, RATIFIED - still not the law of this land if not in accord with the U.S. Constitution.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
Not the law of the land, but...

"in pursuance of..." translates to IN ACCORDANCE WITH .

The framers of the U.S. Constitution did not intend for the foundational document for this nation's existence to be subject to, amended by , or nullified by any treaty .

SIGNED, RATIFIED - still not the law of this land if not in accord with the U.S. Constitution.
It seems like anyone who actually signed a treaty that violates the 2nd amendment so grievously should be charged with a crime.

Even if it has no effect in the US, they are signing a document that will help to remove foreign peoples natural right to self defense, and bearing arms.
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
It seems like anyone who actually signed a treaty that violates the 2nd amendment so grievously should be charged with a crime.

Even if it has no effect in the US, they are signing a document that will help to remove foreign peoples natural right to self defense, and bearing arms.

Charge them with treason. It's what that action would be.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Charge them with treason. It's what that action would be.

Taking an action that is later judged to be unconstitutional is not treason. If it were, just about every member of Congress, president, governor, state legislator, etc. is guilty of treason.

They aren't.

If a president signs an unconstitutional treaty and the Senate ratifies it, then it will be up to the Supreme Court to invalidate all or part of it. Establishing criminality in the signing and ratifying would (and should) be an impossibly high hill to climb.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Even if it has no effect in the US, they are signing a document that will help to remove foreign peoples natural right to self defense, and bearing arms.

That is a good point. One that should hold just as much weight as the arguement that this treaty violates our rights. We know what leftist regimes have done all over the world, so even if our RKBA is not compromised by this atrocity, it still empowers the global marxist agenda.


YOU are merely pawns on a board.

No, WE ARE THE BOARD.
 
Last edited:
Top