UN Small Arms Treaty

[mauserme]

Kurt: The Const. does not say copyrights last 14 yrs., I have no idea where you've got that idea from. I do agree that copyright protection is a bit extreme, but if one isn't willing to spend a few million lobbying Congress, one has little recourse when the laws don't turn out to one's liking.

 

If one is afraid that a U.N. treaty will change the Const., then one should be afraid. Be very, very afraid. The rest of us know that the Const. can only be changed in 3 ways; A Constitutional Convention can be called (never happened), the Const. can be amended (not an easy process), or SCOTUS can re-interpret the document (judicial activism).

 

Please understand there is a judicial doctrine called "stare decisis" (Latin for "let the decision stand") which gives continuity to the law. It has been found useful several hundred years ago in the English courts. We thought it a good idea so we adopted it since it seems to work. Also understand that the Heller & McDonald decisions were acts of judicial activism, it changed 220+ years of const. understanding (& I'm good with that). Sometimes judical activism is a good thing.

 

There are presently 2 Justices on SCOTUS who are on record as saying they do not feel bound by precedent (will ignore the doctrine of stare decisis). Both are extreme right-wingers; Scalia & Thomas. Most SCOTUS Justices take their positions very seriously and don't like to make sweeping changes in the law. I'd imagine that even if a member of the right on SCOTUS were to be replaced with an uber-liberal tomorrow, that the Heller & McDonald decisions would still stand. The 2A may not get expanded, but I'd doubt they'd get over-turned. There simply wouldn't be 5 votes to do it. Justices often won't vote to overturn a law they disagree with so as to maintain continuity in the law.

 

I say the above as I believe it to be true. I've spent a few years studying the judicial history of SCOTUS decisions & the Const. I've read quite a few SCOTUS decisions in the process. I realize that a bit of in-depth knowledge of a subject is no match for those with an opinion based upon emotion/belief. Only the future knows for sure.

 

I've read through this thread again and I just don't see any expressions of fear that the UN ATT will change the Constitution. The fear most commonly expressed is that it will give pepole who have no love for guns or gun owners an excuse to further infringe our rights via disregard for, or unique interpretations of, the Constitution.

 

Some would argue that no new control control laws can be passed because the President lacks the votes, expecially in the House. Others have said that this is exactly the reason solutions our being sought outside our borders. Former Ambassdor to the United Nations, for example, said :

 

... after the treaty is approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms.

Bolton explains that “the administration knows that it cannot obtain this kind of legislation in purely a domestic context. They will use an international agreement to get domestically what they couldn’t get otherwise.

 

I'm not sure if Mr. Bolton has read the same opinions as you, but his experience as Ambassador cannot be questioned. I will grant that he might be wrong but, if wrong, we should then ask ourselves if a sitting president would be able to impose requirements contained in a treaty with no input from Congress, similar to President Obama's unilateral imposition of a requirement to regster long gun sales in the states bordering Mexico.

 

 

Looking at fact rather than conjecture, we know Mr. Obama cast some anti-gun votes while in the Senate. For example, SB2165, now known as the Hale Demar Law, passed on a vote of 38/20. Mr. Obama was one of the No votes initially and again during the vote to override the governor's veto.

 

 

Again, looking at fact, we know that law such as the so called Clinton Gun Ban can prevail without SCOTUS involvement and, freedom loving people might say, without regard to the Constitution. In fairness I will point out the the Clinton Gun Ban was a law whereby a definition of a class of firearms and firearrm accessories was concocted for the sole purpose of banning the sale of those items under Secrtery of State Hillary Clinton's husband. Ms. Clinton, however, was quite enamoured of the ban and she is the one responsible for currently barring M1 sales to collectors. I will also point out that many members of the President's poliital party continue to defend and, in some cases expand, these sorts of bans in places like Cook County and all of California. Circumstantial? Perhaps - but he chooses the people with whom he associates.

 

 

We also know that Attorney Genreal Eric Holder told Congress

 

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."

 

 

 

Since we can't read the text of the UN ATT, let's look factually at some of the wording contained in a treaty we can read - a treaty the President has proposed we ratify.

 

CIFTA reads, in part (with emphasis added):

 

"For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply:

 

1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

 

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

 

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

 

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing."

 

 

 

"1. States Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

 

2. Subject to the respective constitutional principles and basic concepts of the legal systems of the States Parties, the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses."

 

 

 

1. States Parties undertake to confiscate or forfeit firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials that have been illicitly manufactured or trafficked.

 

2. States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.

 

 

There is more, but even these brief quotes illustrate the implications for reloaders and persons wishing to buld a rifle.

 

 

Now, my question is three fold.

 

> If the President is in favor of ratifying this treaty with these provisions, why would he not be in favor of similar provosions in ATT?

 

> The wording "subject to the respective constituional principles..." will be interpreted and enforced by who's standards?

 

> If the standard is by the Heller decision, then will that standard be the interpretation so strongly promoted by members of the President's own party - that of possession of a hand gun only within one's home?

 

 

 

Bel, you and I disagree on most things but we always manage to respect each other. That will not change here.

 

I don't know how you reconcile some of these actions with respect for the Second Amendment but I will do my best to accept that you do. I, however, will continue to see these actions as reason for scepticism which I believe to part of a healty political system.

[Blade13]

In case you wanted to hear what the NRA said to the UN about the treaty:

[belercous]

Mauser: John Bolton is not to be taken seriously, the guy's a nut. Nobody outside of the extreme right-wing in the USA takes this joker seriously. His "experience" has been questioned world-wide, the guy's an ideolouge, he's not a serious policy wonk.

 

Looking at Obama's votes as a Senator is not the same as looking as his job as POTUS. 2 different jobs, 2 different constituencies. Obama's votes as a Senator mean nothing, for the previously stated reason. The better question to ask is: "what bills are likely to cross his desk?" POTUS doesn't get to make laws. In re; the Clinton gun laws, if Congress didn't want POTUS to set the rules, why did they grant him the power to do so? Congress abrogated their authority. Why for was this?

 

My answers to your posited questions, in order, are:

 

1. Q: "If the President is in favor of ratifying this treaty with these provisions, why would he not be in favor of similar provosions in ATT?"

A: Who cares what POTUS is in favor or not in favor of? He can't change the law, much less the Constitution. The next Pres. can change any executive order enacted. So what's the issue? American firearms manufacturers can't keep up with domestic orders the way it is.

 

2. Quote: The wording "subject to the respective constituional principles..." will be interpreted and enforced by who's standards? Unquote. Answer: SCOTUS, same as we've been doing since 1801. (Marbury v. Madison pretty well settled this question)

 

3. Q: "If the standard is by the Heller decision, then will that standard be the interpretation so strongly promoted by members of the President's own party - that of posession of a hand gun only within one's home?

[belercous]

Didn't get to edit in time so here's my revised post:

 

 

Mauser: John Bolton is not to be taken seriously, the guy's a nut. Nobody outside of the extreme right-wing in the USA takes this joker seriously. His "experience" has been questioned world-wide, the guy's an ideolouge, he's not a serious policy wonk.

 

Looking at Obama's votes as a Senator is not the same as looking as his job as POTUS. 2 different jobs, 2 different constituencies. Obama's votes as a Senator mean nothing, for the previously stated reason. The better question to ask is: "what bills are likely to cross his desk?" POTUS doesn't get to make laws. In re; the Clinton gun laws, if Congress didn't want POTUS to set the rules, why did they grant him the power to do so? Congress abrogated their authority. Why for was this?

 

My answers to your posited questions, in order, are:

 

1. Q: "If the President is in favor of ratifying this treaty with these provisions, why would he not be in favor of similar provosions in ATT?"

A: Who cares what POTUS is in favor or not in favor of? He can't change the law, much less the Constitution. The next Pres. can change any executive order enacted. So what's the issue? American firearms manufacturers can't keep up with domestic orders the way it is.

 

2. Quote: The wording "subject to the respective constituional principles..." will be interpreted and enforced by who's standards? Unquote. Answer: SCOTUS, same as we've been doing since 1801. (Marbury v. Madison pretty well settled this question)

 

3. Q: "If the standard is by the Heller decision, then will that standard be the interpretation so strongly promoted by members of the President's own party - that of posession of a hand gun only within one's home?"

A: The scope of the law/Const. set down by the Court cannot be infringed/compromised. Any Admin. is bound by any/every SCOTUS decision.

 

Mauser: no disrespect on my end intended, to be sure. I can tell you that from my original reseach of the 2A, that the meaning/intent of it has changed from 1791. Mostly due to the 14A which "incorporated" the B.O.R. to the states, lately to have the 2A been incorporated. We can get into "original intent" if you'd like, but the facts won't be with your view. OPen a new thread if you'd like.

 

Debate is healthy for our political system. That's how it works. We call it the 1A.

 

(this post was edited because I'm 5/4 drunk & hit the wrong button prematurely)

 

Sent from my WabbaTalk 3000 using TheromoNuclear technology via a small wombat.

[borgranta]

Alex jones said that the obama is planning on signing the un small arms treaty which would force all us citizens to register all their guns which would make it easy for Obama to cofiscate all guns

[TyGuy]

While the small arms treaty is a real threat I wouldn't worry too much about what AJ says. *putting on my asbestos suit for the flames to come*

[mauserme]

Didn't get to edit in time so here's my revised post:

 

 

Mauser: John Bolton is not to be taken seriously, the guy's a nut. Nobody outside of the extreme right-wing in the USA takes this joker seriously. His "experience" has been questioned world-wide, the guy's an ideolouge, he's not a serious policy wonk.

 

Looking at Obama's votes as a Senator is not the same as looking as his job as POTUS. 2 different jobs, 2 different constituencies. Obama's votes as a Senator mean nothing, for the previously stated reason. The better question to ask is: "what bills are likely to cross his desk?" POTUS doesn't get to make laws. In re; the Clinton gun laws, if Congress didn't want POTUS to set the rules, why did they grant him the power to do so? Congress abrogated their authority. Why for was this?

 

My answers to your posited questions, in order, are:

 

1. Q: "If the President is in favor of ratifying this treaty with these provisions, why would he not be in favor of similar provosions in ATT?"

A: Who cares what POTUS is in favor or not in favor of? He can't change the law, much less the Constitution. The next Pres. can change any executive order enacted. So what's the issue? American firearms manufacturers can't keep up with domestic orders the way it is.

 

2. Quote: The wording "subject to the respective constituional principles..." will be interpreted and enforced by who's standards? Unquote. Answer: SCOTUS, same as we've been doing since 1801. (Marbury v. Madison pretty well settled this question)

 

3. Q: "If the standard is by the Heller decision, then will that standard be the interpretation so strongly promoted by members of the President's own party - that of posession of a hand gun only within one's home?"

A: The scope of the law/Const. set down by the Court cannot be infringed/compromised. Any Admin. is bound by any/every SCOTUS decision.

 

Mauser: no disrespect on my end intended, to be sure. I can tell you that from my original reseach of the 2A, that the meaning/intent of it has changed from 1791. Mostly due to the 14A which "incorporated" the B.O.R. to the states, lately to have the 2A been incorporated. We can get into "original intent" if you'd like, but the facts won't be with your view. OPen a new thread if you'd like.

 

Debate is healthy for our political system. That's how it works. We call it the 1A.

 

(this post was edited because I'm 5/4 drunk & hit the wrong button prematurely)

 

Sent from my WabbaTalk 3000 using TheromoNuclear technology via a small wombat.

 

I see your points.

 

John Bolton "is not to be taken seriously" because his ideology differs from the ideology of those promoting the treaty.

 

We are to ignore defining actions in a person's career in favor of political statements that stand in stark contrast to those actions.

 

Yes, I see your points though, predictably, I don't agree with them.

 

We do agree that debate is a healthy part of the process though your application of the First Amendment against a privately held web site seems misplaced.

 

 

 

 

Of most interest, though, are the statements you so often make about original intent. It almost seems you are saying that our rights exist only as a grant by courts who got it all wrong.

 

Since you seem to have so much insight into the administration it does make me wonder if that's somehow predictive of the next steps in the process.

[ishmo]

While the small arms treaty is a real threat I wouldn't worry too much about what AJ says. *putting on my asbestos suit for the flames to come*

I think the UN's ATT is a lot more of a threat than a lot of allegedly smart people understand or are willing to admit.

[snubjob]

While the small arms treaty is a real threat I wouldn't worry too much about what AJ says. *putting on my asbestos suit for the flames to come*

I think the UN's ATT is a lot more of a threat than a lot of allegedly smart people understand or are willing to admit.

Me too.

[borgranta]

Troops ordered to kill all Americans that do not turn in guns

http://youtu.be/FyfkQkchlu4

[Molly B.]

Folks, let's be kind and informative in reply to this post.

[billzfx4]

Where is that ignore button?

[Blade13]

http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/12086-un-arms-transfer-treaty-att-on-small-arms-gun-grab-gradualism

 

@borgranta Great video

[TomKoz]

@ borgranta: scary video. scary times. FUBAR

[Mr. Fife]

20 ILCS 3305/7(a)(9)

(a) In the event of a disaster, as defined in Section 4, the Governor (Quinn) may, by proclamation declare that a disaster exists. Upon such proclamation, the Governor (Quinn) shall have and may exercise for a period not to exceed 30 days the following emergency powers; provided, however, that the lapse of the emergency powers shall not, as regards any act or acts occurring or committed within the 30 days period, deprive any person, firm, corporation, political subdivision, or body politic of any right or rights to compensation or reimbursement which he, she, it, or they may have under the provisions of this Act:

(9) To suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles.

[anonymous too]

After Katrina there was a federal law passed that if a state receives federal disaster funds for a declared disaster event, firearms rights cannot be suspended, firearms can't be confiscated, etc.

 

We'll just see how that works after the next Katrina type event happens.

[TyGuy]

I wasn't saying that the UN treaty isn't something to be worried about, but rather that I don't put much stock into what AJ says. I'm currently telling my other shooter friends about the UN treaty. Many already know about it, but some don't.

[kurt555gs]

I think the UN Small Arms treaty is something to be worried about. The globalist's care nothing for the 2nd amendment. Actually the State of Illinois doesn't either. Don't think for one minute "they" won't come for your guns. You may be allowed to keep bolt action rifles of small caliber, revolvers, and some automatic pistols with 10 round magazines most likely.

[TFC]

After Katrina there was a federal law passed that if a state receives federal disaster funds for a declared disaster event, firearms rights cannot be suspended, firearms can't be confiscated, etc.

 

We'll just see how that works after the next Katrina type event happens.

 

Problem is we are stuck with officials who won't obey the law. We see this in Illinois right now.

Unless they're willing to lock a few local officials in federal prison, these laws are just so much more paper.

[borgranta]

I realised that if they sign it the treaty the majority of the states if not all of the them could threaten to secede from the union to preserve their rights and to not become enslaved by the un and form a new government and not to be forced to disarm the police as well as private citizens and rely on un armed forces to not rape and murder everybody that is disarmed. America has not been invaded because of the gun rights that ensured thar everyone that did so would die

[anonymous too]

Problem is we are stuck with officials who won't obey the law.

 

Well......if society breaks down on a much larger scale than Katrina............you guys do the math.

[miztic]

I think the UN Small Arms treaty is something to be worried about. The globalist's care nothing for the 2nd amendment. Actually the State of Illinois doesn't either. Don't think for one minute "they" won't come for your guns. You may be allowed to keep bolt action rifles of small caliber, revolvers, and some automatic pistols with 10 round magazines most likely.

 

That's what they thought in the UK and Australia, and next thing you know, they came for those guns too and now they have nothing, I saw this on Calguns yesterday:

[anonymous too]

26 NEW CO-SPONSORS TO 2A PROTECTION ACT

IS ‘GOOD NEWS,’ SAYS CCRKBA

 

 

BELLEVUE, WA – Twenty-six more members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors to the Second Amendment Protection Act, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms announced today.

 

“This is good news,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “With a vote looming on the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, this sends a clear message to the Obama administration that the president will face real trouble if he or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signs any document that threatens our constitutionally-protected individual right to keep and bear arms.”

 

Sponsored by Illinois Republican Congressman Joe Walsh, H.R. 3594 was written with help from CCRKBA staff, Gottlieb noted. It now has 60 co-sponsors, and has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. CCRKBA has been urging members and supporters to contact Congress and demand action on this bill.

 

“The U.N. is scheduled to vote on the proposed treaty next week,” Gottlieb said. “Right now they are pushing to include small arms and ammunition, and because the Devil is always in the details, when they finally hammer out a document that the Obama administration has already indicated it will sign, this could be extremely bad for American gun owners.

 

“Fortunately, Congressman Walsh had the foresight to understand this,” he continued, “so he introduced this legislation to protect Second Amendment sovereignty. We want the United Nations gun grabbers, and the Obama administration to understand that they are treading in perilous waters if they adopt a treaty that even remotely threatens the firearms freedoms of our citizens.

 

“We are coming down to the wire on this treaty,” Gottlieb stated. “Our constitutional rights far outweigh the administration’s desire to push its ‘citizen-of-the-world’ philosophy down the throats of American gun owners. We want to see action on the Second Amendment Protection Act, and with 26 new co-sponsors, we are one step closer to achieving that goal.”

[borgranta]

The New Orleans police raped at least one women repeatedly after the massive gun confiscation during Katrina which disarmed everyone even in the high and dry mansions. The feminists need to fight for armed self defense rights to prevent rapes and murders of defenseless women

I have two different links that that prove it

http://www.alternet.org/katrina/26871/

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t900648/

[flagtag]

Did you forget that Obama has a bad habit of ignoring Congress (in this case the Senate)? Knowing him, he would probably just issue an Executive Order. (Since so many members [56 or 57] of the Senate - both parties - have sent him a letter saying they would not support it.)

Selling out our country = TREASON!!

(As far as I'm concerned)

 

 

Also, if the traitorous Dictator does sign this, I will sell my guns and at least get SOME money out of them rather than let the traitors STEAL them outright from me.

[soundguy]

The New Orleans police raped at least one women repeatedly after the massive gun confiscation during Katrina which disarmed everyone even in the high and dry mansions. The feminists need to fight for armed self defense rights to prevent rapes and murders of defenseless women

I have two different links that that prove it

http://www.alternet.org/katrina/26871/

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t900648/

 

I was there for six weeks starting the day before the hurricane. I saw lots of stuff. Dead people. Cops looting. Door to door searches. Guns confiscated. Heard about many horrible things, some of which were true. Never heard about cops repeatedly raping even one woman. We would have heard about such a thing...

[Talonap]

He has been spamming this board about this. Here is a list of posts from his public profile. Check out the first link especially - and the replies. Then hit your "Ignore" button.

 

Posts I've Made

 

 

 

 

 

In Topic: Moore/Shepard hearing - 7th Circuit

 

 

Yesterday, 09:07 AM

The New Orleans police raped at least one women repeatedly after the massive gun confiscation during Katrina which disarmed everyone even in the high and dry mansions. The feminists need to fight for armed self defense rights to prevent rapes and murders of defenseless women

I have two different links that that prove it

http://www.alternet.org/katrina/26871/

http://www. stormfron.../forum/t900648/

 

 

In Topic: What is your prefered carry weapon, ammo and holster choices and why?

 

 

Yesterday, 09:06 AM

The New Orleans police raped at least one women repeatedly after the massive gun confiscation during Katrina which disarmed everyone even in the high and dry mansions. The feminists need to fight for armed self defense rights to prevent rapes and murders of defenseless women

I have two different links that that prove it

http://www.alternet.org/katrina/26871/

http://www.stormfron.../forum/t900648/

 

 

In Topic: UN Small Arms Treaty

 

 

Yesterday, 09:06 AM

The New Orleans police raped at least one women repeatedly after the massive gun confiscation during Katrina which disarmed everyone even in the high and dry mansions. The feminists need to fight for armed self defense rights to prevent rapes and murders of defenseless women

I have two different links that that prove it

http://www.alternet.org/katrina/26871/

http://www.stormfron.../forum/t900648/

 

 

In Topic: Moore/Shepard hearing - 7th Circuit

 

 

Yesterday, 09:02 AM

 

Molly B., on 20 July 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

 

 

borgranta, on 20 July 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

 

 

borgranta, on 20 July 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

 

I heard abput a woman the was raped multiple times by the new orleans police after her gun was taken by the troops

The New Orleans police raped at least one women repeatedly after the massive gun confiscation during Katrina which disarmed everyone even in the high and dry mansions. The feminists need to fight for armed self defense rights to prevent rapes and murders of defenseless womenborg,

 

When posting about actual events, it is important to also post links to verify the facts. I can find no news accounts that this actually happened.

 

Thanks,

Molly B.

I have two different links that that prove ithttp://www.alternet.org/katrina/26871/http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t900648/

 

 

In Topic: Moore/Shepard hearing - 7th Circuit

 

 

Yesterday, 07:59 AM

 

borgranta, on 20 July 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

 

I heard abput a woman the was raped multiple times by the new orleans police after her gun was taken by the troops

The New Orleans police raped at least one women repeatedly after the massive gun confiscation during Katrina which disarmed everyone even in the high and dry mansions. The feminists need to fight for armed self defense rights to prevent rapes and murders of defenseless women

[Bud]

Better be careful!

 

He open carries a Desert Eagle in 50 Action Express in case of bears

[Molly B.]

He has been spamming this board about this. Here is a list of posts from his public profile. Check out the first link especially - and the replies. Then hit your "Ignore" button.

 

 

 

Yes, moderators have advised him about this. If he continues, further measures will be taken.

[Molly B.]

Better be careful!

 

He open carries a Desert Eagle in 50 Action Express in case of bears

 

He did not say he carries one, he said it is what he preferred.