Printable View
If anybody still had any doubts on this adminstration:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...n-to-block-it/
"Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement. "
Well now.....another treasonous act.
Another step on the path...
Sent from my electronic ball and chain.
DDSS.
Unfortunately 50% of this country are more concerned with their FSA goody bags, than what really matters. Another embassy attack, oh man that's..............WAIT MORE .GOV CHEESE IS AVAILABLE, YES!Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
When does the shooting start? I still need more ammo.
You only need enough to make it out of town. The FSA is too lazy to pursue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooskibar03
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
Well in that case I'm sitting better than I thought. Now I just need one of Patricks bug out vehicles.
Don't know when, but we're clearly one day closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooskibar03
Guys read Article 5 section 2.......
2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.
Sounds like registration to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinelement
Registration, licensing, full BG checks on every transfer from anyone to anyone. Cannot run the risk that a gun might get out of the country. Hmm, maybe they need to speak to the ATF, the state department, the CIA, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanWolf
Good thing it isn't getting through the Senate for a while. Expect there to be a cry every time gun control comes up from now until forever for us to ratify it though.
Fuggemall........
Well I woulda been pissed but seeing how my houseboat caught fire and sank with everything firearm related...
Really this is just positioning. Soon enough this will be something in the past that we agreed to do and the next time the outcry gets loud enough to warrant a knee jerk reaction it will get through. Where the hell does one person (ass hat kerry) get any kind of authority to sign anything? That should happen after it is approved and passed through the process. Then his stupid ass can sign away. There is something very wrong about the way that this is being attacked. It is easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission I guess.
Insert blue helmet .jpg here:
You don't think we will run into a Senate that will ratify it? Think again.
Backroom sweetheart deals, leverage, blackmail
Passing the ACA come to mind????
Here ya go, i figured we would be so much safer if the smurfs protected us from us so we won't gas us. I'm starting to think Rawles and a few other authors are spot on in their books, the smurfs are coming to a town near you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
I like this one.
Attachment 34411
It doesnt even have to be ratified.
BHO can enter into an "Agreement" with the UN.
Get your Berettas, HK's and Glocks now to mention just 3 foreign made firearms........
Has Germany, Italy or Austria ratified it? Are they planning to?
The US Gov is the largest arms dealer in the world. O may talk big about this but obeying it would curtail little things like arming our friends in their conflicts. (We'd just have to stop securing loads and let things fall off trucks)
That's exactly what I was thinking of.
If ... This were to be ratified and implemented, I don't see many of us going over to the local LE office and registering our firearms (at least those of that actually own firearms anymore). Would you go and register your guns? Not me. Didn't do it in CA and I will not do it here (that is, if I actually owned a firearm).
I'm kind of confused how this will pan out if Kerry signs it but the senate won't ratify it. Would the UN still have jurisdiction over guns here?
not at all.
not ratifying it = we do not agree to abide by this treaty
My favorite...Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Attachment 34445
Even if the Senate ratified the treaty, it would require legislation to pass to implement its requirements. This is Obama giving his gun control buddies a quick reacharound and not finishing the job.
After this last round of gun control laws in CO I've become more and more comfortable with the idea of not being a model law abiding citizen ... federal law ... international law ... same thing.
All they would have to do is round up 4473.Quote:
Originally Posted by wctriumph
And I know of a few FFL's that would have mysterious fires if it came to that......Quote:
Originally Posted by DavieD55
They're signing it now and letting Harry Reid raise a stink so he can keep his NRA rating then they'll backdoor approval through the Senate when everyone is asleep or distracted by something else like Miley Cyrus' next nude picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by merl
If there were a registry a gigantic black market would probably follow as a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
I read an article sometime ago that argued the problem with signing it is that it gives the executive branch a lot of power to implement it. Maybe the article was by John Lott, David Kopel or another gun rights activist. I could not find it. This is the closest I got.
As a sidebar, i heard a presentation by a law school professor on the basically the history of legal documents. A question about the Constitution came up and the argument was that the when compared to similar documents of the time period the Constitution looked like a charter (the royal trading companies) or a grant of power. I thought it was a great way to look at it as the people created the federal government. The federal government did not create our power. Also it is infuriating to think that the ruling class looks at it as if they don't have enough power and we are slaves!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...123095782.html
- April 14, 2013, 6:06 p.m. ET
Obama's United Nations Backdoor to Gun Control
Luckily, the Constitution gives the Senate exclusive power to ratify, or block, the Arms Trade Treaty.
By JOHN BOLTON AND JOHN YOO
Even before his most ambitious gun-control proposals were falling by the wayside, President Obama was turning for help to the United Nations. On April 2, the United States led 154 nations to approve the Arms Trade Treaty in the U.N. General Assembly. While much of the treaty governs the international sale of conventional weapons, its regulation of small arms would provide American gun-control advocates with a new tool for restricting rights. Yet because the Constitution requires that two-thirds of the Senate give its advice and consent to any treaty, Second Amendment supporters still have a political route to stop the administration.
Like many international schemes, this treaty has seemingly benign motives. It seeks to "eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market," where they are used in civil wars and human-rights disasters. The treaty calls for rigorous export controls on heavy conventional weapons, such as tanks, missiles, artillery, helicopters and warships.
Yet, as with many utopian devices, the treaty fails the test of enforcement. Some of the world's largest arms traffickers either voted against the agreement or abstained. The U.S., quite rightly, already has the world's most serious export controls in place, while nations such as North Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia and China will continue to traffic in arms with abandon.
But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10 requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for"recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense.
Gun-control advocates will use these provisions to argue that the U.S. must enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails. As the Supreme Court's Heller andMcDonald cases recently declared, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right "to keep and bear Arms" such as handguns and rifles. Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce remains broad, but the court's decisions in other cases—even last year's challenge to the Affordable Care Act—remind us that those powers are limited.
International treaties don't suffer these limits. The Constitution establishes treaties in Article II (which sets out the president's executive powers), rather than in Article I (which defines the legislature's authority)—so treaties therefore aren't textually subject to the limits on Congress's power. Treaties still receive the force of law under the Supremacy Clause, which declares that "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."
Some have argued over the years that this difference in language between laws and treaties allows the latter to sweep more broadly than the former. In Missouri v. Holland (1920), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes followed this logic to declare that no "invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment" applies to the Treaty Power. Congress could win greater favor from the courts for gun-control measures, or President Obama could issue executive orders for a gun registry and background checks, on the claim that he is implementing the treaty.
Missouri read the treaty power broadly under the Supremacy Clause at a time when the courts gave Congress's powers short shrift, but the decision was fundamentally mistaken. The Supremacy Clause referred to treaties "made under the Authority of the United States" not to expand their scope—but to grandfather in existing agreements such as the Peace Treaty with Great Britain. In Reid v. Covert (1957), a plurality of justices agreed that the treaty power could not undermine the Bill of Rights, rightly trying to close the huge loophole that Missouri had erroneously opened.
The attempt to advance gun control through the Arms Trade Treaty might surprise average Americans, but not liberals, who have been long frustrated by the Constitution's limits on government. Gun-control statutes, like any others, have to survive both the House and the Senate, then win presidential approval. It is far easier to advance an agenda through treaties, unwritten international law and even "norms" delivered by an amorphous "international community."
Opponents of capital punishment have used treaties to press the Supreme Court to stop the death penalty in Texas. Women's rights groups advocate an international convention that would achieve the goals of the failed Equal Rights Amendment. And supporters of bans on "hate speech" invoke international norms to defeat First Amendment objections. There also is an international legal doctrine that during the period when a country has signed but not yet ratified a treaty, it must take no measures that defeat the treaty's object and purposes. Under some liberal theories, this would allow the president to put some measures of the new arms treaty into effect by executive order.
Fortunately the Framers required that the president submit all significant international agreements to the Senate, which must consent to the treaty with the same supermajority needed to send a constitutional amendment to the states or to override an executive veto.
The Senate should block this latest effort to evade the Constitution's controls on federal power. There could be no greater justification for senators to exercise their veto over treaties than the cause of protecting the individual liberties of Americans—including the right to bear arms.
Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a scholar at AEI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Link to the first one ;)
These motherfuckers will sign all over that shit just like they betrayed us on obamacare!!! They will be first.
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) John Cornyn (R-TX)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John Barrasso (R-WY) John Hoeven (R-ND)
Roy Blunt (R-MO) Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
John Boozman (R-AR) Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Richard Burr (R-NC) Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Jeff Chiesa (R-NJ) John McCain (R-AZ)
Dan Coats (R-IN) Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Tom Coburn (R-OK) Lisa Murkowksi (R-AK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS) John Thune (R-SD)
Susan Collins (R-ME) Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Except that whenever the UN wants something enforced, they beg the USA to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by two shoes
"uhh...PLEASE go police yourselves?"
Could be what BHO and friends need to be able to use our own military to gun grab for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski