UN Treaty?

Printable View

03-30-2013, 17:10
Richard K

UN Treaty?

Sent to my wife.

http://jury.activehosted.com/index.p...c4183e6910.475
03-30-2013, 18:33
Kraven251

It already died due to an amendment that passed in the Senate.
03-30-2013, 18:55
brokenscout

Just saw this
03-30-2013, 18:57
brokenscout

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...eaty%22&st=&ps=
03-30-2013, 22:13
Richard K

Quote:

Originally Posted by kraven251

It already died due to an amendment that passed in the Senate.

The email appeared to be current and alluded to action next week by Obama and the senate. Can you post a source for this ammendment? I'm sure others are as concerned as I am.
03-30-2013, 23:03
Kraven251

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/us...-trade-treaty/
03-30-2013, 23:26
Richard K

Quote:

Originally Posted by kraven251

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/us...-trade-treaty/

Thank you!
03-31-2013, 09:38
Random

Quote:

Originally Posted by kraven251

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/us...-trade-treaty/

Well. Treaties have no legal status unless the Senate "ratifies" it, which means they pass laws to make the terms of the treaty the law of the land. Those laws are still subject to constitutional precedence, which is a long way of saying the constitution still trumps treaties. There's actually some case law for this.

That doesn't mean our elected officials don't ignore the constitution any time it is convenient to do so, but up until some bright person submits an amendment to repeal the inconvenient bits or the SCOTUS decides to repeal them from the bench they will continue to exist inconveniently.

I do find it just this side of hilarious that the gun lobby is making arguments that the ACLU would otherwise approve under different circumstances, especially given "Card Carrying Liberal" was a catch phrase in a presidential election not so long ago to denigrate the candidate who was a member. I'm just too easily amused.
03-31-2013, 11:08
dwalker460

Said it in the other thread and I will say it again here-

Anyone who supports such a Treaty commits Treason against the United States Of America and it is every citizens duty to bring these traitors to justice. The punishment in this case is death.

Ratification of this treaty would bring about Civil War in this country.... again.
03-31-2013, 12:17
Richard K

It was my understanding that the senate OR the president could ratifiy or reject a treaty and if signed and no action was taken to reject it would become binding.
03-31-2013, 13:16
Richard K

Quote:

Originally Posted by KellyTTE

Constitution fundamentals:

The President may enter the United States into treaties, but they are not effective until ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

If we entered into the treaty, consider the loss of ALL eastern block (Priv, Wolf, Tula, etc), Korean (PMC) and asian (Paki, Indian) and other foreign ammo.

You think prices are bad now? You aint seen nothing yet.

Galaxy Note II + Tapatalk 2

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, ammo prices would soar but I am more concerned about mandatory registration and the potential for future confiscation of all firearms
03-31-2013, 20:54
Rooskibar03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard K

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, ammo prices would soar but I am more concerned about mandatory registration and the potential for future confiscation of all firearms

Yup.

Each country will be obligated to “maintain a national control list that shall include [rifles and handguns]” and "to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms.”
04-01-2013, 08:35
spqrzilla

As mentioned, Treaties that the executive has signed but the Senate has not ratified have no effect. Witness the Kyoto treaty that Clinton signed and never even presented to the Senate.

Also treaties cannot contradict the Constitution.
04-01-2013, 08:56
brokenscout

Nothing would surprise me anymore