122 Nation Gun Ban, Including The US, Effective This Christmas

[milwaukeeshaker]

Not ratified, no problem.

[spqrzilla]

This is the real question. The more that we see the pendulum swing to the extremes, the more likely that this statement will not hold. Because "A" president has signed it, means that the president at the time of a Senate ratifing it is not needed for this to become law unless the next "R" takes the Ok back (not even sure if he can). If this is true, it is a big threat to our future with guns.

Watch, Obama won't even bother to submit it to the Senate for ratification.

[wctriumph]

The problem is that the treaty has been signed. If the bad guys get control of the senate and the WH again, ratification could happen in an eye blink before anyone knows what happened. Don't forget that the bad guys do not operate in the light of day.

[Zundfolge]

The problem is that the treaty has been signed. If the bad guys get control of the senate and the WH again, ratification could happen in an eye blink before anyone knows what happened. Don't forget that the bad guys do not operate in the light of day.

This is my concern, is this treaty going to be a Sword of Damocles hanging over our head forever? Or is there a time limit by which the president's signature is void if its not ratified in a certain amount of time? Or is the treaty null and void if the Senate rejects it (note it hasn't rejected it, its just never been brought to them).

[Eric P]

How many votes does it take. Can Harry have a lame duck vote so most forget about it in 2 years?

[spqrzilla]

There are enough pro-gun Democrats that the treaty is not going to be ratified in a lame duck session.

[spqrzilla]

The problem is that the treaty has been signed. If the bad guys get control of the senate and the WH again, ratification could happen in an eye blink before anyone knows what happened. Don't forget that the bad guys do not operate in the light of day.

This really makes little sense. That combination has the same dangers to us it always had.

[Eric P]

So on the 1st day of the new Senate, would a negative vote kill the treaty forever as far as the US is concerned. Or can a subsequent Senate confirm a previously rejected treaty?

[HoneyBadger]

So on the 1st day of the new Senate, would a negative vote kill the treaty forever as far as the US is concerned. Or can a subsequent Senate confirm a previously rejected treaty?

I don't know if there is any precendent for it. I think a treaty could theoretically be voted on an infinite number of times.

[Eric P]

Can the next pro gun president unsign or withdraw the US from a treaty?

Sorry, I'm an engineer not a civics major.