Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre - Page 5

Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre

This is a discussion on Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Do I agree with the NRA 100% of the time ? No, but I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time. I'm fix'in to ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 90
Like Tree73Likes

Thread: Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre

  1. #61
    Member Array samh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Damascus, Arkansas
    Posts
    159
    Do I agree with the NRA 100% of the time ? No, but I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time. I'm fix'in to celebrate my 38th wedding anniversary in a couple of months and I don't agree with my wife any where near 100% of the time, but I ain't go'n to run her off because we don't agree on all things or because she snores, either. I do believe that without the NRA our gun rights would look a lot different today than they do and not for the better. I paid out my life membership $25 a quarter because back when I did it it was the only was I could afford it. I now give to them regularly and a much as I can. Heck, the fact that almost all the media and the left end of the political spectrum hates the NRA so bad is enough to make me want to support them.
    suntzu, DaveH, BigStick and 1 others like this.
    Annual Member NRA 1972-88
    Life Member NRA 1988
    Endowment Member NRA 2013
    SAF Member 2013


  2. #62
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Again, SCOTUS has ruled on this!!!!
    This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
    When somebody here shows me a law degree in constitutional law I will just have to trust the ruling already put down by SCOTUS. Can it change? sure, depending overtime and the make up of SCOTUS. But here is what ticks me off. NRA says something, folks want to beleive it is true becasue it is the NRA, they get on wikipedia and law dictionaries and lo and behold! Everybody is an expert. How come Mr LaPierre concvienetnly forgets to mention rulings by SCOTUS on this issue.FEAR
    Look at this a bit more closely.. Reid v. Covert You will find that it involves American citizens (Soldiers and Family Members) serving in other Countries where American Courts are not present and the whole case is based upon those Citizens being tried under the UCMJ in Military Tribunals.
    Reid v. Covert (No. 701, October Term, 1955)
    Judgment below in No. 701, October Term, 1955, affirmed. 137 F.Supp. 806, reversed and remanded.
    If you are not aware.. that implies that though the initial decision (1955) affirmed that the Military Court was correct and had authority to Courts Martial a Civilian outside of the Continental US while acting on US Military property, then the decision was reversed (1956) saying it was unconstitutional. However, it was re-reviewed in June 1957 and the Woman who had originally been convicted of Murder of her husband in England was remanded back to custody.
    Here is the comment by the final review.
    The majority held that the provisions of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments which require that crimes be tried by a jury after indictment by a grand jury did not protect an American citizen when he was tried by the American Government in foreign lands for offenses committed there, and that Congress could provide for the trial of such offenses in any manner it saw fit, so long as the procedures established were reasonable and consonant with due process. The opinion then went on to express the view that military trials, as now practiced, were not unreasonable or arbitrary when applied to dependents accompanying members of the armed forces overseas. In reaching their conclusion, the majority found it unnecessary to consider the power of Congress "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" under Article I of the Constitution.
    If you wish to present a cite that supports your argument, please select one that fully apples. I say that because in this case.. there was nothing involving a treaty as the murder was committed on US Military Property between Two US Citizens.. A Military Member and his dependent.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,932
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Look at this a bit more closely.. Reid v. Covert You will find that it involves American citizens (Soldiers and Family Members) serving in other Countries where American Courts are not present and the whole case is based upon those Citizens being tried under the UCMJ in Military Tribunals.

    If you are not aware.. that implies that though the initial decision (1955) affirmed that the Military Court was correct and had authority to Courts Martial a Civilian outside of the Continental US while acting on US Military property, then the decision was reversed (1956) saying it was unconstitutional. However, it was re-reviewed in June 1957 and the Woman who had originally been convicted of Murder of her husband in England was remanded back to custody.
    Here is the comment by the final review.

    If you wish to present a cite that supports your argument, please select one that fully apples. I say that because in this case.. there was nothing involving a treaty as the murder was committed on US Military Property between Two US Citizens.. A Military Member and his dependent.
    I am not a lawyer but everybody from the left and right I have seen that are the "experts" are in agreement that that case makes it crystal clear about it. It was written in the opinion: Besides, I am not here to debate the issue. The OP was asking about spin. So far I have you stating that treaties trump the constituiton when most folks I see from all parts of the political spectrum disagree with YOU
    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

    "... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
    "There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

    "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

    "In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

  4. #64
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I am not a lawyer but everybody from the left and right I have seen that are the "experts" are in agreement that that case makes it crystal clear about it. It was written in the opinion: Besides, I am not here to debate the issue. The OP was asking about spin. So far I have you stating that treaties trump the constituiton when most folks I see from all parts of the political spectrum disagree with YOU
    And all that I have talked with are why I believe the way I do. Maybe you should look at where you got your outdated cite.. and look at the source I used.

    I have been watching for the case of an acquaintance who was being a good samaritan and gave a stranded motorist a ride home on a very nasty and rainy night. After dropping his needy passenger off at the location he wanted to go to and driving off, he was stopped by DEA and other LEO's removed from his Car, arrested, booked and then he was released when he finally convinced them that he had done nothing wrong.. But because his needy passenger was known to be a drug dealer to the DEA & the LEO's and since his car was used as the conveyance of said drug dealer.. it was impounded and he had never gotten it or reasonable compensation for it. This clearly is a violation of our 4th and 5th Amendments and was due to a WAR ON DRUGS TREATY. The last I had heard, the Treaties clause of Article 2 Section 2 of our Constitution was being used to deny him his due compensation. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Here is a link to our 4th Amendment and if you read down you will be able to read the 5th as well. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; April 16th, 2012 at 09:57 PM. Reason: correct article 1 to article 2
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  5. #65
    Member Array keboostman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax Station Virginia
    Posts
    271
    Egotistical, fear-mongering jerk is Mr LaPierre. Were he and the NRA a little less strident and more understanding of the legitimate concerns of those in the middle (neither pros nor antis) the more likely the Second Amendment would be preserved. Most in this country distaste extremist organizations--and that is what the NRA is under present leadership.

  6. #66
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there.
    Posts
    1,302
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    I have not read the entire proposed treaty, but what I have read would prevent international sales of small arms to other than government bodies. At least from how I interpreted it. That would dramatically change the scope of the firearms market in the US. And while I am primarily concerned with my(our) rights, I don't like the idea of signing on to something that will violate the innaleanable rights of citizens of less enlightened, more oppressive countries.

    And as stated by someone else, it is still just a proposed treaty. But there are plenty of Non-Governmental Organizations(NGOs) as well as member States that would like nothing more than to destroy all guns in the hands of civilians across the globe. If we didn't voice our opposition and allowed them to have their way, the proposed treaty would do just that. I would rather squash the idea before it even gets on paper.

    And to answer your other question, yes. I would still give them the money even if they just presented the facts. But there are many who would not. And some of those flambouyant headlines will make people pick up a magazine and read, hopefully prompting them to do more research and educate themselves. Manipulation is not desired, but it can be very effective.

    We should give some thought to the disparity of force being applied to our rights.
    So you have not read the treaty? Can you post which parts are so dangerous? I am sure it would be great to backup your point. I am curious about what is so threatening about it and would love to find out what other gun owners are so afraid of. It is good that you are so against the violation of the innaleanable rights of citizens of other nations as I am. Perhaps we can meet at the next protest rally against the Afghanistan war and to close GITMO? And we can boycott Chinese goods together along with Japanese made goods and even most European goods?

    Which NGOs besides those US based ones are so willing to destroy private gun ownership worldwide? To use the words of the great Herman Cain, "I am unaware..." of which NGOs these are? I am sure you will be kind enough to inform us. It would be nice to find out more about the anti-gun organizations on an international level.

    Which flamboyant headlines are those which cause people to read seeking facts and not hyperbole and insane rhetoric?

  7. #67
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    So you have not read the treaty? Can you post which parts are so dangerous? I am sure it would be great to backup your point. I am curious about what is so threatening about it and would love to find out what other gun owners are so afraid of. It is good that you are so against the violation of the innaleanable rights of citizens of other nations as I am. Perhaps we can meet at the next protest rally against the Afghanistan war and to close GITMO? And we can boycott Chinese goods together along with Japanese made goods and even most European goods?

    Which NGOs besides those US based ones are so willing to destroy private gun ownership worldwide? To use the words of the great Herman Cain, "I am unaware..." of which NGOs these are? I am sure you will be kind enough to inform us. It would be nice to find out more about the anti-gun organizations on an international level.

    Which flamboyant headlines are those which cause people to read seeking facts and not hyperbole and insane rhetoric?
    The feelings I get when I read your reply are mixed. I feel like half of it is so soaked with sarcasm it is oozing, and the other half is like a child stamping their feet and saying nuh-uhh. But then at the same time, I think there might be an actual request for information. So I'm not sure exactly how to respond.

    I said I have read parts of the proposed treaty. Only parts because it is extensive, and proposed because it is not yet complete. And if you truly think that there are no other governments and NGOs in the world than those you are familiar with that want to take away civilians guns, then you are truly naive and foolish. And I take offense that you mock my support for peoples rights by throwing around issues that are both controvercial and polarizing, assuming that your beliefs about the issues is the only possible reasonable viewpoint.

    I have replied to each question actually trying to share thoughts and information, but I am done doing your homework for you. If you really care about these issues, do some more research on your own, ask probing intelligent questions, not blind generalized responses that indicate you don't care enough to look into it yourself. If you do, will attempt to respond in kind.
    phreddy likes this.
    Walk softly ...

  8. #68
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,723
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    And all that I have talked with are why I believe the way I do. Maybe you should look at where you got your outdated cite.. and look at the source I used.

    I have been watching for the case of an acquaintance who was being a good samaritan and gave a stranded motorist a ride home on a very nasty and rainy night. After dropping his needy passenger off at the location he wanted to go to and driving off, he was stopped by DEA and other LEO's removed from his Car, arrested, booked and then he was released when he finally convinced them that he had done nothing wrong.. But because his needy passenger was known to be a drug dealer to the DEA & the LEO's and since his car was used as the conveyance of said drug dealer.. it was impounded and he had never gotten it or reasonable compensation for it. This clearly is a violation of our 4th and 5th Amendments and was due to a WAR ON DRUGS TREATY. The last I had heard, the Treaties clause of Article 2 Section 2 of our Constitution was being used to deny him his due compensation. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Here is a link to our 4th Amendment and if you read down you will be able to read the 5th as well. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Instead of a link to the constitution, how about a link to the treaty you think they are claiming underpins what was done.
    Our own laws, not treaty, allow for civil forfeiture, and our own Supreme Court, has upheld civil forfeiture. Personally, I think it is
    wrong, but it has nothing to do with treaties.
    Toorop and Sig 210 like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #69
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by keboostman View Post
    Egotistical, fear-mongering jerk is Mr LaPierre. Were he and the NRA a little less strident and more understanding of the legitimate concerns of those in the middle (neither pros nor antis) the more likely the Second Amendment would be preserved. Most in this country distaste extremist organizations--and that is what the NRA is under present leadership.
    Boo...Hiss...Spit...
    Beans likes this.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,150
    Coming back late...

    1. Yes I know what the NRA does. I am a Life Member. I do not equate Eddie Eagle, safety lessons, etc. with "anti-violence efforts." All their programs are geared toward safety (preventing accidental violence) not purposeful violence.

    2. To those that think the SCOTUS will honor the Constitution: Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Egypt: US Constitution Not That Great - Ricochet.com

    Ginsburg to Egypt on writing a Constitution Feb 2012:

    You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
    This one statement should have been the basis for Impeachment. Alas, she's still there.
    phreddy likes this.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  11. #71
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Coming back late...

    1. Yes I know what the NRA does. I am a Life Member. I do not equate Eddie Eagle, safety lessons, etc. with "anti-violence efforts." All their programs are geared toward safety (preventing accidental violence) not purposeful violence.

    2. To those that think the SCOTUS will honor the Constitution: Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Egypt: US Constitution Not That Great - Ricochet.com

    Ginsburg to Egypt on writing a Constitution Feb 2012:
    You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
    This one statement should have been the basis for Impeachment. Alas, she's still there.
    I understand the point you are making. One thing that most do not realize that is a major difference between the US and S. Africa though.. The US is a Constitutional Republic of Several Sovereign States where the STATE of S. Africa is a singular democratic state that is more socialist than even those who call us a Democracy erroneously will admit. Please refer to Article 4 Section 4 of our US Constitution.
    The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array shockwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,050
    There are 2 NRAs. One is the freaky zealousness of LaPierre and his ilk. The other is hunting and safety advocacy. I belong to the NRA for its defense of the 2A and safety and training programs, which are second to none.

    If you want to be trained on safe handling and home defense concepts, an NRA instructor will be a good choice.
    "It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."

  13. #73
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Instead of a link to the constitution, how about a link to the treaty you think they are claiming underpins what was done.
    Our own laws, not treaty, allow for civil forfeiture, and our own Supreme Court, has upheld civil forfeiture. Personally, I think it is
    wrong, but it has nothing to do with treaties.
    Prior to the Treaties that started the War on Drugs.. if the police impounded something that belonged to you, they had to prove that you had intended to violate the laws while using that item or they had to return what they impounded in reasonably the same condition as they impounded it or pay for its replacement/repair. For the most part that is still the law, Except when it comes to anything involving Drugs. The Treaties creating the war on drugs changed all that. That is why the Feds and other LEO's can impound Homes, Cars, Boats and anything else found to be used in the direct trading of drugs

    It is taking me a bit longer to find the complete text of the treaties that were signed. I can find a listing where several treaties are mentioned as being anti-narcotic treaties like 100-8 but when you pull up the Treaty info it does not give the full text. It only says for Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and each of the six treaties were signed by the US and different nations.
    Here is a link to Treaty 100-8 .. U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
    Then there are:
    Treaty 100-13 U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
    Treaty 100-14 U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
    Treaty 100-16 U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
    Treaty 100-17 U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
    Treaty 100-18 U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  14. #74
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    I have finally found some of the Treaties text and for all of those that I cited above.. the language is basically the same..
    It says.
    Resolution: Text of Resolution of Adivce and Consent to Ratification as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations:
    Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of (whichever treaty it is dealing with) subject to the following understandings:
    (1) Nothing in this Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
    (2) The United States shall not consider this convention as the legal basis for extradition of citizens to any country with which the United States has no bilateral extradition treaty in force.
    (3) Pursuant to the rights of the United States under Article 7 of this treaty to deny requests which prejudice its essential interests, the United States shall deny a request for assistance when the designated authority, after consultation with all appropriate intelligence, anti-narcotic, and foreign policy agencies, has specific information that a senior government official who will have access to information to be provided under this treaty is engaged in or facilitates the production or distribution of illegal drugs.

    The impound I am aware of occured in the early 1990's so I am looking for a treaty prior to that date. The Treaties cited above were Ratified October 24, 1989.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  15. #75
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    I have finally found some of the Treaties text and for all of those that I cited above.. the language is basically the same~~snip
    Even in those, the full text of the Treaty is not to be found.. I have found earlier treaties that again the full text is not available. But these are interesting in that they do not limit the treaty to non-conflicting with the Constitution like the others I posted links to..
    Here is the full text that I have found on them.
    Treaty Number: 90-7
    Old Number: Ex. G, 90th Congress, 1st Session
    Transmitted: March 08, 1967
    Short Title: SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS , 1961
    Countries: multilateral
    Senate Executive Report(s): 90-11
    Related Document(s): Ex. Rept. 11, 90-1
    Legislative Actions
    Floor Action: March 08, 1967 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
    Floor Action: May 03, 1967 - Reported by Senator Fulbright Committee on Foreign Relations, with printed report - Ex.Rept. 90-11.
    Floor Action: May 08, 1967 - Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay vote. 84-0. Record Vote No: 106 EX.
    Index Terms :
    DRUGS
    NARCOTIC DRUGS
    NARCOTICS
    SINGLE CONVENTION
    Control Number: 090TD00007
    ~~~
    Treaty Number: 92-7
    Old Number: Ex. G, 92nd Congress, 1st Session
    Transmitted: June 29, 1971
    Short Title: CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
    Countries: n/a
    Senate Executive Report(s): 96-29
    Related Document(s): Ex. Rept. 96-29
    Legislative Actions
    Floor Action: June 29, 1971 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
    Floor Action: February 14, 1980 - Reported by Senator Church Committee on Foreign Relations, with printed report - Ex.Rept. 96-29.
    Floor Action: March 20, 1980 - Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay vote. 92-0. Record Vote No: 58 EX.
    Index Terms :
    CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
    DRUGS
    PSYCHOTROPIC
    PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
    Control Number: 092TD00007
    ~~~
    Treaty Number: 92-21
    Old Number: Ex. I, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session
    Transmitted: April 11, 1972
    Short Title: CONVENTION ESTABLISHING AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY
    Countries: n/a
    Senate Executive Report(s): 92-31
    Related Document(s): Ex. Rept. 92-31
    Legislative Actions
    Floor Action: April 11, 1972 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
    Floor Action: August 08, 1972 - Reported by Senator Fulbright Committee on Foreign Relations, with printed report - Ex.Rept. 92-31.
    Floor Action: August 11, 1972 - Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay vote. 79-0. Record Vote No: 375 EX.
    Index Terms :
    DRUGS
    LEGAL METROLOGY
    METROLOGY
    NARCOTIC DRUGS
    NARCOTICS
    ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY
    SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS
    Control Number: 092TD00021
    ~~~
    Treaty Number: 92-22
    Old Number: Ex. J, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session
    Transmitted: May 04, 1972
    Short Title: PROTOCOL AMENDING THE SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961
    Countries: n/a
    Senate Executive Report(s): 92-33
    Related Document(s): Ex. Rept. 92-33
    Legislative Actions
    Floor Action: May 04, 1972 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
    Floor Action: September 08, 1972 - Reported by Senator Fulbright Committee on Foreign Relations, with printed report - Ex.Rept. 92-33.
    Floor Action: September 18, 1972 - Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay vote. 69-0. Record Vote No: 440 EX.
    Index Terms :
    DRUGS
    NARCOTIC DRUGS
    NARCOTICS
    SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS
    Control Number: 092TD00022
    ~~~
    If more information can be found out about these to know for certain what the full language was so that we know what laws may have been required to comply with these Treaties, that would be what is needed.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

an armed society is a polite society lapierre
,
how much wayne pierre of the nra make ayear
,
i own guns but don't support the nra
,

is the nra worth joining

,

lapierre gun control 1990 statement

,
nra
,
nra previous statement 1990's
,

state concealed carry laws and supremacy clause

,

treaty 100-13

,
wayne lapierre gun control conspiracy
,

wayne lapierre survivalist

,
what did wayne lapierre say in the 1990's
Click on a term to search for related topics.