Election over, U.N. back at arms trade treaty talks...

This is a discussion on Election over, U.N. back at arms trade treaty talks... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Rock and Glock He didn't give us anything, period. He was coerced to sign the NP Bill because it was attached to ...

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 99
Like Tree90Likes

Thread: Election over, U.N. back at arms trade treaty talks...

  1. #76
    Ex Member Array CaveJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    He didn't give us anything, period. He was coerced to sign the NP Bill because it was attached to and part and parcel of one of his "Pet" bills his buddies cooked up and that is the only way it got signed. He did not "give" us anything. Never did and never will. He is from Illinois and Hawaii for goodness sakes, two bastions of gun control. It was extracted from him by some very sharp legislators that had significant support from the gun lobby you rail against so regularly. Get the story straight and place blame where it belongs, and give credit where credit is due.
    Haha, wow. Think whatever you wish Rock, I'm out. Don't want to get warned for discussing politics or swearing when the board filters it!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 15,670'
    Posts
    12,136
    Cave: Don't respond, just read it and understand the facts. I've done both. You might learn something.

  4. #78
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 15,670'
    Posts
    12,136
    Here is a discussion of the Bill, and the merits of the Bill. The manner in which the Bill was Written, Amended and Passed can certainly be discussed herein without breaching forum rules, in fact, a simple search of the Forum will illustrate this was debated frequently herein. It might better be suited for a new thread if anyone so desires.

    National Park Carry

    On May 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed H.R. 627, the "Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009," into law. The bill contained an amendment introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) that prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from enacting or enforcing any regulations that restrict possession of firearms in National Parks or Wildlife Refuges, as long as the person complies with laws of the state in which the unit is found.[46] This provision was supported by the National Rifle Association and opposed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, among other organizations.[47][48] As of February 2010 concealed handguns are for the first time legal in all but 3 of the nation's 391 national parks and wildlife refuges so long as all applicable federal, state, and local regulations are adhered to.[49] Hawaii is a notable exception. Concealed and open carry are both illegal in Hawaii unless you are a retired military or law enforcement. Previously firearms were allowed into parks non-concealed and unloaded.

  5. #79
    Ex Member Array CaveJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    Cave: Don't respond, just read it and understand the facts. I've done both. You might learn something.
    Well aware of what it's about, and it doesn't change what I said.

  6. #80
    Distinguished Member
    Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveJohnson View Post
    "Even if the treaty applied only to transfers of small arms between nations, would that mean restrictions on our ability to aid allies such as Israel and Taiwan? Would we be forbidden from supporting resistance movements around the world that rise up against the very dictators who support this treaty?"

    It was put off so people like on here wouldn't freak out before the election. It's not going to affect us.
    The problem there is that when negotiations broke down in July, people said "See there was nothing to worry about. It didn't have any chance to get passed. Don't be so paranoid."

  7. #81
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 15,670'
    Posts
    12,136
    Well aware of what it's about
    If you were you wouldn't make such ludicrous statements

    it doesn't change what I said.
    Said? Or think? Neither? Are you merely here to throw rocks?

  8. #82
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    the govt. isn't coming for your guns.

  9. #83
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveWorkman View Post
    Well, there's a little more to this...


    Real danger in U.N. arms pact even if U.S. doesn’t sign?

    There is real danger in a proposed United Nations arms trade pact even if the United States does not sign or if the Senate fails to ratify the document, according to one of the leading critics of the effort.

    Real danger in U.N. arms pact even if U.S. doesn
    I just read the article and it does pose some problems but I don't think Europe is in any position to be applying trade sanctions against the US because we won't bow down to the international community. I do believe the current administration is placing emphasis on an "international community" and he wants o be king of he sand box. If they want to hits us with trade sanctions then I say ok.. That door swings both way. We then stop buying and invest in this country to manufacture what we don't get over there. I never understood what my Sig on my side has to do with Europe any way. I'm sure there's more to this than the American people have been told.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  10. #84
    JNC
    JNC is offline
    Member Array JNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    61
    Despite how some are dismissing the ATT as insignificant and having no relevance to US private citizen ownership and how protections of the 2nd Amendment will nullify the ATT, I would urge you to contact your House Representative and Senators and voice a strong request that the US not sign this treaty without clear protection of the individual's right to own firearms explicitly for the right to defend ones life, liberty, and property. Also voice concern that the US not sign this treaty without full consideration to how it will impact our economy and our National Defense.

    There is still verbiage being negotiated as to whether a registration clause could require registration of firearms by the individual and maintained by at a federal level. There is also an effort to restrict ammunition.

    Mexico is one of the biggest proponents of this treaty and wants to see limitations on domestic transfers within the US.

    But let's assume that even if the treaty requires registration, and our legislators and courts determine this is not acceptable with the 2nd Amendment protections, there are still more reasons this is a bad treaty.

    1) The US is one of the largest exporters of small arms. What will the economical cost be to greater restrictions on exporters.
    2) Potential requirements to support other member states in executing the treaty. Other words- I see a big ol' check being written by Uncle Sam with funds going to countries I personally do not want my tax dollars going to.. example: the newest war lord dictator of some African country decides he needs “financial assistance” to control “illicit” small arms trade in his country. This being a pretext to round up weapons from the ethnic group he intends to wage genocide upon.
    3) How will this affect the our (US) ability to help arm our allies? What if the UN declares Israeli to be on the list of countries to which arms must not be sold.
    4) There is confusion about the responsibilities of member states to support one another. Could one state, say Iran, make a claim that it now has the legal right to purchase arms from another member state, say the US?

    Please do not take this treaty lightly. I'm not buying into the 2012 Obama panic, but I am trying to stay educated on this treaty and voicing my concerns to both of my Senators and to my Representative.

    As far as domestic gun control, I personally see more risk to certain weapons being designated as not having a "sporting purposes." Say for example that AR with a 30 round mag, has no hunting (thus sporting) purpose. I see potential limitations on magazine capacities, epa rules about ammo, etc.

    And I ultimately see a push to conform our Constitution to a “modern” international interpretation, as being the greatest risk to my individual liberties.
    DPro.40 and phreddy like this.

  11. #85
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    how about we wait till the damn thing is finalized, before we judge?

  12. #86
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    the govt. isn't coming for your guns.
    Careful with the wish full thinking. I am absolutely positive that the only thing that keeps the government from coming for our guns is the government's very rational fear of the people who own the guns.
    JNC and GetSmith like this.

  13. #87
    JNC
    JNC is offline
    Member Array JNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    61
    I also am very cautious given this President's resolve to work end arounds to reach his goals... While I do not think 2/3 of the senate would ratify this treaty we start to get into murky water if it is signed and not submitted to the Senate. I think it would be best to have those who are pro gun rights in both the Senate and the House voice concerns to the President before any signing occurs.

    I found this to be a very interesting read about unratified treaties.
    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/...ed%20treaty%22

  14. #88
    Member Array SgtRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Texas, Afghanistan
    Posts
    425
    Mid term elections in 2 years. If the senators and congressmen up for re-election want to keep their jobs they should consider signing this carefully.

    USMC Shooting Team
    Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge - 1986
    Texas CHL since 1996.

    Iraq 2004 to 2011.
    Afghanistan 2012 to present.

  15. #89
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    i've been an NRA member for over 50 years. Over a period of thirty years i donated heavily to the NRA. Then along comes a new NRA president who is a career Republican political operative. Not surprisingly, he and La Pierre politicized the NRA. They want NRA members to support the entire Republican party platform. The NRA is pandering to an element that has no idea how the US government works.

    The NRA will not get one cent from me.

    In Reid vs Covert, SCOTUS ruled that a treaty does not supercede the US Constitution:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0001_ZO.html


    Quote:
    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 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 of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] 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. [n32] 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 the Senate combined.
    There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:
    Now i'm waiting for a government scholar to say Obama will outlaw guns by executve order.
    Last edited by Sig 210; November 13th, 2012 at 08:52 AM.

  16. #90
    Distinguished Member
    Array Xader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Except in the states of California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.
    That's a full quarter of the U.S. population, and that doesn't include local/municipal laws and restrictions.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 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

gun treaty signed november 7th

,
lord monckton u.n. gun ban treaty
,
next day after obamas relection gun laws
,

obama gun legislation

,

obama gun treaty signed fox news

,

obama signs g.u.n.bill

,
politifact and gun control coming soon to your neighborhood and un
,

the u.n. arms trade treaty

,
treaty signed after election
,

u.n. arms treaty and assault weapons

,
u.n. treaty awb
,
un gun ban treaty over 380
,
un treaty pistol grip vs non-pistol grip weapon
,

what gun to buy before election

,
why did obama decide to participate in un arms trade talks
Click on a term to search for related topics.