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 ...
Cave: Don't respond, just read it and understand the facts. I've done both. You might learn something.
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. 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. 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. 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.
If you were you wouldn't make such ludicrous statementsWell aware of what it's about
Said? Or think? Neither? Are you merely here to throw rocks?it doesn't change what I said.
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.
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.
how about we wait till the damn thing is finalized, before we judge?
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.
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.
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:
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
Now i'm waiting for a government scholar to say Obama will outlaw guns by executve order.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:
Last edited by Sig 210; November 13th, 2012 at 08:52 AM.