Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd... - Page 5

Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd...

This is a discussion on Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; NRA-ILA: Disinformation Continues as U.N. Arms Treaty Takes Shape (Jul 2012) Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 99
Like Tree89Likes

Thread: Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd...

  1. #61
    Member Array ItalianSteel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    350
    NRA-ILA: Disinformation Continues as U.N. Arms Treaty Takes Shape (Jul 2012)

    Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie.

    For example, the most recent draft treaty includes import/export controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the "end user" of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

    And even if the U.S. never ratifies--or even signs--the treaty, many other nations will. The cost of complying with the treaty would drive up the price of imported firearms and probably force some companies to take their products off the U.S. market.
    Another good point is the T-word (terrorism/terrorists) which is used by the treaty. To me that word has been used and abused by our current and former administration ad naseum. Once they demonize whatever they want as the T-word, you're sunk. I think the current IRS deal shows the 2A and "Constitutionalists" are in their crosshairs for that. We're one of the few (if not only) nations left with proper RKBA, the rest of the world is "so over guns," so I can see the pressure to 'cleanse' the last place left with them too.

    Another part of the treaty I dislike is the use of "illicit" instead of "illegal". The latter would mean, "in accordance to laws in that nation state," whereas the former is more "whatever we the UN deem inappropriate." I do not want the UN to have that kind of control.

    I will have to take a look at the treaty again to see if anything has changed since I last looked at it, but I remember disliking it for these reasons.

    EDIT: Forbes also posted a good article about the ATT and UBCs destroying the 2A. I like the ending paragraphs the best:

    There’s little reason to wonder why strongmen across Africa are among the most enthusiastic ATT supporters. One is Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugape, whose treaty representatives stressed a need for “stringent import and export control systems that deal with all aspects of diversion of the arms into the hands of non-state actors.”

    What are the chances that al Qaeda in the Maghreb, or Joseph Kony’s brutal Resistance Army in Uganda, will lose access to weapons due to ATT restrictions? Will stringent gun laws, including universal background checks, influence or inconvenience armed rapists, burglars and Chicago youth gangs?

    Only one legal covenant affords an effective defense of the virtuous from the villains. It’s called the U.S. Constitution, and it contains a very potent Second Amendment. Rather than accept a U.N. treaty which violates it, and domestic gun laws that ignore it, let’s rededicate ourselves to the principles and protections our founding fathers so wisely endorsed.


  2. #62
    VIP Member Array SmokinFool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,297
    Quote Originally Posted by ItalianSteel View Post
    EDIT: Forbes also posted a good article about the ATT and UBCs destroying the 2A. I like the ending paragraphs the best:
    I agree. And I think the last paragraph bear repeating:

    Only one legal covenant affords an effective defense of the virtuous from the villains. It’s called the U.S. Constitution, and it contains a very potent Second Amendment. Rather than accept a U.N. treaty which violates it, and domestic gun laws that ignore it, let’s rededicate ourselves to the principles and protections our founding fathers so wisely endorsed.

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    Suntzu and Hopyard:

    I would like to hear your reasons why you support the treaty, or at the least why you think it's "no big deal".
    I never said I supported the treaty. I asked a question for folks that say this is doom why they say that. I figured an enlightened person would be able to articulae an answer. If not, then I can only assume that one does not undertsand the treaty, they get their talking points from Alex Jones, or they succumb to what they hear instead of researching on their own.

    And, a poor way to debate is to not answer a question with a question...which you did. It tells me that you have no arguements to use for your statements. I don't play that game. If you want a debate then start getting some facts supporting your position and then rebut. All too man time folks here try to use that tactic and quite frankly, it is not productive and tells me the person either does not have a resposne, does not want to provide a resposne, or simply is afraid to look up the facts and find out that possibly they are wrong.
    Hopyard and Sig 210 like this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  4. #64
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by cn262 View Post
    It's on page 23. The PDF is locked so you can't cut and paste, so here's the paragraph:

    "Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,"

    First, it's in the Preamble and therefore non-binding. Then, it states "conventional arms" (ambiguous, possibly intentionally so given the past and recent events to categorize firearms with certain features as "weapons of war"), and then does not specifically mention "protection" or "security" - only troubling because of the other specific uses mentioned.

    Regarding the "slippery slope" comment, I would beg to differ. If I were making the implication without any historical context then yes, I would agree. But that is not the case. Our President, VP, AG, and at least one senior Senator (Feinstein) have been on record for a very long time (more than a decade for most) for stating that they would like to eliminate firearm ownership by civilians. Legislation from the past 20 years, and most recently the last six months, shows that a certain percentage of our elected officials have similar feelings. So while not inevitable, it is very far from unlikely.

    It's sort of like discussing the probability versus the possibility of an event with an attorney. Many things are possible, but generally few are probable. WRT to this Treaty I feel that this tends to land more towards the "possible" end of the scale.




    OutWestSystems - The Treaty does not provide specific definitions on the key terms (something that should always be a concern for a legal agreement). While the text does focus non-State transactions (which I interpret as unofficial sales) for import or export (i.e., between states), it does not specifically exclude civilian activity. It is very specific in some areas, and very ambiguous in others, and that personally concerns me - especially when the current administration appears to be making direct links to regular FFL dealers and international gun transfers.

    I'm not an attorney, but have worked closely with them for the better part of the past 20 years in business and sales management roles. What you tend to see is that when there are very specific concerns the language in an agreement is very specific. But, where there are general concerns (even opportunities) and there is a desire to have room for interpretation in the future that the language will be intentionally vague. If there is a problem you look for past transactions and activity, as well as "generally accepted" or "industry specific" use or interpretation of a point to try to prove your case. Not to mention that there are many systems of law, not to mention the application of International Law.

    It just feels a bit sinister to me. Make it appear "safe" but leave wiggle room to accomplish many related goals.
    Most of the things you pointed out are also reason to not be worried. Of course anything can be used to pervert something,and the vague language makes it possible. Vague language also makes it possible for a responsible governemnt to make sure it does not affect US citizens. That is my point. There is no smoking gun language in the treaty that I know of.

    Slippery slope-I beg to differ LOL...I do respect your opinion though. We all have to use it to a certain extent..how else to you debate about possible ramifications? This treaty is too vague that it leads to slippery slope arguements too often. Yours is based off of this current president and administration. The slippery slope arguemtent happens IMO because he will not have another term. The "badness" that can happen by this POTUS can be undone by the next, if there is anything to be undone.

    Your las line sums it up for me though.
    It just feels a bit sinister to me. Make it appear "safe" but leave wiggle room to accomplish many related goals.
    The treaty can go either way, but the damage done can be undone by any President.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  5. #65
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,098
    Perhaps it can be undone ... perhaps.

    But will it ever be undone, once accomplished?
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    Perhaps it can be undone ... perhaps.

    But will it ever be undone, once accomplished?
    Who knows. BUt I look at it like this:
    1. It won't get ratified so it is a mute point we are discussing it
    2. If by some miracle it does get ratified it will go before the courts
    3. Every single peice og gun legislation that would be tied to "treaty compliance" will go before the courts

    My point is too look at both sides and to educate oneself about what the treaty actually says. Too many folks bring up predictions of doom without having a clue. An, as you may have noticed, I will challenge someone if they come out with a blank statement with nothing to back it up.

    Beleive it or not I do not do it because I like to be a pain in the butt. I do it because folks that can not articualte a postion here on this forum where they have ample time to do research in bewtween posts, will never be able to articulate themselves or explain something to an anti if they meet them.

    These folks are the ones that come on the forum and say how they tried to explain to an anti xyz and they would not understand or they are stupid. I bet half the time the anti..though his premise is wrong, has his information, whereas the pro 2a guy is just spouting rhetoric and no substance behind it.

    Of course this goes both way. But not all anti's are stupid. An intelligent person will not keep playing games like debating someoen that only trplies with a question when asked a question. And the dreaded slippery slope arguements LOL
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  7. #67
    Senior Member Array cn262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post

    Your last line sums it up for me though.

    Quote Originally Posted by cn262 View Post

    It just feels a bit sinister to me. Make it appear "safe" but leave wiggle room to accomplish many related goals.

    The treaty can go either way, but the damage done can be undone by any President.

    Suntzu - I mostly agree with you on this point. As long as the bad actions are reversed before any confiscation occurs, and assuming that any registry is destroyed, then yes - the damage could still be undone.

  8. #68
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    @ cn262 -- I've not had a chance to read the text, and partly I have avoided doing so as I'd hoped someone
    would point out a specific problem in it here.

    So far, this is all we have, what you posted. "Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,"

    I don't see anything sinister or dangerous in those words. In fact without any of the preceding or following text
    that seems utterly devoid of meaning and no threat whatsoever to our rights.

    To the contrary, it acknowledges that the
    treaty is mindful of the fact that in some countries trade and ownership are permitted or protected by law. We are one
    of those countries. So what's the problem?
    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
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,713
    I'd just like The Donald to tell him....."Your Fired".

  10. #70
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,176
    If this treaty really "does nothing", then why is the US even involved? We don't need more feel good legislation/sanctions to add more complexity to our over-bloated, overly complex current system of governance. Bills that are entering the floor are 2K pages and over. No person has the time and patience to wade through the garbage. If proposed treaties and legislation does nothing for our country one way or another, we shouldn't be signing it into law. It will just turn into more food for lawyers and more burdens on the people. Not to mention, we shouldn't be signing treaties that could be in direct/indirect conflict with our nations constitutional beliefs to be imposed on other countries.
    Jeanlouise, phreddy and Tzadik like this.

  11. #71
    Senior Member Array Dadsnugun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The state formerly known as Colorado
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsky109 View Post
    ?????? Who does this president think he is? Dictator? King?...
    I believe 'Lord Almighty' is the term you'relooking for.
    Never pick a fight with an old man...If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you - John Steinbeck
    Come to Colorado...the governor is loopy
    .................................................. .................................................. ......................They Live

  12. #72
    Senior Member Array cn262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    @ cn262 -- I've not had a chance to read the text, and partly I have avoided doing so as I'd hoped someone
    would point out a specific problem in it here.

    So far, this is all we have, what you posted. "Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,"

    I don't see anything sinister or dangerous in those words. In fact without any of the preceding or following text
    that seems utterly devoid of meaning and no threat whatsoever to our rights.

    To the contrary, it acknowledges that the
    treaty is mindful of the fact that in some countries trade and ownership are permitted or protected by law. We are one
    of those countries. So what's the problem?
    Hopyard - First and foremost, it's worth an investment of 15 minutes to read the text of the Treaty. It really isn't that long, and there is a lot of white space between paragraphs and sections.

    So what's wrong? Specifically, this text is in the Preamble of the Treaty and therefore not part of the binding text of that Treaty. Nothing within the body of the Treaty recognizes "legitimate" activities of civilians, such as protection and security (2A related issues). IMO, this is a feelgood attempt to help appease skeptics, but if it were a genuine attempt to protect our 2A rights then there would be more specific protective language as part of the Treaty itself.

    As an aside, the first time I really thought about the preamble issue was during Senate discussions around ratification of the Start Treaty back in 2010. There are plenty of links to discussion on the matter for review.
    suntzu likes this.

  13. #73
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by cn262 View Post
    So what's wrong? Specifically, this text is in the Preamble of the Treaty and therefore not part of the binding text of that Treaty. Nothing within the body of the Treaty recognizes "legitimate" activities of civilians, such as protection and security (2A related issues). IMO, this is a feelgood attempt to help appease skeptics, but if it were a genuine attempt to protect our 2A rights then there would be more specific protective language as part of the Treaty itself.
    I have looked for information on if the preamble is binding but can not find it. What I have found is that people on both sides wish the preamble was written better because it "suppose" to assist inthe interpreting of the sections in the treaty. I am no International law lawyer by any stretch of the imagination.

    Can you cite a credible reference for me where it says the preamble is not binding or that the part about States constitutional systems being protected means essentially nothing.

    Thanks
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  14. #74
    Senior Member Array cn262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I have looked for information on if the preamble is binding but can not find it. What I have found is that people on both sides wish the preamble was written better because it "suppose" to assist inthe interpreting of the sections in the treaty. I am no International law lawyer by any stretch of the imagination.

    Can you cite a credible reference for me where it says the preamble is not binding or that the part about States constitutional systems being protected means essentially nothing.

    Thanks
    Here are just a few that I could find between calls. There are nearly as many links that state that preambles are binding, but nearly all point to a few references from the 1950s (as opposed to various interpretations through the years since then). Like many things in law, the answer is not always black and white, and that's where a good attorney can bend and shape the available information to provide as favorable scenario for his/her client. If it were that easy we wouldn't have much need for courts.

    Sen. McCain Invents Missile Defense Problem In New START's Preamble | Political Correction

    "FACT: New START Preamble Language Is Non-Binding

    New START Preamble Is "Not Legally Binding." According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: "As is customary in treaties, the preamble to New START is not legally binding." [The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, accessed 12/17/10, http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/nuclearweapons/articles/new_start_and_missile_defense/]"

    The European Union's foreign and security policy: a legal institutional ... - R. a. Wessel - Google Books

    "It is generally maintained that the purpose of a preamble is not to establish obligations itself. However, it is part of the treaty and should therefore be consistent with other parts of the treaty. The function of the preamble is to reflect the initial purposes of the contracting states in concluding the treaty. It is an expression of intentions shared by the contracting parties at the time of the conclusion of the treaty." Note: This goes no to point back to an example where the preamble was taken into account as part of the treaty (Article 31, paragraph 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

    The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary - Google Books

    "Seen from this viewpoint, and keeping in mind the main object of the preamble, some authors consider that that the preamble provisions have no binding legal force or have a lesser binding value. Nevertheless, it does happen on rare occasions that a preamble sets forth provisions having binding legal force."

    treaty legal definition of treaty. treaty synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

    "Treaties are usually interpreted according to the ordinary sense of their words in context and the apparent purposes to be achieved. If the meaning of the language is unclear or there is doubt that it expresses the intention of the parties, the work product of the negotiation process may be consulted as well as other extrinsic evidence." Note: This is where having more 2A supportive language (stronger than "historical usage") as part of the preamble could be beneficial.

  15. #75
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by cn262 View Post
    Hopyard - First and foremost, it's worth an investment of 15 minutes to read the text of the Treaty. It really isn't that long, and there is a lot of white space between paragraphs and sections.

    So what's wrong? Specifically, this text is in the Preamble of the Treaty and therefore not part of the binding text of that Treaty. Nothing within the body of the Treaty recognizes "legitimate" activities of civilians, such as protection and security (2A related issues). IMO, this is a feelgood attempt to help appease skeptics, but if it were a genuine attempt to protect our 2A rights then there would be more specific protective language as part of the Treaty itself.

    As an aside, the first time I really thought about the preamble issue was during Senate discussions around ratification of the Start Treaty back in 2010. There are plenty of links to discussion on the matter for review.
    What text does "this" refer to in the part I put in bold. Is this next sentence from your post a direct quote from the text
    of the treaty or is it interpretive and commentary. "Nothing within the body of the Treaty recognizes "legitimate" activities of civilians, such as protection and security (2A related issues)."

    I'm still not understanding what is there, textually, that is objectionable and yes, you are right it would be worth my time to read it, but I'd like to see the opponents make their case.

    I'm "naive" as far as the textual contemt of the treaty so I have
    no strong view of it, either way. Just show me where the problem is by quoting the language and explaining why what you quoted is problematic. Straight forward.
    Last edited by Hopyard; June 3rd, 2013 at 02:08 PM. Reason: "context" changed to "content"
    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

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 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

az republic - the illogical need to believe obama

,
discuss three reasons for either supporting or opposing the gun amnesty programs in the usvi
,
gun control
,

obama signing peace treaty

,
obama to sign gun bill today
,
un att june 3rd
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors