NRA-ILA Petition

NRA-ILA Petition

This is a discussion on NRA-ILA Petition within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Just in: NRA-ILA Petition to President Donald J. Trump Dear President Trump, It was an honor to stand with NRA-ILA leaders from across the country ...

Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree6Likes
  • 3 Post By jmf552
  • 2 Post By mcp1810
  • 1 Post By jmf552

Thread: NRA-ILA Petition

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array searx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    642

    Post NRA-ILA Petition

    Just in:

    NRA-ILA Petition to President Donald J. Trump

    Dear President Trump,

    It was an honor to stand with NRA-ILA leaders from across the country to help you defeat Hillary Clinton.

    And I have deeply appreciated your strong and vocal support for the Second Amendment, both during your campaign and since youve been in office.

    Today, Im sending you this personal petition that is vitally important to upholding our shared commitment to defending the Second Amendment.

    By signing the United Nations Gun Ban Treaty and sending it to the U.S. Senate for ratification, Barack Obama has put our nation on the brink of surrendering our constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms to anti-gun extremists at the U.N.

    I urge you, in the strongest way possible, to unsign this disastrous Treaty. Please send it back to the U.N. and tell them in no uncertain terms that my Right to Keep and Bear Arms is constitutionally guaranteed, sovereign, and non-negotiable.

    https://www.nrailadonate.org/PetitionToThePresident
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.

    ― Jim Elliot

  2. #2
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,405
    I signed it, but I have bone to pick with the NRA-ILA. The VCDL, that normally only covers VA gun rights, is conducting a nationwide campaign on National Reciprocity because the NRA-ILA will not. In fact, now the VCDL is having its members do an email campaign to the local NRA-ILA rep in Richmond, petitioning the NRA-ILA to get involved and support the VCDL's national efforts.

    I am an NRA supporter, but honestly, they continually disappoint me. They don't play well with other gun groups, I think their training efforts have gone down the tubes and they have passed over a lot of national gun activism opportunities. They need a shake up just like the Republican Party needs a shake up.
    Mike1956, OldChap and montejames like this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,638
    Pointless other as a fundraising tool. International treaties cannot override the Constitution.
    Instymp and Phaedrus like this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Member Array Ronin_Jedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Pointless other as a fundraising tool. International treaties cannot override the Constitution.
    Yes and no.

    No, if the Senate takes no action to confirm the treaty following signing by the President. In this case, from the perspective of the USA, the treaty has no force. Such is the case concerning US govt officials and the International Court of Justice. US govt officials are not bound by that treaty (the UK, for one, is).

    Yes, if the Senate does confirm. By confirming a treaty signed by the President, the Senate triggers a process requiring our laws to be modified to bring those laws into alignment with the now Senate-confirmed treaty. This is why the USA is bound by rulings made by the WTO.

    In most cases, though, this whole process can be reversed by some future President. All that is needed is a President to notify the appropriate international organization that the USA is withdrawing from a particular treaty.

    Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin_Jedi View Post
    Yes and no.

    No, if the Senate takes no action to confirm the treaty following signing by the President. In this case, from the perspective of the USA, the treaty has no force. Such is the case concerning US govt officials and the International Court of Justice. US govt officials are not bound by that treaty (the UK, for one, is).

    Yes, if the Senate does confirm. By confirming a treaty signed by the President, the Senate triggers a process requiring our laws to be modified to bring those laws into alignment with the now Senate-confirmed treaty. This is why the USA is bound by rulings made by the WTO.

    In most cases, though, this whole process can be reversed by some future President. All that is needed is a President to notify the appropriate international organization that the USA is withdrawing from a particular treaty.

    Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
    SCOTUS: Reid v. Covert (1957): "No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." In other words, even if the treaty is signed and ratified, it does not supercede the Constitution. Could the government tiptoe around that? Sure, they do it all the time, but this really doesn't give them any more leverage than they already have to do that.

    My view on this is because it affects international trade on arms, it's the NRA-ILA catering to the needs of manufacturers, but putting it in a wrapper of individual liberty. I'm against the treaty, but I'm not buying that this should be a higher priority for the NRA-ILA than National Reciprocity, or a lot of other things the NRA membership wants.
    Phaedrus likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array searx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    642
    The president swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, he knows what the previous administration did so this should be a no brainer for someone that supports the second amendment. How did the previous president who also swore to uphold the constitution get this thing done without some sort of outcry is what I'd like to know.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.

    ― Jim Elliot

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin_Jedi View Post
    Yes and no.

    No, if the Senate takes no action to confirm the treaty following signing by the President. In this case, from the perspective of the USA, the treaty has no force. Such is the case concerning US govt officials and the International Court of Justice. US govt officials are not bound by that treaty (the UK, for one, is).

    Yes, if the Senate does confirm. By confirming a treaty signed by the President, the Senate triggers a process requiring our laws to be modified to bring those laws into alignment with the now Senate-confirmed treaty. This is why the USA is bound by rulings made by the WTO.

    In most cases, though, this whole process can be reversed by some future President. All that is needed is a President to notify the appropriate international organization that the USA is withdrawing from a particular treaty.

    Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
    Congress is empowered by the Constitution to regulate interstate and foreign commerce which is why trade agreements are enforceable by federal laws. The Constitution specifically defines which things the federal government may and may not regulate. The power to make treaties is granted by the same document that specifically prohibits federal interference with our individual Right to keep and bear arms.

    A United Nations gun ban treaty has no more legal authority in this country than a law from Alphabetistan saying they can search your house without a warrant.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #8
    Member Array Ronin_Jedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Congress is empowered by the Constitution to regulate interstate and foreign commerce which is why trade agreements are enforceable by federal laws. The Constitution specifically defines which things the federal government may and may not regulate. The power to make treaties is granted by the same document that specifically prohibits federal interference with our individual Right to keep and bear arms.

    A United Nations gun ban treaty has no more legal authority in this country than a law from Alphabetistan saying they can search your house without a warrant.
    I agree, whole heartedly, but that's not the point. I was merely stating how treaties can become enforceable in the US. Period. Full stop.

    Our history is replete with both Presidents and Congresses that have enacted laws that contradict other laws. That's why we have court challenges about them.

    But let me now address - to some degree - some other issues we the people need to keep in mind, in hopes of forming (I hope) better ways to address the challenges of what we hold dear.

    1) The basic foundation of our legal system is what's called Common Law. Common Law is what's used in the UK, Canada, etc.; former colonies of England. This is different from the system used in Germany, France and the vast majority of other countries throughout the world, which is called Civic Law or Code.

    The ONLY way Code or Civic can change is through the enactment of new laws. Period.

    Common Law, which we use, can change based on the enactment of new laws - same as Code Law - AS WELL AS evolving interpretations of the law by courts thus establishing new precedence.

    As an Originalist, Justice Scalia believed that this evolution in interpretation shouldn't happen or that in interpreting the law, courts should look to the original intent, thus setting natural boundaries and limitations on how far such interpretations should go. Other justices don't hold to this.

    2) Amendments in general: This, to me, is of greater concern yet the one we the people can have the most influence over.

    ANY AMENDMENT can be changed by ---- being amended or being out-and-out replaced.

    The latter has never happened, IIRC, but it could.

    The former hasn't really happened yet re: 2 AMENDMENT because of the efforts of lobbyists and the voice of hunters and other gun owners. But this situation may not always remain, and in fact won't remain, if we as a country don't address violence. Noticed I said violence, not gun violence.

    We have not done a good job, if at all, in addressing violence IN ALL ITS FORMS; rape, road rage, workplace violence, spouse/partner abuse, abuse of our kids, whatever.

    We all need to get involved including the NRA and other orgs. They need help get the message out. The can support stronger laws for those who engage in such behavior. They can support funding of mental health programs as many (most?) have cut back on such programs. They also need to support laws that punish those who leave guns out where kids can get to them and accidentally harming themselves or others, as well as hosting training programs for first-time buyers.

    And where was the NRA (and others) when there's been a mass shooting? IT would be great PR and serve a key defender of the 2 AMENDMENT to come out and say how deeply sorry that such a tragedy occurred. IT shows that these orgs are true citizens of this community (our nation) and that they can play a larger role than simply being a defender of our 2A rights.

    Why? Because if we continue on the same path we are on now, I very strongly believe the tide WILL CHANGE one day against us. The 2 AMENDMENT will either be amended so much to greatly weaken it, or it will be replaced altogether. Something I hope I never have to see.

    The Bill of Rights IS SACRED but only because we believe it to be. If and when we, as a nation, no longer believe it, then its game over.

    And yes, I am a gun owner.

    The above is merely my humble opinion. Welcome to disagree and I respect that.

    Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk

  10. #9
    Ex Member Array Phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,171
    This is pure FUD from the NRA. Losing their boogie man in the oval office has been a severe body blow to their propaganda machine. They know the FUD they're pushing now is fantasy but it's all about fundraising, not truth. As for the current POTUS, aside from running his mouth what has he done for the 2nd Amendment? I'm struggling to think of anything. I suppose putting a hard-right wing justice on the SCOTUS has an effect but I don't think he's done anything of substance beyond that.

Sponsored 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
  •