[CWOLDOJAX]

I do not know enough about the reality or legality of the "Small Arms Treaty".
Rumor has it that the President is willing to participate or comply or sign such a treaty as to ban or control small arms. Anyone here better versed on the topic?
If so, since when does the US Constitution fall below the UN Charter?
:scratchchin:

Thanks,
CWOLDOJAX

 

[IndianaSig]

It's been a story in the news for some time and is just media hype. There's nothing Barack Hussein can do without ratification by the Senate. Never happen. Even if it did, the SCOTUS would quickly strike it down as being unconstitutional. Nothing to worry about here.

 

[VBVAGUY]

It's been a story in the news for some time and is just media hype. There's nothing Barack Hussein can do without ratification by the Senate. Never happen. Even if it did, the SCOTUS would quickly strike it down as being unconstitutional. Nothing to worry about here.

I would hope that the SCOTUS would strike down anything that is unconstitutional, but there are so many right now in the present and I do not see them doing anything about it or being brought for their ruling. God Bless :smile:

 

[suntzu]

Oh boy...here we go

 

[WHEC724]

If there was anything that POTUS could possibly do to disarm us, he's already tried it. Instead he's stuck with resorting to spin every news event into a disarmament speech.

Keep up the (gag) NRA memberships, keep writing letters to our representatives and hang on for three more years.

 

[msgt/ret]

Oh boy...here we go

Again.

 

[OutWestSystems]

There is nothing in the Small Arms treaty that would effect personal ownership of firearms. Also there is ZERO chance of it being ratified by the Senate.

 

[ccw9mm]

It's been a story in the news for some time and is just media hype. There's nothing Barack Hussein can do without ratification by the Senate. Never happen. Even if it did, the SCOTUS would quickly strike it down as being unconstitutional. Nothing to worry about here.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Don't forget how close many of the S.649 amendments came to passing, based on a significant number of such "traitors" to the constitutional principles. And handful more traitors, and that sucker could have passed. Don't believe for a second that this batch of senators wouldn't at least seriously consider if they could slip one in their, if they thought the pros outweighed the cons.

And as for SCOTUS, they're the ones that keep acknowledging the validity of infringements upon the 2A (the McDonald, Heller decisions notwithstanding).

Not to be contrary, but I'm not so optimistic about either the Senate or SCOTUS, on this score, based on past performance alone.

 

[mcp1810]

Reid v Covert.
SCOTUS said treaties can not supercede the Constitution.

 

[ccw9mm]

Reid v Covert.
SCOTUS said treaties can not supercede the Constitution.

They've also said infringements are lawful.

 

[oneshot]

The problem with this, EVEN IF you don't think that it would amount to anything resembling a hit to our second amendment right, is that we have to remember , we( the US of A ) need to distancing ourselves from the UN instead of embracing any of their policies, ideas, or treaties.