PDA

View Full Version : NRA guests warn international treaty would strip 2nd Amendment rights


Old Deputy
11-18-2009, 1:04 PM
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116041 NRA guests warn international treaty would strip 2nd Amendment rights This article is from WND. There are several other articles out,as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.” Worth watching

Super Spy
11-18-2009, 1:10 PM
Hillary has been trying to strip us of gun rights ever since the last time she was in the White House...

If this happens which states will be the first to secede? Which one will you move to if this happens?

Doesn't a treaty require 2/3 approval by congress? I'd hope enough Pro 2A legislators would vote NFW to kill this but who knows these days.

a1c
11-18-2009, 1:23 PM
Hillary has been trying to strip us of gun rights ever since the last time she was in the White House...

If this happens which states will be the first to secede? Which one will you move to if this happens?

Given the complex process a secession would involve, I think this is sci-fi territory.

Doesn't a treaty require 2/3 approval by congress? I'd hope enough Pro 2A legislators would vote NFW to kill this but who knows these days.

No, Senate approval.

bwiese
11-18-2009, 1:24 PM
This is actually an early-warning msg to Senators if this ever come to vote.

steadyrock
11-18-2009, 1:25 PM
Hillary has been trying to strip us of gun rights ever since the last time she was in the White House...

If this happens which states will be the first to secede? Which one will you move to if this happens?

I predict most of the former CSA would reform and secede, with Texas leading the charge. The question is, would they succeed this time against a massively more powerful Northern Aggressor?

Hillary has been trying to strip us of gun rights ever since the last time she was in the White House...

Doesn't a treaty require 2/3 approval by congress? I'd hope enough Pro 2A legislators would vote NFW to kill this but who knows these days.

This is likely the only thing that will save us from this type of end-around. The wheels of the Pro-2A machine are picking up speed rapidly, and even self-serving congressfolk know that to support something like this would be career suicide.

510shooter510
11-18-2009, 2:52 PM
Secede? Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, Florida, ect. Me...i'd get to texas faster than...well, fast.
I'm pretty sure, in this admittedly crazy scenario, that gunners from across the country would know to go to texas. From there we could figure out the rest.

gregorylucas
11-18-2009, 3:21 PM
What about Reid_v._Covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert)?

-Greg

a1c
11-18-2009, 4:08 PM
This is fearmongering at its best.

Quser.619
11-18-2009, 4:23 PM
Secede? Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, Florida, ect. Me...i'd get to texas faster than...well, fast.
I'm pretty sure, in this admittedly crazy scenario, that gunners from across the country would know to go to texas. From there we could figure out the rest.

Let's not forget Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, possible the Dakota's & a good chuck of the Midwest.

OlderThanDirt
11-18-2009, 4:33 PM
More often than not, the US will sign some wacko treaty that the Senate does not ratify. It makes the world think we are doing the right thing, at least for awhile. The Executive Branch can negotiate in good faith and have political cover knowing that the Senate will never ratify the treaty that they signed.

We all know it would be political suicide to sign a treaty that overrides any of the individual Constitutional rights. Besides, how does one disarm a majority of the adult population? This is something that takes generations.

However, it never hurts to remind our elected representatives of our position on the 2nd Amendment.

Kid Stanislaus
11-18-2009, 4:41 PM
Secede? Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, Florida, ect. Me...i'd get to texas faster than...well, fast.
I'm pretty sure, in this admittedly crazy scenario, that gunners from across the country would know to go to texas. From there we could figure out the rest.

Fantasy, pure out and out unadulterated fantasy.

B Strong
11-18-2009, 4:47 PM
International treaties can not over-ride the BOR.

VW*Mike
11-18-2009, 8:49 PM
This seems very implausible at best. If it did come to pass and they came looking for guns............... I will make a run for the border, of Texas. That IMO would be the best and safest bet as others have stated to regroup. Eekk.

VW*Mike
11-18-2009, 8:55 PM
International treaties can not over-ride the BOR.

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in numbers. :p

Old Deputy
11-19-2009, 7:43 AM
In the event this information is accurate and it does come to pass. Perhaps they won't grab guns at all, but instead restrict any and all imported ammo and guns from other countries. Ammo is already in short supply and how many people own guns that are imported or made with imported parts.? Next would be the gun shows, mandatory national registration in all states and then Congress could pass their anti-gun laws one at a time, as part of another package. Don't underestimate gun grabbing radicals.

rsandovaljr
11-19-2009, 8:10 AM
If I remember my high school constitution class from 10 years ago. I thought the President cannot sign a treaty that contradicts the constitution and its amendments and If he or she ever did the senate could stop the treaty. I could be wrong please correct me if am wrong

a1c
11-19-2009, 8:36 AM
If I remember my high school constitution class from 10 years ago. I thought the President cannot sign a treaty that contradicts the constitution and its amendments and If he or she ever did the senate could stop the treaty. I could be wrong please correct me if am wrong

You're not wrong. The only treaty the President can sign without Senate approval are designated as executive agreements, and they often hold little value outside a diplomatic gesture. Signing any treaty would require Senate approval. Even assuming it cleared that, its implementation (assuming it would require any, so far all I've seen about the treaty in question seems to be about international trade, therefore irrelevant to domestic matters) would be challenged in front of the SCOTUS.

See Medelln v. Texas, for instance, where Bush basically got reprimanded by the court for overstepping his powers by signing a treaty that would have bound some states to comply with it.

liketoshoot
11-19-2009, 8:58 AM
If I remember my high school constitution class from 10 years ago. I thought the President cannot sign a treaty that contradicts the constitution and its amendments and If he or she ever did the senate could stop the treaty. I could be wrong please correct me if am wrong

with what he has done up to now, I think he will sign this and bow to the world while keeping his hands down as our flag goes by.
to bad we can not start impeachment yet.

snobord99
11-19-2009, 9:30 AM
You're not wrong. The only treaty the President can sign without Senate approval are designated as executive agreements, and they often hold little value outside a diplomatic gesture. Signing any treaty would require Senate approval. Even assuming it cleared that, its implementation (assuming it would require any, so far all I've seen about the treaty in question seems to be about international trade, therefore irrelevant to domestic matters) would be challenged in front of the SCOTUS.

See Medelln v. Texas, for instance, where Bush basically got reprimanded by the court for overstepping his powers by signing a treaty that would have bound some states to comply with it.

Actually, you're wrong. Executive agreements can be law if Congress hasn't acted against it, whether explicitly or implicitly. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.

The court in Medellin v. TX found that Congress had acted against what Bush was trying to do with his memo when they opted not to make the treaties domestic law and signed it as a non-self-executing treaty. That's why Bush's memo got rejected by the court.

a1c
11-19-2009, 9:50 AM
Actually, you're wrong. Executive agreements can be law if Congress hasn't acted against it, whether explicitly or implicitly. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.

Absolutely - I mentioned it earlier in the thread -, but this would not be an executive agreement, would it?

snobord99
11-19-2009, 7:21 PM
Absolutely - I mentioned it earlier in the thread -, but this would not be an executive agreement, would it?

If by "this" you mean the treaty we're talking about, then that's a good question. As far as I can tell, he's "talking" about it and we won't know what it is until he does something, if he does something. There's always the unlikely possibility that congress will sign on and it'll be a bonafied treaty.