PDA

View Full Version : New NRA mAIling on UN Arms Treaty


advocatusdiaboli
07-05-2011, 4:39 PM
I received and emailed letter from NRA CHairman Wayne Lapierre.
Is this real or hyperbole? I ask because they selected Sarah Palin to speak at the national convention and she has zero credibility with me so I am always careful to evaluate their calls to action but I do want to preserve and recover our 2A rights in California and nationally.


Dear Friend in Freedom,

The U.N. is conspiring to destroy your gun rights.

And Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are using the U.N. for their "under the radar" program for gun control in America.

The "Small Arms Treaty" now being negotiated at the U.N. is a TROJAN HORSE disguised as an effort to combat international gun trafficking.

In reality, it's a sinister ploy by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and foreign bureaucrats to thrust a dagger deep into the heart of our Bill of Rights!

A recent FORBES article confirms that if passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the treaty "would almost certainly force the U.S." to:

ENACT DRACONIAN GUN LICENSING, making it next to impossible for you to purchase and own a firearm.
CONFISCATE and DESTROY all "unauthorized" firearms as determined by foreign bureaucrats.
BAN THE TRADE, SALE AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of all semi-automatic firearms.
ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY, opening the door to "full-scale gun confiscation" in the U.S.
You can see the FORBES article for yourself by clicking here.


http://graphics.nra.org/wayne/Forbes_-Larry_Bell.pdf

cdtx2001
07-05-2011, 5:14 PM
"Only from my cold dead hands!!!!!"

sgtshen
07-05-2011, 5:19 PM
^ this and plus this is my first post one this forum :D

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

bwiese
07-05-2011, 5:31 PM
Sarah Palin is a good draw for fundraising.

I don't care for her in many ways, but if she can rev up folks in to donating and getting something done, fine.

Dreaded Claymore
07-05-2011, 5:37 PM
It's mostly hyperbole. I don't think they've come up with an actual treaty yet. We still need to watch though.

microwaveguy
07-05-2011, 5:47 PM
I still don't see how a foreign treaty can trump our bill of rights
I just don't see it happening:chris:

GrayWolf09
07-05-2011, 6:12 PM
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Ratification of a treaty requires a 2/3 vote in the senate. If this is half as controversial as the NRA says it is, there is no chance of Senate ratification.

Wernher von Browning
07-05-2011, 6:32 PM
I still don't see how a foreign treaty can trump our bill of rights
I just don't see it happening:chris:

Yup. Thing is, we didn't see airport strip searches, denial of the ability to travel because of your name, warrantless wiretaps, continuous monitoring of all electronic communications, incarceration without trial, and all the rest that has come to pass in the preceding 10 years, either.

It's highly unlikely but we have to keep an eye open for the odd constellation of events that lets them sneak this through.

GrayWolf09 said
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Ratification of a treaty requires a 2/3 vote in the senate. If this is half as controversial as the NRA says it is, there is no chance of Senate ratification.

Yeah. The NRA gets a bit drama-queeny sometimes, but better that than stay silent and let a zinger sneak past.

advocatusdiaboli
07-05-2011, 8:03 PM
Sarah Palin is a good draw for fundraising.

I don't care for her in many ways, but if she can rev up folks in to donating and getting something done, fine.

Thanks for the perspective Bill. I agree. I need to keep my POV out of it because as long as she has national appeal and rallies people to the 2A cause, then she's contributing.

stitchnicklas
07-05-2011, 9:27 PM
they could try to steal our weapons but they would lose...

MindBuilder
07-06-2011, 5:48 AM
The real threat here is to private transfers. I see little reason to be concerned about bans or confiscation because I don't think either the Senate or current Supreme Court would allow it. But the Senate might ratify a treaty requiring registration and/or banning private sales not through a dealer, and the Supreme Court probably wouldn't overturn such a treaty. Keeping unregistered private sales is critical because if they can get nearly all guns registered then it will greatly increase the temptation for bans.

The other big threat we are facing is the strategy of San Francisco with CCW permits. They have just established policy that getting a permit will set you back thousands of dollars. If the courts let such charges stand, fees and regulations will be raised a little bit at a time until there are too few gun owners to sustain political support.

goodlookin1
07-06-2011, 6:47 AM
Even if the senate ratified it by 2/3rds, it would not apply to us within the U.S. - See Reid vs. Covert (1957) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert. Any international agreements made shall not supersede the U.S. Constitution. At this point, it would need to pass a constitutional amendment, which is done by one of two methods: Either 1) 2/3 House and 2/3 Senate pass a constitutional amendment to go up for vote in all of the states. From there, 3/4 of all states must pass it in 7 years time in order the amendment to become law and "binding" upon U.S. citizens. This is the method that all 27 Amendments have gone through. The other method is 2) Holding a Constitutional Convention, called for by 2/3 of State Legislatures. If they get the 2/3 of State Legislatures to agree to consider a Constitutional Amendment, then they hear the proposals and they are sent to all the states to be put up for the vote. Just as the first method, 3/4 of all states must pass it. When the proposed changed reach the states, there is verbiage in them that determine the manner of voting: Either by Legislature or by State Convention. State Convention has only been used once (21st Amendment). All others were voted on by the Legislatures. But in either case, it is simple majority that determines the outcome of the vote in the states. If the simple majority (50%+) vote to pass it, that states has approved the amendment and is sent off to be tallied in the rest of the state's votes.


All this "lesson" in U.S. Government is to show you that it will be nigh IMPOSSIBLE to pass a ban on small arms in the U.S. There are very few anti-gun states, and they are far outweighed by pro-gun states.....I bet they would find it difficult to find even 25% of the states to go along with such a proposal. It should be noted that the president has NO power in the amendment process. He/She is only a voice.....they have no veto or proposal power whatsoever in the Amendment process.

So AGAIN, let me reiterate: Even if the Senate ratifies the future UN Small Arms Treaty by 2/3 or more vote, it will be an exercise in futility because the International Agreement that they pass will be in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution, making it moot: It was dead before they passed it. Until all of the above with the Amendment Process happens to ban all firearms and take away/revise the 2nd Amendment, I wont be worried in the slightest.

bwiese
07-06-2011, 11:05 AM
Folks,

Yes, treaty laws can mitigate such drama.

But aside from the fundraising angle I mentioned above, the REAL problem with this general UN antigun issue
is one of mindset. If we don't continually oppose the UN/IANSA small arms STANCE (and supporting logic) -
and keep the fight 'on the US radar' - various IANSA concepts can get political traction at various political levels.
(Just like certain prototype VPC assault weapons legislation wants to include pump shotguns as AWs).

We're continually fighting to have our guns regarded as personal arms, while IANSA wants to include our guns
as 'small arms'. We don't want that mindset to get ANY traction. Period.

NOT ONE INCH.