PDA

View Full Version : Obama to sign gun control treaty on july 27


centralcoastguns
07-07-2012, 11:03 PM
Hello,

I just came across this ..



That on july 27 obama is going to sign the gun control treaty in new york...

BlackTydeTactical
07-07-2012, 11:07 PM
Post a link. I'd like to read it.

Mr.Sandman
07-07-2012, 11:10 PM
Until I see it with my own eyes :fud:

Chief2Guns
07-07-2012, 11:15 PM
:iagree:

socalblue
07-07-2012, 11:19 PM
Even if he did I would need to be ratified by the Senate & that's NOT gonna happen, esp. in an election year.

AndrewMendez
07-07-2012, 11:20 PM
This is all I could find, with the exception of many forums with the info.

http://www.examiner.com/article/senate-set-to-approve-controversial-un-gun-treaty

I don't think Obama is stupid enough to attempt to pass something like this.

jmdove
07-07-2012, 11:27 PM
Yes brother, he is stupid in a sense. He is not stupid
book knowledge wise; but, he is a rigid, unyielding, arrogant
idealogue who does not really care what it costs him to
strip us of our rights simply because he does not believe we
should have those rights. The only way to stop him is
to vote him out of office or start a civil war and I prefer the
voting out of office option. But he has/had help in the
Senate too and they also need to be defeated.

This UN Gun control treaty has bad, bad implications for
our 2nd Amendment rights and Obama and Hillary and
that enemy within, George Soros, would just LOVE for
this treaty to trump the Constitution. But it is my
believe that this could, really, easily start another
civil war. Let us hope the Senate sees reason and kills
it cold.

AndrewMendez
07-07-2012, 11:34 PM
Yes brother, he is stupid in a sense. He is not stupid
book knowledge wise; but, he is a rigid, unyielding, arrogant
idealogue who does not really care what it costs him to
strip us of our rights simply because he does not believe we
should have those rights. The only way to stop him is
to vote him out of office or start a civil war and I prefer the
voting out of office option. But he has/had help in the
Senate too and they also need to be defeated.

This UN Gun control treaty has bad, bad implications for
our 2nd Amendment rights and Obama and Hillary and
that enemy within, George Soros, would just LOVE for
this treaty to trump the Constitution. But it is my
believe that this could, really, easily start another
civil war. Let us hope the Senate sees reason and kills
it cold.

I don't think he is concerned at all with our right to firearms, he is concerned with winning an election. Many many many gun owners do not see him as a threat, and while they may not vote for him...they certainly will not if he pulls a stunt like this.

bob7122
07-07-2012, 11:49 PM
wow! to think i just had a fine evening with other fellow Calgunners and to read this. i hope it is a joke. man i don't like this, even if it still needs to pass congress; which i believe it has a strong chance.(i am a pessimist)

mossy
07-07-2012, 11:59 PM
a treaty does not trump the US constitution. people need to take off the tin foil hats.

safewaysecurity
07-08-2012, 12:09 AM
Signing it would be political suicide. And from what I know so far they haven't even written the treaty yet.

bob7122
07-08-2012, 12:12 AM
a treaty does not trump the US constitution. people need to take off the tin foil hats.

we have a constitution? :chris:

Bert Gamble
07-08-2012, 12:14 AM
I kind of hope he does sign it. Might just be the last straw for alot of people on the fence.

Evo
07-08-2012, 12:17 AM
The UN gun treaty has NO jurisdiction or effect on domestic gun rights. It is only about restricting small arms trafficking to human rights abusers (dictators, despots, bad guys we use guns on anyway). Now it will affect the small arms industry cause about 2/3 of the worlds guns are made here so some of our beloved firearms manufactures are going to be restricted from selling to those bad guys (Iran/N.Korea/Somalia Etc.)

G60
07-08-2012, 12:19 AM
You have to be careful with some of these examiner articles. Some are fine, others would make the Weekly World News proud.

mossy
07-08-2012, 12:32 AM
The UN gun treaty has NO jurisdiction or effect on domestic gun rights. It is only about restricting small arms trafficking to human rights abusers (dictators, despots, bad guys we use guns on anyway). Now it will affect the small arms industry cause about 2/3 of the worlds guns are made here so some of our beloved firearms manufactures are going to be restricted from selling to those bad guys (Iran/N.Korea/Somalia Etc.)

THIS!!!!! on the off chance he does sign it and congress passes it the UN is not going to be shutting down all the gun stores and kicking down your door. it would have a major impact on 0bamas campaign though practically giving the election to Romney.

DannyInSoCal
07-08-2012, 12:36 AM
I hope he does.

Like everything else - It's complete empty rhetoric.

Non-binding and isn't worth the paper and crayons it took to write it up.

It will be the final nail in the coffin for his re-election plans...

jmdove
07-08-2012, 1:15 AM
The UN gun treaty has NO jurisdiction or effect on domestic gun rights. It is only about restricting small arms trafficking to human rights abusers (dictators, despots, bad guys we use guns on anyway). Now it will affect the small arms industry cause about 2/3 of the worlds guns are made here so some of our beloved firearms manufactures are going to be restricted from selling to those bad guys (Iran/N.Korea/Somalia Etc.)

Yeah, No. I don't think so. That's the story they WANT and HOPE you
will believe. Also, there are already restrictions against domestic gun makers from selling to rogue nations that you mentioned. So
why do we need a treaty? The answers is we don't because it really is a Trojan horse.

As for ratification, I did some checking and discovered that the Senate can only ratify a treaty with 2/3 vote. That
means 67 senators must vote yes. But there are only 53 Democratic senators. That means they need 14
Republican senators in order to pass the treaty. The pro treaty senators are unlikely to get that many
conservatives to vote for something that goes against the Constitution. But is still is alarming and
bears watchin.

Connor P Price
07-08-2012, 1:23 AM
People need to keep in mind what the political make up is like in congress right now. Congress is closer to passing national carry reciprocity than they are to ratifying this treaty with the current line up. Eric Holder was just cited with contempt thanks to a Republican majority in the house plus a handful of Dem's joining in. That's the reality... this UN Treaty stuff is just alarmism.

The sky is not falling. The UN will not come for your guns. This is not the gun ban you are looking for.

Kinsel83
07-08-2012, 2:51 AM
The treaty is void no matter what. They think Americans will give up their firearms like the British and Aussies. And like others have said, senate has to vote on it. It's dead.

Calplinker
07-08-2012, 4:08 AM
A signed, yet unratified treay most definitely has implications for us under international law.

If it truly means nothing, why would he sign it?

Signing parties are recognized as being "bound by object and purpose" to even unratified treaties.

It is an incremental approach to their true goal.

Here's an interesting paper on this very subject:

http://cei.org/pdf/3297.pdf

CDFingers
07-08-2012, 5:02 AM
For those of you enamored by the wearing of tin foil hats, I will show you that in summer, such hats are inappropriate.

Here is a quote from the Secretary of State's Office concerning this treaty. After reading it, please consider proper placement of your tin foil beanie...

quotes:

KEY U.S. REDLINES

> The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

> There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.

> There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.

> The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

> The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.

> There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.

> There will be no lowering of current international standards.

> Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.

> The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.

> There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

link:

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/

Those of you who fail to read and understand become targets of bad jokes...

PS: the powers that be, the ones who control all the money, want you to freak out about this treaty and run about with your hair afire.
You should not do this.

Instead, pay attention to the Trans Pacific Partnership that is about to cement world control to the hands of a dozen multi nationals.
TPP site:

http://www.ustr.gov/tpp/

Writings about the TPP:

http://opennet.net/blog/2012/05/secretive-trans-pacific-trade-agreement-applies-dmca-restrictions-multiple-countries
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/03-0


CDFingers

OleCuss
07-08-2012, 5:12 AM
The OP is just a bunch of baloney. Lots of people get sucked in. . .

Look, the treaty has to be by consensus. There's very little chance that the negotiations currently underway are going to reach a consensus. Remember that a consensus means every last nation in the UN has to agree - and a lot of them export or import arms. That means that every nation which buys or sells arms (pretty much every one of them?) is going to be insisting that it go their way. Not bloody likely that they'll successfully negotiate the treaty.

If the treaty is (by some odd chance) successfully negotiated, then Obama would have to sign it before submitting it. He'd have to be an idiot to sign it prior to the November election. After the election it's a possibility.

If Obama signs it he'll have to submit it to the Senate in order for it to be binding. The current Senate simply wouldn't pass it - and it is not likely that the next would either.

Even if the Senate passed the thing it is rather iffy as to whether SCOTUS would let it stand.

As I've noted previously, there could be some implementation by SCOTUS even without adoption of the treaty if you have a Ginsburg-type court. The answer is not to re-elect Obama.

If Obama is re-elected, the UN arms treaty will soon be a relatively minor problem.

Defeat Obama and it'll work out OK. Re-elect Obama and we're in real trouble on a lot of fronts.

Goosebrown
07-08-2012, 5:27 AM
Yeah, No. I don't think so. That's the story they WANT and HOPE you
will believe.[snip]

As for ratification, I did some checking and discovered that the Senate can only ratify a treaty with 2/3 vote. That
means 67 senators must vote yes. But there are only 53 Democratic senators. [snip]

First. Treaties do NOT override US law. Reid vs Covert 1956.

Second. There are a lot of Democrats that back 2nd Amendment rights. If we frame this as a Republican/Democrat issue, we are going to lose in the end because there are more Democrats than Republicans and always will be because people like to feed at the teat of the sow. Keep it focused and on issue when you talk about the 2nd Amendment so as not to alienate those Democrats that are with us on this issue. Make it about civil rights and the broad base of Americans and you have a winner.

donw
07-08-2012, 6:20 AM
from what i have read and understood, every president from JFK up to now has signed treaties such as this.

no...obama is NOT stupid...he's DESPERATE to be re-elected.

his so-called "Achievements" to date, have done nothing more than divide the nation, cause racial tensions, to escalate and encourage confusion and polarization of many states.

another four years of this man will spell D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R for life as we know it.

vantec08
07-08-2012, 6:31 AM
A signed, yet unratified treay most definitely has implications for us under international law.

If it truly means nothing, why would he sign it?

Signing parties are recognized as being "bound by object and purpose" to even unratified treaties.

It is an incremental approach to their true goal.

Here's an interesting paper on this very subject:

http://cei.org/pdf/3297.pdf



Yes - - thank you. It is not a hard and fast treaty, granted, but it darn sure has implications to "cooperate" with the treaty's purpose. I end up with the same thing, we need a major change in the senate or nothing means nothing.

OleCuss
07-08-2012, 6:35 AM
I'm curious. What US Senate Democrats are consistent supporters of the RKBA?

Oh, almost every one of them will claim to support the 2A but that doesn't seem to translate into the RKBA.

I know Reid was once considered friendly to the RKBA, but now that he no longer has to worry about re-election that appears (to me at least) to have altered.

I'm not hearing any other Democrats pushing for National Reciprocity or related.

Here in California I understand we have some Democrats in the legislature who are steadfast friends of our liberty, but even they are the exception to the rule. I don't think anyone doubts that if the proportion of Democrats to Republicans were reversed that the legislature would be far more friendly to the RKBA.

One other thing. You get a court comprised of people like Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg, etc. and you don't even need to have a treaty passed by the Senate. You don't even need the treaty signed by the POTUS.

All you need is for an oppressive law to be in force in a country or two which are admired by a majority on a Ginsburg-type court and they will happily apply that law or treaty to us/US.

You can argue points of law all you want but it comes down to politics.

You re-elect Obama and there is a pretty good chance you will lose your RKBA since I don't think the fascists on the court will accept McDonald and Heller as constituting stare decisis (at least not when it comes down to the nitty-gritty).

And I'm really curious as to how many elected Democrats are going to voice their opposition to Obama's re-election because he is the enemy of the RKBA? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I'm betting none in the Senate, and probably none in the House, and probably none in the California legislature.

orangeusa
07-08-2012, 6:44 AM
Hillary wrote those redlines? (BTW - thanks for your links. Reading the examiner gave me a headache...)

For those of you enamored by the wearing of tin foil hats, I will show you that in summer, such hats are inappropriate.

Here is a quote from the Secretary of State's Office concerning this treaty. After reading it, please consider proper placement of your tin foil beanie...

quotes:

KEY U.S. REDLINES

> The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

> There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.

> There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.

> The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

> The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.

> There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.

> There will be no lowering of current international standards.

> Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.

> The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.

> There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

link:

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/

Those of you who fail to read and understand become targets of bad jokes...

PS: the powers that be, the ones who control all the money, want you to freak out about this treaty and run about with your hair afire.
You should not do this.

Instead, pay attention to the Trans Pacific Partnership that is about to cement world control to the hands of a dozen multi nationals.
TPP site:

http://www.ustr.gov/tpp/

Writings about the TPP:

http://opennet.net/blog/2012/05/secretive-trans-pacific-trade-agreement-applies-dmca-restrictions-multiple-countries
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/03-0


CDFingers

Cowboy T
07-08-2012, 6:53 AM
You have to be careful with some of these examiner articles. Some are fine, others would make the Weekly World News proud.

That's for doggone sure. Remember that Bill Clinton signed the CIFTA treaty years ago, during his Presidential term, and it was never ratified by the Senate, thus no effect.

However, I think what first Clinton, and now Obama, were and are going for with this is Article VI, Clause 2, in the Constitution. I quote:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

What we thus have here is the Constitution being Supreme Law of the Land, as well as "all treaties made, or which shall be made" being Supreme Law of the Land. Which wins? Perhaps there's case law already on the books for that, but I do recall a case involving a treaty with Canada to prevent the hunting of Canada Geese, at the time considered endangered. Congress passed a law to stop it, and someone got arrested. He appealed and won, on grounds that the statute was un-Constitutional. So, we made a treaty with Canada. He got arrested again for hunting Canada Geese. This time, the conviction was upheld due to the prohibition being in a treaty instead of a statute.

Thus, we have a possible ambiguity. It looks to me like the Democrats want to use that ambiguity to limit our rights here and require us, at our expense, to sue (taking possibly years) to undo this. Meanwhile, nothing bad happens to the Democrats--no personal loss of money, no jail time for them, and if they lose an election, big whoop, they just become a highly paid lobbyist or attorney in some very well connected firm, just like former Sen. Tom Daschle. Hence, they have little if any incentive to not try these shenanigans time after time.

EDIT: Fortunately, we have the cse of Reid v. Covert, in which the Supreme Court said, and I quote:

"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."

Surely the Democrats are aware of this ruling. Maybe they're thinking, "oh, but that was with respect to an 'executive agreement', not a 'treaty', so maybe it's worth a try." Again, a waste of our tax dollars, with nothing of consequence for them personally to lose, but a possible hardship for us.

Either way, these anti-gunners need to be voted out of office.

QQQ
07-08-2012, 7:03 AM
Show me a copy of the treaty. Or else it's just FUD.

ewarmour
07-08-2012, 8:06 AM
For those of you enamored by the wearing of tin foil hats, I will show you that in summer, such hats are inappropriate.

Here is a quote from the Secretary of State's Office concerning this treaty. After reading it, please consider proper placement of your tin foil beanie...

quotes:

KEY U.S. REDLINES

> The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
> There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
> There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
> The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
> The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
> There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
> There will be no lowering of current international standards.
> Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
> The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
> There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

link:

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/

Those of you who fail to read and understand become targets of bad jokes...

CDFingers

Hey everybody look what I copied from the State department website! The government would never lie to us, especially on the internet, especially a department run by Hillary Clinton! Never mind what the treaty really says, I'll just take Hillary's word for it! I have an idea, lets get it signed and ratified before we find out what's in it! It worked for Obamcare!

As for the Constitution - it only means what the Supreme Court interprets it to mean. A few more Ginsburgs and it's a worthless scrap of paper.

OleCuss
07-08-2012, 8:25 AM
Not sure why the sarcasm.

It was posted as a quote. I don't think there are too many on this site who unquestioningly trust what Hillary or Obama or Holder tell us.

But do understand that it is likely those "redlines" will be held to. Not because there is any great love for the embodied principles but because it would be politically inconvenient/suicidal to do otherwise.

Do understand that there is some wiggle room in some of those provisions. . . But if they stomp on the RKBA in late July there will be consequences at the polls about three months later.

If this treaty gets through the UN it really is likely going to have to be a relatively benign document which mostly works on terminology and improves the structural framework for the arms trade. Unlikely, however, that there will be any treaty successfully negotiated since Bush got the "consensus" requirement nailed into it.

bill_k_lopez
07-08-2012, 8:27 AM
The UN gun treaty has NO jurisdiction or effect on domestic gun rights. It is only about restricting small arms trafficking to human rights abusers (dictators, despots, bad guys we use guns on anyway). Now it will affect the small arms industry cause about 2/3 of the worlds guns are made here so some of our beloved firearms manufactures are going to be restricted from selling to those bad guys (Iran/N.Korea/Somalia Etc.)

So the NRA, Heritage Foundation a retired US General and Congress are all wrong for not just "going along" with supporting this?

I just can't understand some people on this forum - you say you stand for gun rights, but yet you're so quick to just "believe" when told the next new law, treaty, whatever doesn't really apply to YOU...

NRA Kicks Off UN Arms Treaty Conference With Fearmongering (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/03/nra-kicks-off-un-arms-treaty-conference-with-fe/186926) - Media Matters

The U.N. Speaks: The Arms Trade Treaty Will Affect “Legally Owned Weapons” (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/the-u-n-speaks-the-arms-trade-treaty-will-affect-legally-owned-weapons/) - The Heritage Foundation

Lawmakers join general in declaring pact a threat to freedom (http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obama-told-to-back-off-u-n-gun-treaty/) - WND

Ripon83
07-08-2012, 8:30 AM
I know this is FUD, I know he won't, but it would be kind of nice to see all our friends who live the RKBA and Obama step and fetch on that one.



This is all I could find, with the exception of many forums with the info.

http://www.examiner.com/article/senate-set-to-approve-controversial-un-gun-treaty

I don't think Obama is stupid enough to attempt to pass something like this.

bill_k_lopez
07-08-2012, 8:33 AM
Show me a copy of the treaty. Or else it's just FUD.



From 2-27 July, all countries of the world will come together in New York to negotiate what is seen as the most important initiative ever regarding conventional arms regulation within the United Nations. A robust arms trade treaty can make a difference for millions of people confronted with insecurity, deprivation and fear.

UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/)

johnjohn301
07-08-2012, 8:35 AM
The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case (Reid v. Covert) the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/

bill_k_lopez
07-08-2012, 8:43 AM
The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case (Reid v. Covert) the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

Right....do you remember a little thing called the NDAA? Indefinite detention without charge or trial - where was the amendment to the 6th?

People need to wake up....

Ripon83
07-08-2012, 8:46 AM
Or the new liberal chief justice and the partisan hacks on the left decide the 2nd doesn't apply to citizens but only a state sanctioned militia. It's all a matter of interpretation. I doubt very much Roberts would flip that far, but kagan, Sotomayor, Ginny are already there....just one more baby!


The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case (Reid v. Covert) the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/