UN Gun Control Treaty

[Medic624]

Just my 2 cents...

Let me see if I have a decent understanding of this process... meaning that, when this is signed on the 27th it must then be ratified by the Senate... Okay, so if it DOES get ratified it is then signed off and deemed on par with our constitutional amendments ie... Negating the 2nd amendment depending on the interpretation of the wording within the treaty as understood by whom? The U.N. and the nations that signed off on the treaty?!? AND, arent most of the arms trade done BY countries to other countries? So, who are they ultimately looking to limit trade to and from? Mexico initially didn't know Holder et al were essentially smuggling arms into Mexico for F&F...

Seems to me there is a lot of "Nothing to see here people go about your business we will feed you what you need to know when you need to know it" kind of like, " You need to pass it to see what's in it"

If Canada who has now had the chance to look into the treaty and who has now come out saying it is too far reaching and does nothing to protect the individual to own a weapon for protection or sporting ... That's CANADA saying that who I would surmise doesn't have much of a dog in this fight ... To me something seems a bit fishy.
http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+says+ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


It also deserves mentioning that it makes me a bit unnerved as to the whole backing and funding by Mr. Soros... Who just simply creeps me out anyway... "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain for I am the great and powerful OZ!"

If Canada, who isn't the shining pillar of personal gun rights, opposes this maybe it needs some closer scrutiny...

Just sayin'

[chasfm11]

NOW you get what I'm talking about...its not about the firearms in the USA directly, but about indirectly limiting or eliminating outside sources of firearms and ammunition into the USA. SUPPLY AND DEMAND. They reduce the supply, demand initially stays level or rises, and so do the prices...this then forces the demand back down, which is what the end goal is...the fewer folks that own guns, the fewer young folks that grow up around guns...and the cycle gets repeated, in a regressing pattern until the collectivist statist goal of disarmament is achieved. I'm not making any jokes about tinfoil hats because I'm not crazy, those leftists ARE control freaks and they really DO want us all disarmed, the misplaced faith of people such as gdanaher in either the benevolence or incompetence of the UN notwithstanding. Dictatorial regimes don't want the "peasantry" armed, having them disarmed makes it easier to bully them, or round them up, or starve them out, ala Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

The supply/demand stuff doesn't always work. Drugs, for example, seem always to find a supply route, no matter how illegal they are. Even the police in D.C. admit that there are lots of guns on the streets in spite of the bans.

There appears to be a secondary goal in these kinds of situations and that is to make criminals out of all who would resist. That also makes it easier to stifle to competition in a totalitarian state. People may still get guns but they can be put into prison if detected. It adds a whole new dimension to "concealed is concealed".

My tin foil hat remarks are simply my feeble attempt to inject a little humor into the matter. I agree that the Liberal/Progressive types are control freaks but I'm finding that most of them are also very hypocritical about that control, too. They want to control others but rail if they are similarly controlled. They also want others to pay taxes to support their outlandish programs but stiffen at the thought of someone raising THEIR tax burden.

[Heartland Patriot]

NOW you get what I'm talking about...its not about the firearms in the USA directly, but about indirectly limiting or eliminating outside sources of firearms and ammunition into the USA. SUPPLY AND DEMAND. They reduce the supply, demand initially stays level or rises, and so do the prices...this then forces the demand back down, which is what the end goal is...the fewer folks that own guns, the fewer young folks that grow up around guns...and the cycle gets repeated, in a regressing pattern until the collectivist statist goal of disarmament is achieved. I'm not making any jokes about tinfoil hats because I'm not crazy, those leftists ARE control freaks and they really DO want us all disarmed, the misplaced faith of people such as gdanaher in either the benevolence or incompetence of the UN notwithstanding. Dictatorial regimes don't want the "peasantry" armed, having them disarmed makes it easier to bully them, or round them up, or starve them out, ala Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

The supply/demand stuff doesn't always work. Drugs, for example, seem always to find a supply route, no matter how illegal they are. Even the police in D.C. admit that there are lots of guns on the streets in spite of the bans.

There appears to be a secondary goal in these kinds of situations and that is to make criminals out of all who would resist. That also makes it easier to stifle to competition in a totalitarian state. People may still get guns but they can be put into prison if detected. It adds a whole new dimension to "concealed is concealed".

My tin foil hat remarks are simply my feeble attempt to inject a little humor into the matter. I agree that the Liberal/Progressive types are control freaks but I'm finding that most of them are also very hypocritical about that control, too. They want to control others but rail if they are similarly controlled. They also want others to pay taxes to support their outlandish programs but stiffen at the thought of someone raising THEIR tax burden.

I'm curious what an "illegal firearm" costs in Japan, or the UK, where there are near-total bans on firearms. I'd bet they aren't cheap, even for the bad guys. Sorry, if you took the "tinfoil" thing to be directed at you, I didn't intend that...just said it to make a point because the leftists always say things like "we don't want your guns, you're crazy"...except I will ALWAYS remember Dianne Feinstein's

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Though she is only one politician in the Democrat Party, she is INDICATIVE, to me, of the attitude of the majority of that Party, and of that overall ideology of the left. She didn't have the votes...she didn't care what the Constitution says, or that people have rights born unto them, such as defending oneself, nope, she was just upset because she didn't have the votes necessary to do it. Some folks run cover for people like Feinstein...but like I said, I'm not forgetting.

[SewTexas]

not to add to the paranoia, but...well...this sounds like yet another way to try to put all gun control at DC?

[Medic624]

not to add to the paranoia, but...well...this sounds like yet another way to try to put all gun control at DC?

I understand your "paranoia" comment because sometimes I feel like my posts come across as if Im sitting in a Faraday Cage in a safe room wearing tinfoil and watching CCTV... Wait...shhhh...anyone else hear that?!? Seriously though ... In all the fog and rhetoric Ive simply lost the ability to believe anything (at face value by either party) that has been filtered down for public consumption. I do not believe we could find 10 people serving at the national level who does not ascribe to bending the truth or boldface lying for either personal or party gains under the auspices of "For your own good".

Depending on what you research (and I read ALL the info I can find on an issue) from extreme right to extreme left including foreign publications and it appears that it is so convoluted that unless you have a copy of the treaty to read I dont think we will actually know until we know. But, by that time it may be too late or nothing to worry about.

My issue is, I have YET to see any bureaucracy such as the one proposed to not be either, a huge sham solely for someones monetary gain or a way to limit someones freedom... It usually never benefits those it purports to be intended to aid. Which goes back to the unethical and or self-serving leaders we have put in power.

[Kythas]

Let me see if I have a decent understanding of this process... meaning that, when this is signed on the 27th it must then be ratified by the Senate... Okay, so if it DOES get ratified it is then signed off and deemed on par with our constitutional amendments ie... Negating the 2nd amendment depending on the interpretation of the wording within the treaty as understood by whom?

No. Treaties have the force of law on par with laws Congress passes, not on par with Constitutional Amendments. A treaty obligation can still be found unconstitutional and be voided. The Supreme Court has found numerous treaties to be in violation of the Constitution over the years and have declared them void.


“The treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853).

“It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).

[SewTexas]

personally I'd like to see something more recent that 1924...

I've been taught treaties are equal to or surpassing that of the constitution....thus many are concerned about the UN Rights of the Child Treaty. (ooooo, do it for the children, yeh, and watch your children prevent your move, your future children, and your divorce )

[57Coastie]

Let me see if I have a decent understanding of this process... meaning that, when this is signed on the 27th it must then be ratified by the Senate... Okay, so if it DOES get ratified it is then signed off and deemed on par with our constitutional amendments ie... Negating the 2nd amendment depending on the interpretation of the wording within the treaty as understood by whom?

No. Treaties have the force of law on par with laws Congress passes, not on par with Constitutional Amendments. A treaty obligation can still be found unconstitutional and be voided. The Supreme Court has found numerous treaties to be in violation of the Constitution over the years and have declared them void.


“The treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853).

“It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).

I must challenge your research, Kythas. It has been noted time and again that the Suprme Court cases you cite do not stand for the proposition you advance. We must keep in mind that at times members of the Court say one thing, and they decide something else. It is what they decide that counts. When they willy-nilly make a statement about a hypothetical case, that statement is not law. It is obiter dictum, a pronouncement not amounting to a holding of law.

I think you may owe us a citation for what it is you have written as if the language were your own.

Without seeing that citation I will challenge you to demonstrate to me, in your own words, where in those five cases you cite the Supreme Court majority opinion held that a properly ratified and enacted self-executing treaty is other than on the same level as our Constitution as supreme law of the land. I would suggest to you that each of the cases you have cited either make declarations of obiter dictum not necessary to the decision of the case, or, on the other hand, deal with the question of the validity of state action contrary to the provisions of a treaty, not actions of the federal government, by either the congress or the administration.

You have taken on complex legal matters here, Kythas, and you must be prepared to demonstrate the correctness of your legal research, or refer us to what it was you copied in a very unscholarly manner by omitting any credits. The omission of credits generally implies one of two things, (1) that it is your original work, or (2) perhaps plagiarism. Those 19th century cases cited did not address an issue concerning conflict between action by the United States causing conflict between the Constitution and its treaty making power, nor did Asakura frame such an issue.

Nuff said. Let me refer you to my earlier post on the first page of this thread where I attempted to, as best I could, answer Dave2's question about the supreme law of the land, and I concluded, on the basis of my research and lifetime experience, I really did not know the answer for sure. I see no need to go through that again.

Perhaps a scholarly analysis of the cases you cite will satisfy me, Dave2, and all the judges and lawyers in our great land who admit that right now they do not know for sure would be obliged to you.

Jim

[Kythas]

Let me see if I have a decent understanding of this process... meaning that, when this is signed on the 27th it must then be ratified by the Senate... Okay, so if it DOES get ratified it is then signed off and deemed on par with our constitutional amendments ie... Negating the 2nd amendment depending on the interpretation of the wording within the treaty as understood by whom?

No. Treaties have the force of law on par with laws Congress passes, not on par with Constitutional Amendments. A treaty obligation can still be found unconstitutional and be voided. The Supreme Court has found numerous treaties to be in violation of the Constitution over the years and have declared them void.


“The treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853).

“It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).

I must challenge your research, Kythas. It has been noted time and again that the Suprme Court cases you cite do not stand for the proposition you advance. We must keep in mind that at times members of the Court say one thing, and they decide something else. It is what they decide that counts. When they willy-nilly make a statement about a hypothetical case, that statement is not law. It is obiter dictum, a pronouncement not amounting to a holding of law.

I think you may owe us a citation for what it is you have written as if the language were your own.

Without seeing that citation I will challenge you to demonstrate to me, in your own words, where in those five cases you cite the Supreme Court majority opinion held that a properly ratified and enacted self-executing treaty is other than on the same level as our Constitution as supreme law of the land. I would suggest to you that each of the cases you have cited either make declarations of obiter dictum not necessary to the decision of the case, or, on the other hand, deal with the question of the validity of state action contrary to the provisions of a treaty, not actions of the federal government, by either the congress or the administration.

You have taken on complex legal matters here, Kythas, and you must be prepared to demonstrate the correctness of your legal research, or refer us to what it was you copied in a very unscholarly manner by omitting any credits. The omission of credits generally implies one of two things, (1) that it is your original work, or (2) perhaps plagiarism. Those 19th century cases cited did not address an issue concerning conflict between action by the United States causing conflict between the Constitution and its treaty making power, nor did Asakura frame such an issue.

If you choose to play with the big boys, be prepared for a hard match.

Nuff said. Let me refer you to my earlier post on the first page of this thread where I attempted to, as best I could, answer Dave2's question about the supreme law of the land, and I concluded, on the basis of my research and lifetime experience, I really did not know the answer for sure. I see no need to go through that again.

Perhaps a scholarly analysis of the cases you cite will satisfy me, Dave2, and all the judges and lawyers in our great land who admit that right now they do not know for sure would be obliged to you.

Jim

Jim,

The paragraph I wrote, excepting the quotes in which the proper case citations were listed, were my own words. No citation was needed. If you need citation, I will refer you to those cases which I did, in fact, cite.

I stand by the statement that treaties do NOT supercede the Constitution. The idea that they do comes from John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Secretary of State. Dulles believed as follows: "Under our Constitution treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can over-ride the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the state and give them to the federal government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights."

Dulles was incorrect in this belief, but this idea has taken hold since then.

Here's another Supreme Court case citation for you which should put this to rest once and for all, as it DOES deal with "an issue concerning conflict between action by the United States causing conflict between the Constitution and its treaty making power": Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1.

This case raised the question of whether NATO status of forces agreements, which are treaties, supercede the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court in this case said this: "This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."

The majority opinion in that case further stated:

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

In this opinion, the Court restated language from an earlier case, Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258:

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

The Court then continued in its opinion (emphasis mine):

"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."

If you still need further persuading, I refer you to the words of our Founding Fathers themselves:

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others". - Thomas Jefferson

"I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of its delegation...Here, the supremacy of a treaty is contrasted with the supremacy of the laws of the states. It cannot be otherwise supreme.” - James Madison

"A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country, or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution..." - Alexander Hamilton

Here's part of a letter written by Sen. Arlen Specter to one of his constituents, who has put it online, said letter dated Nov 3, 1994:

"Dear Mr. Neely:
"Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. ... I have signed on as a cosponsor of Senator Bradley’s resolution [SR 70, which urges the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate for ratification] because I believe that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is an appropriate step in the direction of promoting the well-being of children throughout the world. [he goes on to mention concerns that the treaty would subjugate familial and parental responsibility to an international entity, which he denies]

"... Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our country... "

If you require further reading on this, then perhaps this document from the Stanford School of Law will help: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1 ... 6296248563

The fact is, a treaty can NOT override the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue multiple times. Powers granted by the Constitution can not realistically be construed to grant powers to override it.

[Medic624]

This treaty is purportedly to limit the sale of guns between countries and needs to be ratified by a Senate vote to effect our 2nd Amendment BUT... International treaties by case law and precedent seemingly do not trump the US Constitution 1957 Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 in a landmark decision the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution SUPERSEDES international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. “This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.”

But then I was watching TV and they were talking about it and said it was on par and had as much standing as a Constitutional Amendment...I need to do more research.

[Heartland Patriot]

The thing that always stumps me the most isn't that there are greedy politicians, particularly those of the political left, who are willing to buy off on these sorts of things, but that there are average citizens that do not have the vast political power of said politicians, but who still would willing support this sort of mess and give away their rights and freedoms in exchange for some imagined safety. No matter how lofty they may feel themselves to be, no matter how high a position they may hold in life, they must in reality be as a child wishing for some "grownup" to take care of them and save them from harm.

[Kythas]

This treaty is purportedly to limit the sale of guns between countries and needs to be ratified by a Senate vote to effect our 2nd Amendment BUT... International treaties by case law and precedent seemingly do not trump the US Constitution 1957 Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 in a landmark decision the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution SUPERSEDES international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. “This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.”

But then I was watching TV and they were talking about it and said it was on par and had as much standing as a Constitutional Amendment...I need to do more research.

The talking head on TV was wrong.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution trumps treaties just as it trumps laws passed by Congress. A treaty has the effect of an Act of Congress, not the effect of an Amendment to the Constitution. If so, the act of amending the Constitution in that manner would, itself, be unconsitutional since that is not a specified method of amendment stated in Article V.

Here's a nice article about it from the American Society of International Law. http://www.asil.org/insigh10.cfm

[SewTexas]

thus what concerns me, if, someone as educated as my husband and I (and the rest of us) was as confused about this what about the Court? "Separation of church and state" has become practical law because it was accepted as law, if this is accepted as the way it works then what happens?

maybe I'm being paranoid again, but we seem to have a DC that is in love with Europe already...they jumped on to the Rights of the Child and thus far it's only been the Far Right (homeschoolers, military, and Christians) that has kept some sane folks from signing. Again, I bet none of them have actually read it and understood the ramifications. (this is another one I think could impact gun owners, can't remember)

[chasfm11]

maybe I'm being paranoid again, but we seem to have a DC that is in love with Europe already...they jumped on to the Rights of the Child and thus far it's only been the Far Right (homeschoolers, military, and Christians) that has kept some sane folks from signing. Again, I bet none of them have actually read it and understood the ramifications. (this is another one I think could impact gun owners, can't remember)

As fodder for our mutual paranoia

http://www.infowars.com/soros-promotes- ... ownership/

Joe Wolverton, II
The New American
Saturday, July 7, 2012

In another section the ATT includes “controls on a comprehensive list of weaponry, including small arms and light weapons.” Predictably, all these controls are couched comfortably in talk of “human rights” and ending senseless killings by rogue regimes.

In order to avoid being labeled a “human rights abuser,” the United States (along with all member states) is ordered by the UN to comply with the ATT. To compel this compliance, the ATT empowers the UN to force Congress to:

• Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans

• Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the U.S. government to keep theirs

• Ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of semi-automatic guns

• Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America

[Heartland Patriot]

maybe I'm being paranoid again, but we seem to have a DC that is in love with Europe already...they jumped on to the Rights of the Child and thus far it's only been the Far Right (homeschoolers, military, and Christians) that has kept some sane folks from signing. Again, I bet none of them have actually read it and understood the ramifications. (this is another one I think could impact gun owners, can't remember)

As fodder for our mutual paranoia

http://www.infowars.com/soros-promotes- ... ownership/

Joe Wolverton, II
The New American
Saturday, July 7, 2012

In another section the ATT includes “controls on a comprehensive list of weaponry, including small arms and light weapons.” Predictably, all these controls are couched comfortably in talk of “human rights” and ending senseless killings by rogue regimes.

In order to avoid being labeled a “human rights abuser,” the United States (along with all member states) is ordered by the UN to comply with the ATT. To compel this compliance, the ATT empowers the UN to force Congress to:

• Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans

• Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the U.S. government to keep theirs

• Ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of semi-automatic guns

• Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America

I have no doubt that the UN, and the bulk of the political left in the USA, want those things in that list to happen. I don't think they will get those things...but gun control, as I have said before, is NOT about "prying them from your cold, dead hands", but about legislating and regulating them away, bit by bit...which is what they have done in the UK and Australia, and have tried to do in Canada, as well. But, hey, we can all have the perfect society where all hold hands and sing precious little songs (like they do in North Korea) if we just let the UN tell us all how to live...wouldn't that be wonderful?