State Department Reversal on UN arms treaty

[Stetson]

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

The panic in the blogosphere is just heating up as people find out about this.

Im glad no one listened when the current administration said they had no interest in banning guns. 

[red headed stranger]

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

Ms. Hiller obviously hates countries asserting their sovereignty.  

[Balog]

It's a-coming boys. They don't need to pass laws, just let other nations do it for us... 

[longeyes]

Molon labe.

[TechMan]

Byline from article is Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT...NRA-ILA sent an email out about this since this is making the rounds again.  I still don't like it and cannot wait until 2012.

[AZRedhawk44]

Molon labe.

I happen to be passably aware and conversant with 20,000 people this year that have heard the story of Government's attempt to seize lay folks' arms one spring day in 1775.  Also its attempt to starve a continent of arms and ammo by trade embargo.

Next year, I'm hoping that number is closer to 40-50,000.

Not that they're all of one mindset, nor are they the only ones that might feel any particular way about anything.

Just sayin, they've heard the story, and they have even learned to shoot a little bit.

[tyme]

Dear State Department,

Bite me.

Arms control is a meaningless political stunt designed as an excuse to oppress legitimate freedom fighters in dictatorial or corrupt 3rd world countries whenever it serves the purposes of other governments.  It also leads to abusive selective enforcement in more developed countries, since regulating possessions and machine shops is inherently impractical.

Think the drug war is bad?  Drive all gun manufacturing and possession underground.

[nico]

I still don't get how this could possibly pass Constitutional muster (not saying obama wouldn't do it).  Where in the Constitution does it say a treaty can override any part of the Constitution. 

ETA: if this passes, gun/ammo prices are going to go through the roof. 

[seeker_two]

Any senator that votes to ratify this--Republican or Democrat--will have hell to pay in the next election.... 

[Gowen]

Any senator that votes to ratify this--Republican or Democrat--will have hell to pay in the next election.... 

Will they?  I really mean it, will they?  This country saw 2 towers fall to the ground, the Pentagon get slammed into and a jet crash in Pennsylvania.  They promptly went back to sleep.

[Boomhauer]

Will they?  I really mean it, will they?  This country saw 2 towers fall to the ground, the Pentagon get slammed into and a jet crash in Pennsylvania.  They promptly went back to sleep.

What he said.

Americans just plain don't care.

[MicroBalrog]

Hillary Clinton And The UN Arms Trade Treaty Rumor
   
  Friday, May 28, 2010
   
  We continue to receive numerous inquiries regarding UN international treaties, and their impact on our Second Amendment rights.  The latest rumor making its way around the Internet claims that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually signed a UN small arms treaty.

Contrary to this widely circulated e-mail, Hillary Clinton has not signed any small arms treaty.  She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.
 
As we noted in an update from last November, the UN Arms Trade Treaty will be drafted between now and 2012,  and even if signed, would not take effect in the U.S. until it was ratified by the Senate.

Please rest assured that, as we said in November, NRA will be actively involved in this process and will oppose any treaty that would attempt to impose limits on our Second Amendment rights.  In the meantime, we urge gun owners to follow this issue in NRA's magazines and NRA-ILA's Grassroots Alerts.  We also urge gun owners not to circulate misinformation on this issue.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5855

[Ron]

We also urge gun owners not to circulate misinformation on this issue.

QFT

[Stetson]

Didnt realize Reuters news service was a rumor mill....

[RocketMan]

Didnt realize Reuters news service was a rumor mill....

Old news.  Read the publishing date.

[Ben]

Old news.  Read the publishing date.

Nevertheless, I miss John Bolton...

[Ron]

Didnt realize Reuters news service was a rumor mill....

While it is an old story it is not a dead story...

Not a bad thing to revisit it and check on the current status of the gun grabbers agenda.

[longeyes]

It will never be an old story so long as the desire to disarm free men and women exists.  We need to remain vigilant because they are not going to stop.

[MechAg94]

Treaties do need a 2/3 majority.  You need people from both parties to do that even now.  That would also be a test for all these "pro-gun" democrats.

[gunsmith]

Didnt realize Reuters news service was a rumor mill....

Reuters news service is about as good as infowars and WND is better then both

[kgbsquirrel]

Does anyone have a link to the actual text of this proposed treaty yet?

[Waitone]

Treaties do need a 2/3 majority.  You need people from both parties to do that even now.

Unless of course our elected representatives decide to submit it as an agreement, not a treaty.  The difference?  Simple majority v. 2/3's majority.  Recent examples include WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA.  Fact is most mulitlateral trade agreements are submitted as such.  Unconsitutional?  Youbetcha.  So what.  Any action against firearms will show up as an agreement and therefore be submitted as an agreement.

[MechAg94]

Unless of course our elected representatives decide to submit it as an agreement, not a treaty.  The difference?  Simple majority v. 2/3's majority.  Recent examples include WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA.  Fact is most mulitlateral trade agreements are submitted as such.  Unconsitutional?  Youbetcha.  So what.  Any action against firearms will show up as an agreement and therefore be submitted as an agreement.

So what real force of law would that have in the US?

[RevDisk]

Unless of course our elected representatives decide to submit it as an agreement, not a treaty.  The difference?  Simple majority v. 2/3's majority.  Recent examples include WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA.  Fact is most mulitlateral trade agreements are submitted as such.  Unconsitutional?  Youbetcha.  So what.  Any action against firearms will show up as an agreement and therefore be submitted as an agreement.

Agreements are better for us than "treaties" (legal term, not the general term).

Missouri v. Holland declared that treaties ratified by 2/3 majority can be used the federal government as a backdoor to force states to accept restrictions not granted to the feds per the Constitution.   A congressional-executive agreement (simple majority) has to stay within the framework of the Constitution.

CEA's are perfectly legal, and bound to stay within the Constitution.  There's roughly 20k agreements in place.  <1k treaties.

Also, we are entirely free to modify the treaty or agreement after the fact, even if the text itself declares that it cannot be altered.  Any treaty or agreement found inconsistent with the Constitution is void within US law, per Reid v. Covert.

[Scout26]

So the sky isn't really falling.......

[Continues to run in circles screaming]