Jump to content

OK...is this bullshit for real?


TTQ B4U

Recommended Posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

 

an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

 

Concerns about treaties

 

There has been some debate as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights, could be affected by an ambitious treaty. In the 1950s, a Constitutional Amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears. This proposed amendment would have mandated that all American treaties shall not conflict with the manifest powers granted to the Federal Government. Subsequent Federal court cases such as Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955), Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (1972), and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) have, over the course of time, established in legal decisions most of the limitations that had been proposed by the Bricker Amendment.[6][7][8]

 

It is my understanding that treaties fall under the supremacy clause, making them overrule state law. BUT, they can still be found to be unconstitutional. So if a treaty disarms the general public, it will be found to be in violation of the second amendment and therefore unconstitutional. They only way to legally end gun ownership is the repeal of the second amendment, or a new amendment claiming the second amendment to be void such as was done with prohibition. The only way they can get around this is to regulate things to the point where while it would be legal to own a firearm, it would be impossible to get one like how it is now in DC. You will note that the Obama administration is staying silent on this matter, it is being pushed by third parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its hard to get real raw details on this thing. i will tell you though it does scare the shit out of me. maybe partly the fact that i still cant find any solid real facts about any of it

 

because there aren't many to be found.

 

Iran is trying to troll the superpowers out of being able to sell arms to anyone. The NRA noticed that the way it is written would require sales records turned over to the UN so started their normal protest of erosion of gun rights. Nobody in our government has actually come out and said anything, and its being supported by Amnesty International and a couple other groups nobody has heard of. Sounds like talks of this nature have been going on some time, seeing how its reported that Bush told them to fuck off, and Obama is interested in talking about it but hasn't committed to anything. Obama has already done a lot to piss off the blue collar/union voters, and doing anything to hurt gun ownership will be a finishing move in that sector so he probably knows that he can't do anything about guns, at least not until after the election at which point, according to what he told the Russians, he's free to do a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cliffs?

 

In the first paragraph.

 

Whoever wrote this thinks the second Amendment IN THE UNITED STATES, will be challenged by the rest of the world.

 

They will have to pry it from my cold dead hands. If other countries don't like us owning weapons, dont fucking come here. Simple as that. (disclaimer: i did not read past the first paragraph and assume this is on a citizen level.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is our President and Secretary of State, as well as a majority of others in the current adminstration agree with the UN when it comes to domestic firearms control.

 

At the very least, if this Treaty is eventually ratified by the Senate, the import of surplus military firearms and ammunition as well as import of sporting firearms and ammunition will become very expensive.

 

UN members pushing for this treaty want to require extensive studies and reports detailing the possible impacts in the region and neighboring regions before any firearms or ammunition could be transferred across Country borders. Imagine how much that would cost and how much time it would take to generate the reports and then have the UN bureacrats make a decision on whether it's a good idea to import some surplus ammo or fierarms. Imports will simply stop.

 

There is a good chance we could end up with a national gun registry so that firearms could be properly tracked and accounted for. This way they can tax gun owners for each firearm they own to generate enough revenue to pay for the new systems and costs associated with regulations like this. Big Government.

 

 

What can you do?

 

Send an email to your Senators and let them know how you feel about a treaty like this. The Senate will have to have a 2/3rds majority vote to ratify the Treaty once it's signed by Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...