UN Arms Trade Treaty can overide the 2ND admendment

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

pak-40

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
478
Reaction score
18
Location
Oklahoma City
This sounds nice, but is 100% FALSE. Research international law and treaties. The executive branch can bind us to a treaty until it is voted on by the Senate. The power originates from back in the day when the Senate was not typically in session and it was not easy for everyone to just travel for a vote. So the power exist to temporarily bind the USA to a treaty UNTIL THE SENATE VOTE ON IT. No one really foresaw the situation of the Senate refusing to vote on one, it was always assumed that they would do their patriotic duty to their country and vote.

Go read what Jesse Helms did with several treaties Clinton signed. They never made it out of committee, never voted on by the Senate, never ratified, and not the law.


Bill Clinton signed the Convention On The Rights of a Child Treaty on Feb, 16, 1995. It never made it out of committee in the US Senate to be voted on. The Republicans controlled the Foreign Relations Committee and never had the full senate vote on it. It is not the law of the land. Why would this be any different?
 

JB Books

Shooter Emeritus
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
14,103
Reaction score
183
Location
Hansenland
I think you guys forgot the crap load of Democrats that sent Obama a letter in his first year saying they would NOT support any gun control. These politicians know that gun control is a losing issue. It is only popular in a few states.

We have MORE gun rights now than we have had in a long time.

In short, get a grip.
 

yukonjack

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
5,938
Reaction score
2,039
Location
Piedmont
This sounds nice, but is 100% FALSE. Research international law and treaties. The executive branch can bind us to a treaty until it is voted on by the Senate. The power originates from back in the day when the Senate was not typically in session and it was not easy for everyone to just travel for a vote. So the power exist to temporarily bind the USA to a treaty UNTIL THE SENATE VOTE ON IT. No one really foresaw the situation of the Senate refusing to vote on one, it was always assumed that they would do their patriotic duty to their country and vote.


Oh, you are wearing us out. Where in the CFR does it say that these unratified international treaties are binding on the USofA?? Who is going to enforce them??????????????????? The blue helmeted UN peacekeepers???

For your reading pleasure: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/index.tpl

Or in the powers given to the Executive branch? Start here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch

The Executive Branch conducts diplomacy with other nations, and the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, which also must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.
 

10Seconds

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
Yes, the UN and their international courts would be the ones to try and enforce it. All of the other member nations could try and apply pressure for them to do so. Is it likely? Maybe not right now but tides change and who knows what the world could look like in 10 yrs.

Technically, a court would have to uphold an unvoted on treaty on par with the constitution and thus superior to all other laws.
 

Maverick21

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,534
Reaction score
82
Location
Moore
There is no personnel to, even if temporarily approved while awaiting senate (dis)approval, enforce our turnover of arms. Personally, I'll worry about this issue when I hear about cases of guns being taken from law abiding citizens. Until then, I'll sleep soundly knowing we have our (limited) 2A rights.
 

mugsy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,540
Reaction score
1,112
Location
South West, OK
Yes this is also what concerns me. Am I wrong but since Harry Reid controls the senate he can keep it from ever coming for a vote. If the senate never votes to denounce it the treaty will effect US gun owners. Sorry to bore anyone who has been through this conversation before but just curious.

The Treaty must be submitted to the Senate for ratification and, if passed, would then have the force of Federal law but it does not trump the Constitution which is the "basic" or fundamental law of the United States. However, if ratified it might trump other federal laws favorable to gun owners/2nd Amendment rights. It is also likely to open a Pandora's Box of lawsuits that could, over time, erode bit-by-bit 2A rights when added together. Remember nothing is really carved in stone and attitudes affect enforcement or acceptance of law - even Constitutional law - and allowing piece-meal weakening is not a good plan.
 

mugsy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,540
Reaction score
1,112
Location
South West, OK
Yes, the UN and their international courts would be the ones to try and enforce it. All of the other member nations could try and apply pressure for them to do so. Is it likely? Maybe not right now but tides change and who knows what the world could look like in 10 yrs.

Technically, a court would have to uphold an unvoted on treaty on par with the constitution and thus superior to all other laws.

10Seconds, I believe that this is in error - an unapproved Treaty, while the executive could follow its provision to the extent that is within his discretion, is very doubtful as an enforceable law in the courts of the United States. Now the President could instead as I said above simply "act" like the provisions are in force but that would be subject to challenge unless such provisions are already clearly within his scope of powers and, if they are, then he could also simply negotiate an Executive Agreement. An EA does not require ratification and is not law but does tend to bind future administrations unless they want to accept the heat for ending/breaking such an agreement.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom