UN Arms Trade Treaty can overide the 2ND admendment

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Not 100 percent of all the details but from what i heard today if H. Clinton signs this in two weeks and as long as the US senate and the president dont denounce it we will have to obey the UN set rules and since its a treaty it will have presidence over the second admendmet

Has anyone else heard about this?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07...s-say-critics/

It's not so.

Even Dick Morris thinks it is, but it isn't.

Some say that if Hillery signs it and the Senate doesn't take it up right away and "disapprove" it, that it will become law in the United States until the treaty is "disapproved" by the Senate. The "Vienna Convention" treaty that became effective a few years ago being used to support that argument, and the US being signatory to the Vienna Convention, does not authorize our Secretary of State or the President to "ratify" a treaty or commit the United States to the tenants of a treaty until disapproved by the Senate.

The Vienna Convention Treaty defines someone with the power to sign a treaty and commit a country to it as follows:

(c) “full powers” means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty;
Neither the President nor the Secretary of State have been authorized by our Constitution to have such full powers. The Constitution has no such provisions in it.​

The only "competent power" in or from the United States is that specified in Article II, and it includes the President and the consent of the Senate. Even the following falls short of supposing such powers exist in a President of the United States alone or anyone else in our government:

1. A person is considered as representing a State for the purpose of adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty or for the purpose of expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty if:
(a) he produces appropriate full powers; or
(b) it appears from the practice of the States concerned or from other circumstances that their intention was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispense with full powers.

2. In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State:
(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty;
(b) heads of diplomatic missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty between the accrediting State and the State to which they are accredited;
(c) representatives accredited by States to an international conference or to an international organization or one of its organs, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty in that conference, organization or organ.​

The United States does not consider the President to have such power alone. The President cannot conclude a treaty without the consent of the Senate, therefore it is not a function of the President to commit the United States to a treaty; the Secretary of State is not accredited; and neither is anyone else accredited to commit the United States to a treaty nor is there any other process in our Constitution to that end aside from Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.


Any treaty supposedly "consented" to even if temporarily while awaiting "up or down" from the Senate would not have the force of law behind it. The Vienna Convention Treaty, though it be supreme law in the United States, leaves enough of a loop hole that our constitutional means of ratifying treaties is left completely intact.


No treaty can override anything in the Constitution, either. Any treaty not made under the authority of the United States is null and void. Any treaty that would infringe upon the RKBA would not come under the heading of the authority of the United States, as the United States has no authority to infringe the RKBA.

Woody

 

[purplehaze]

I said it with the upmost love and affection. Just remember what's good for the goose is good for the sheeple.

Thank you Mr PH for your sheeple comment.

I am in no way advocating, or have I that this WILL go through.

However, In light of Obama most recent quote to Sarah Brady on gun control, when he thought no one was listening:

"I just want you to know that we are working on it,"...."We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

I suggest that everyone remain vigilant.

International treaties MAY BE VOTED ON AND PASSED during lame duck sessions.

Between Hillary, and Obama, Holder, and Reid, I do not put anything past them.

I suppose we will find out shortly, one way or the other.

 

[Trashboat]

Lets just stop funding the UN. Would not be a UN left.

 

[dennishoddy]

From the NRA:

Americans in general don’t like being told what to do. This embodied in our Bill of Rights, which ensures that no one can tell us what to say, how to worship, who to associate with, or how to defend ourselves, and was the driving force behind a spat we once had over taxation without representation. It’s also why the global elites and their subservient media have had to work overtime recently, in order to ram the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty down our throats during the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty taking place July 2-27th.
So far, American gun owners have been wary of the six-year proceedings, and thankfully, our elected officials are listening and have taken a stand. During last July’s final ATT Preparatory Committee, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) led 58 senators in signing a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing their opposition to any treaty that limited civilian firearm ownership or put a burden on American gun owners. Similarly, July 2nd, 130 lawmakers sent a letter to the president and secretary of state making clear their opposition to "an ATT that infringes on our constitutional rights."
First, it should be noted that there is no final draft of the treaty at the time I am writing this. So any statements by news organizations or commentators claiming to know the final scope of the treaty are bogus. This makes remarks like those of William Hartung of the Center for International Policy, who writes in an op-ed for Reuters, "the treaty makes it clear it is only intended to regulate the transfer of arms across international borders, not their sale within individual countries," knowingly false.
What are available at this point are the documents and statements produced by those who are party to the treaty negotiations. These documents offer a true depiction of what could be covered in the scope of this treaty.
At the present, the document with the most information on what a future treaty might look like is the "Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty." Contained within are several passages that should spark the interest of any gun owner. Of particular interest is the document’s numerous calls for the regulation of "end-users." In a section entitled, "National authority and systems," the document makes clear that "Each State Party shall take all appropriate measures necessary to prevent the diversion of imported arms into the illicit market or unintended end-users," and "Importing States shall provide appropriate documentation and other information, inter alia, end-user certification, requested by the exporting State to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to verify the delivery to the approved end-user." Unless civilian firearms, ammunition and equipment are explicitly excluded from the treaty, the "end-users" will certainly be American gun owners, as NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre made clear in a forceful address to the conference.
In his opening remarks to the final conference on the ATT on July 3, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made clear that regulation of all firearms, and corresponding equipment, regardless of purpose, is on the table during these negotiations. In his address, Ki-moon stated, "You will also need to define the scope of the treaty to cover a comprehensive array of weapons and activities and that leaves no room for loopholes." Aside from the fact that Ki-moon’s use of the term "loophole" makes him sound like one of our domestic gun-banners, any loophole-free system covering a "comprehensive array of weapons" would inherently necessitate countries imposing internal controls on civilian firearms.
Mexico, hardly known as a bastion of good governance, has been one of the most candid supporters of a treaty that includes civilian firearms, going so far at one point as to suggest the treaty encompass swords, bows and arrows. In a July 5th statement, Mexico’s chief negotiator made clear, "This treaty must cover all type of conventional weapons, without differentiation on its supposed use. Criminals do not differentiate between weapons manufactured for shooting sport and those developed for military snipers when they intend to kill. We cannot make this differentiation either."
A July 5th statement from South Africa’s negotiator concurs. The statement notes, "South Africa supports an ATT that will regulate all arms transfers, both military and commercial. Thus, it should not be limited to the weapons covered by the UN Arms Register, but should include small arms and light weapons, as well as ammunition."
Norway’s Minister of International Development offered similar remarks July 3rd, which read (emphasis theirs), "Regarding scope, we consider it vital to include all conventional arms, regardless of whether they are labeled military or non-military. I would like to underline the importance of including small arms and light weapons. I would also like to underline the importance of including ammunition."
On July 3rd the Pacific Islands Forum, an inter-governmental organization representing Australia and New Zealand (among others), revealed their intentions. The Forum’s ambassador for disarmament, stated, "Member’s of the Forum support the conclusion of an ATT which is broad in scope, and capable of comprehensively covering the full range of conventional weapons which are traded on the international market, including small arms and light weapons and ammunition… Members of the Forum do not support proposals that arms for civilian use – such as sporting and hunting firearms – should be excluded from the scope of the Treaty."
So we gun owners can either believe pontificating globalists and the mainstream media, both of which have been openly hostile to our rights for decades, or the documented admissions of parties to the ATT negotiations. I suggest we err on the side of caution.
No treaty can override the U.S. Constitution, but if signed and ratified the ATT would hold the same weight as laws passed by Congress. And even if the ATT were to be signed and not ratified, President Obama or any future anti-gun president could use it in concert with the vast power of the executive branch as a vehicle to shape domestic gun policy. That’s why all gun owners need to pay close attention to the proceedings this month in New York. To stay on top of the latest ATT developments and to find out how you can help stop this treaty from burdening American gun owners, visit nraila.org.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Lets just stop funding the UN. Would not be a UN left.

You got my vote!

Great rant, dennishoddy.

Woody

 

[David2012]

Here is a Dick Morris video where he explains how Obama / Clinton will do their end run around Congress. He may not know what he is talking about.. but he has been in politics a long time and what he says sounds reasonable. Time will tell...if he is right or not!

Hillary’s End Run On Gun Control – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
By Dick Morris on July 17, 2012

http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-end-run-on-gun-control-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

 

[71buickfreak]

The vienna convention states very clearly that signing only signifies the intention to ratify the treaty in the state. If Hilary had the power to sign it and it be instant law, then that would be the case, but it isn't. This country by constitution requires all treaties be ratified, and therefore, the treaty would only go into effect if it is ratified, which it wouldn't be. In any case, no treaty can supplant our constitutional rights, as stated in our constitution. A treaty is not "like ammending the constitution", it is actually like signing and ratifying a treaty. You can break a treaty, you can't break an amendment without another amendment. Treaties are an agreement between states, not constitutional law No treaty can infringe upon the constitution. This is something that has caused other treaties to fail, such as the ICC (international Criminal Court), ratifying it and the US joining the ICC would supplant the SCOTUS as the supreme law of the land in the US, so it is unconstitutional by it's very existence in the US. The ATT could affect our ability to get foreign made weapons and ammunition, but it won't be ratified in this country, and it HAS TO BE RATIFIED in order to become law.

 

[JB Books]

WaaaaaaaaaaAa bama and the uuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnn gonna take yer guuuuuuuns

 

[KOPBET]

Obama said he doesn't want to take our guns. Doesn't everyone believe this stalwart for the truth?

The POTUS will never ratify this treaty! How would he ever run guns to Mehico?

 

[reddog1]

WaaaaaaaaaaAa bama and the uuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnn gonna take yer guuuuuuuns

Hell, you are just going to give yours willingly.