Still requires the Senate to ratify.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98N0RG20130924?irpc=932
And this Senate will be stupid enough to ratify it. What I gather from this is basically no more imported guns or ammo. That means the cheap imported Steel and Brass cases ammo will be no more. Along with 922r Compliant Weapons.
It could very well lead to attempts at confiscation and other bullshit here but I highly doubt it. The UN’s casualties would be in the tens of thousands by the end of the first month…
Ratification? You realize that this requires a 2/3rds majority.
I am more worried that Obama will try to enforce it in some roundabout way anyways.
Have you actually read the text of the treaty itself? What in that text leads you to that conclusion?
http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410%2012-01%20PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21
The treaty is about illicit arms trade. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the very legal and tightly regulated US importation of foreign-made arms and ammunition.
At a minimum it seems to me that it has broad open-ended language not just on tanks, planes, etc… but the language on small arms… could be used by any number of parties to justify action within the United States to impede anything small arms related coming into, or out of the USA.
As we all know our constitution cannot be superseded by a treaty… but that is not what the globalist/State-ists would have you believe. Most people assume that a treaty restricting the right to keep and bear arms is binding within on our nation. Go figure. I would be willing to bet that if you did a poll even on the guys that are members here… a full 50% of the membership would assume that by “law” a treaty is superior in legal standing to our constitution. Well, assuming they didn’t do a GOOGLE search before answering the poll.
The media would have a field day with this popular misunderstanding and our President would absolutely love yet another reason to justify executive orders “protecting our women and children” from evil guns.
Check out the treaty… it uses all sorts of language like “reduce human suffering”, “violation of international human law”, “gender-based violence… or violence against women and children,” etc.
It is sad, but true, if the UN wants it I am automatically skeptical.
Furthermore, this document seems to almost demand a new and more pervasive bureaucracy regarding small arms. Doesn’t it seem to you like the language almost demands a national gun registry? When I read it that is what I thought it was saying. Certainly it provides a framework for the powers that be to SAY that it is now required. Is it? I don’t like it one bit.
The ONLY part of the treaty I like is “Reaffirming the sovereign right of any state to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system.”
How is this treaty to be used? Is it so the UN can now demand action on the next Assad because his goons are killing women and children? How about the next time some idiot goes on a rampage in an elementary school within the USA. Do you think someone is going to use this newly ratified language to demand we do what is necessary to protect the children? After all, the only thing people want is background checks and reasonable gun restrictions. What could possibly be wrong with that?
I can’t see how singing something that even hints at placing us under the authority of language like this is a good idea long-term.
absolutely. I do have bachelor degrees in US History and Government…
With the Democraps having a powerful majority and Senators like John McCain and Lindsay Gram, I have no faith in this being blocked.
Powerful majority? 53 (including independents)? Even assuming McCain/Graham vote for this…you still need 12 Republicans crossing party lines.
$10 will get you $20 it doesn’t happen.
I don’t think so. This is the same senate that did not cave after New Town.
Pat
Not all of those 53 Democrats are anti gun either. One of our senators is democrat and pro gun.
God I would hope so being in Alaska.
As for the treaty clamping down on the illicit arms trade I’m pretty sure our gov has no credibility when it comes to that sorta thing…
That is kind of the point rather your pro gun or anti gun really has more to do with where you are from vs which political party you are. A New Jersey Republican is likely to be anti gun while a Texas Democrat is likely to be pro gun.
Pat
Mission creep anyone . . .
CMP, NFA trusts, UN Small Arms Treaty . . . Barry is going to infringe upon the 2nd anyone he can.
Q: How do you eat an elephant?
A: One bite at a time.
Well that and the thought of conceding any notion of supremacy to a world level organization being American would be downright laughable if it wasn’t so disconcerting.
It enrages me to no end that not enough can see the chess pieces on the table and what their end play will be… It is not one that ends well for the common person.
Here’s the problem, you aren’t thinking about this like a liberal would. Guns = bad = pain and suffering = crimes against humanity = must do something about it.
I’ve read it and the language is way too vague to determine whether or not this could be implemented in the US even by bypassing Congress. Quite a few things in there that could give our good POTUS ideas on chopping imports since verbiage in Article 6 (3) speaks about “crimes against humanity.”
And as imports and bans of such don’t fall under Congressional purview, this treaty can be implemented without the Senate ever ratifying it. In fact, he’s already started it with this “military surplus import ban” that suspiciously still isn’t on record on whitehouse.gov so nobody knows exactly what it says except for the fact sheet handed out. And even that uses a very vague and generic “military grade firearms.”
So if one was to combine the ambiguity in the UN treaty with the complete lack of information from the POTUS and mix in a little good old fashioned liberal backstabbing, misdirection and continued destruction of the Constitution?
Admiral Ackbar would say it best. “It’s a trap!”
I’m not getting a warm fuzzy that this just happens to be a feel good measure that makes the UN happy they got us to finally sign it. I’d be watching for some of those keywords out of this treaty to start flowing out of politicians mouths in the next few months. Bank on it.
Apparently the chair of the senate foreign relations commitee isnt aware that it needs ratified by the senate if his recommendation is not to implement it without advice and consent :rolleyes:
Kerry is doing the job he was hired to do. What I see is that if the treaty is signed " screw the constitution as the people who have taken a oath to protect it don’t know what the constitution is anyway"
The blue helmets will then have to help the U.S government / military/ home land security,Russian troops confiscate the privately owned firearms. I can already hear the manchurian candidate Juan Mccain say you have to uphold the treaty.
Abbott warns arms treaty could spur Texas to sue
“But Abbott said the treaty, if ratified by the U.S. Senate, would endanger the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the U.S. Constitution.”
Full text: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/abbott-warns-arms-treaty-could-spur-texas-to-sue/nZ7K4/
Senate website incorrect on 2nd Amendment application:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/25/Senate-Website-Gets-Second-Amendment-Wrong