U.N. Treaty banning firearms?????


PDA






38SnubFan
October 2, 2004, 01:35 PM
I've just read in an e-mail letter that on October 12th, the president of the NRA will be engaged in a live iN DEMAND Pay-Per-View debate with international gun-ban leader Rebecca Peters, regarding a U.N. gun-ban treaty with the United States which the U.S. Senate will vote to ratify.

Rebecca Peters almost single-handedly brought gun confiscation to Australia and to England, and is now the most feared gun-banner in the world. With more than 500 gun control organizations under her command worldwide, and with the unlimited financial backing of billionaire George Soros, she's determined to make gun confiscation a reality here in the United States- through a U.N.-backed treaty that would be binding on every American citizen.

To be completely honest, I truly feel EXTREMELY THREATENED by this.

My knowledge isn't the best as far as international law and treaties go, so I must ask this question: If the U.S. Senate votes and ratifies this U.N. treaty, do we lose all of our guns just like England and Austrailia.

I was always under the impression that all laws (national and international) required the passing of a bill through both the House AND Senate, as well as signing into law by the President.

Like I said, I'm not overly familiar with International Law and U.N. treaties, so if someone could explain this, I would be extremely grateful.

Sincerely,
Matthew Webb
Franklintown, PA USA

If you enjoyed reading about "U.N. Treaty banning firearms?????" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RavenVT100
October 2, 2004, 02:22 PM
That's not going to happen.

A greater number of people in the state of Pennsylvania alone show up for the first day of hunting season in that state than are on active duty in the military. That should give you an idea of just how many people in this country cherish their right to keep and bear arms.

Sure, they might try it. But it will never fly. And there will be serious political hell to pay in the form of being voted out of office for anyone who actually votes in favor of this garbage. The gun owners who didn't know what the AWB covered and thought it was a good idea are going to think again when the UN sets its sights on all guns.

erik the bold
October 2, 2004, 02:36 PM
Especially when many people take a distinct dim view of the UN because of the oil for food fiasco

Bobarino
October 2, 2004, 03:20 PM
if i'm not mistaken, this topic came up at the U.N. in the not too distant past and Colin Powell politely told them where they could put it. ain't gonna happen. that is, unless Kerry is elected.

Bobby

Bigjake
October 2, 2004, 03:49 PM
let Kerry try and ratify it ( in that sick, nightmare world where he would be elected president), and then try and enforce it. little blue helmets make for great target practice.

WT
October 2, 2004, 03:55 PM
Article II of the Constitution states that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

The consent of the House is not needed to make treaties.

RavenVT100
October 2, 2004, 03:55 PM
It would never come to that. Ratifying such a thing is not only unconstitutional but would be political suicide. And if there was ever a way to get the supreme court to recognize firearms ownership as an individual right, that would be it.

mr_dove
October 2, 2004, 04:20 PM
even if we signed the treaty, International Law is not binding in any way. Its only binding to the extent that a country agrees to abide by it.

I heavily doubt that we would ever sign it though.

Norton
October 2, 2004, 04:52 PM
So....just how visible are blue helmets at 400 yards?:evil:

Langenator
October 2, 2004, 07:07 PM
WT is correct that consent of the House is not required to ratify treaties.

However, consent of the House is required to pass what is known as "enabling legislation"-U.S. domestic laws that put the terms of the treaty into effect.

38SnubFan
October 2, 2004, 07:27 PM
Thank you to everyone so far for your replies on this matter, and I look forward to reading any more that post on this subject.

I guess one could say that the NRA has become very good at scaring people. Considering the fact that the debate is a Pay-Per-View event, I wonder if such is just a tactic that is being used to scare people into spending money to watch it.

As far as the little blue helmets at 400 yards.....if it ever comes to that, I'll be standing on the firing line right next to you. :evil: :fire: :cuss:

-38SnubFan

feedthehogs
October 2, 2004, 08:34 PM
Its a money making event for the NRA.
You see most gun owners are dumb and only get their knowlege of world events thru the NRA.
The NRA takes advantage of this fact and sends out scare messages to their members which in turn panic and spread to others that are non members. I run into this all the time at the gun shows.
Every piece of NRA material that comes to the house, goes into the trash.
Most gun owners couldn't repeat the second amendment let alone any of the bill of rights and constitution.
Anyone who knows about this situation knows it will never happen without another revolution taking place.
Other than the few who want to run the world, the UN is known as a joke and has absolutly no power to enforce anything they dream up in their fantasy world.

Tory
October 2, 2004, 08:46 PM
"Most gun owners couldn't repeat the second amendment let alone any of the bill of rights and constitution.
Anyone who knows about this situation knows it will never happen without another revolution taking place."

Well, IF "most gun owners' are so ignorant they "couldn't repeat the second amendment let alone any of the bill of rights and constitution" [sic], then what makes you think they'd even KNOW about the UN treaty?

And if the average gun owner IS that ignorant, how is it you rely on them to prevent just such an event from occurring? Ignorance being oft accompanied by inertia (and caused by it), your reliance seems ill-placed.

Your assertions are mutually contradicting. Further, the egregious restrictions of the Second Amendment to date generally, and in Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and California particularly (note the high population concentration), suggest that no such "revolution" would be triggered by signing such a treaty.


:scrutiny:

Shield529
October 2, 2004, 09:08 PM
If gun theft does occur in this country, this is how it will be done.
Most peoplewould never have any idea it happened until UN solders were kicking in the front door.
By the way I think blue helmets would be quite easy at 400 yards.

jefnvk
October 2, 2004, 09:20 PM
I see it this way. I believe that almost no one will let the UN create laws viuolating the constitution. After all, if they can enact global disarament, who's to say they wont enact global religious licensing.

And would you want to be the senator that handed over the US's soverginty to the UN?

jefnvk
October 2, 2004, 09:22 PM
Oh, here's the UN's plan: http://www.un.org/issues/m-disarm.asp
And in particular, small arms: http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/salw.html

mountainclmbr
October 2, 2004, 09:51 PM
"And would you want to be the senator that handed over the US's soverginty to the UN?"

Wouldn't that be Senator John F. Kerry?

RavenVT100
October 2, 2004, 10:10 PM
From the UN Disarmament site:

Small arms and light weapons destabilise regions; spark, fuel and prolong conflicts; obstruct relief programmes; undermine peace initiatives; exacerbate human rights abuses; hamper development; and foster a "culture of violence". However, unlike nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, there are no international treaties or other legal instruments for dealing with these weapons, which States and also individual legal owners rely on for their defense needs.

I had no idea that small arms could do all of these things all by themselves!

Color me surprised. Might there be any available resources and statistics that show the peaceful and prosperous results of all of this disarmament?

cracked butt
October 2, 2004, 10:18 PM
Raven beat me to it. Maybe the UN should negotiate with the small arms, and use diplomacy instead of trying to get rid of the small arms.

If the UN speaks of small arms as if they were human, wouldn't eliminating small arms be the same thing as genocide?

cracked butt
October 2, 2004, 10:22 PM
Feedthe hogs- everything you stated in your post is horsepucky.

Well, except for this part to a certain extent:
Other than the few who want to run the world, the UN is known as a joke and has absolutly no power to enforce anything they dream up in their fantasy world.


I said "to a certain extent" because the UN has the ability to extract $billions of taxpayer dollars from the USA, but this is the only thing they can consistantly do competantly.
:fire: :banghead:

RavenVT100
October 2, 2004, 10:35 PM
You know, to the UN's credit, "legal owners" and "legitimate owners" are brought up quite a bit. "Illicit arms" are also brought up.

Might we, as legal owners, not be targeted by this? If I were the UN, I would certainly be more concerned with the arms proliferation in destabilized and war-torn regions of the world instead of middle America.

2nd Amendment
October 2, 2004, 11:05 PM
Look at the past fifty years and tell me again they wouldn't try it at some point. Sorry but I can see such a treaty being ratified and I can see a future president at least attempting to give it teeth. Think, oh, I don't know...Hillary Clinton backed by a Democratic Senate in say, 2010? More frightening? I tend to believe the bulk of gun owners would meekly give up what they have. And the left knows it.

So, if it happened and most of the armchair warriors here and elsewhere rolled over because "it's the law"(seems we've heard that on this very forum a lot lately) what WOULD you do? Gonna go out in a blaze of glory? What about the wife and kids? Taking them with you?

Sorry, it's negative yes, but it probably will happen at some date. As I've said before, nothing is immortal including the United States and it CAN happen here.

ilcylic
October 3, 2004, 12:30 AM
Remember, the helmets are bullet resistant.

Aim a little low.

-Ogre

Dave R
October 3, 2004, 01:12 AM
If we had a gun-grabber President...then a UN resolution would be the perfect excuse to begin registration and confiscation.

"The United States is going to join with our civilized allies, and indeed, the rest of the world, in ridding ourselves of these dangerous weapons..."

Good reason to make sure we don't wind up with a President who has eagerly signed so many other "common sense" gun laws in the past as a Senator.

El Rojo
October 3, 2004, 01:13 AM
Incrementalism is the key. A gun here and a gun here. If they ever tried to take them all away, there would be a civil war. We know this, they know this. In fact, if you think about it, I think they have already gone too far and that is why the AWB expired. We are on a trend back the other direction. At least Free America is.

Norton
October 3, 2004, 08:22 AM
>>We are on a trend back the other direction.<<

I agree with this...at least for the time being. The trouble being that if we have a gun-grabber president who is able to use his office against the Congress as a bully pulpit to forward his anti-gun agenda, the tides could once again shift against us.

We must remain vigilant against those who would disarm us.

RE: The blue helmets.....bullet resistant up to what caliber?:evil:

feedthehogs
October 3, 2004, 01:06 PM
Tory,
The original post was about a gun ban for the whole US, not individual states and so was my answer.

I've spent over 20 years at gun shows promoting the NRA and gun rights.
I ask everyone who comes by our table to recite the second amendment.
Less than 1% can. I then ask to recite any part of the bill of rights or constitution, and what is said most is an abomination of the first amendment being something about church and state and speech.

I have been an EVC for the NRA for many elections. My name and number is printed out on magazine covers before each election in two very large counties. These counties are supposed to have over 30,000 NRA members.
This election I have recieved a total of 3 calls to help the gun cause.
And this is not because the others are busy working other venues.

And these are the ones who cared enough to join the NRA.
We have over 300,000 concealed weapons permits in my county. Each one has to own on gun. Yet less than 1/4 of one percent get involved in pro gun issues.

Our local second amendment group has done mass mailings to the permit holders for help with nary a response.

So I'm not speaking out of my butt to hear myself talk.

Yes the general gun owner is ignorant and stupid. I have presented facts to back up my claim.

But I have been working for many decades to change that. It is very slow going.

pittspilot
October 3, 2004, 01:15 PM
Constitutional Law trumps treaties. There is abundant precedent on this point.

A treaty that was ratified would be quickly challenged, and that would be an issue that the Supreme Court could no longer ignore.

I also don't think that Bush or the Senate would go for it.

IndianaDean
October 3, 2004, 05:26 PM
I'm a member of the NRA, but at times they haven't supported our cause any better than anti gun groups. They have given in to pressure and sold us out in the past also. Gun Owners of America is the only group that's supported our rights unequivocably.

For that matter, the Libertarian and possibly the Constitutional parties are the only two political parties that support our gun rights unquestionably.

Waitone
October 3, 2004, 08:38 PM
Most gun owners couldn't repeat the second amendment let alone any of the bill of rights and constitution.
Anyone who knows about this situation knows it will never happen without another revolution taking place. And each and every American can humm "freedom of the press," yet congress passed a blatantly unconstitutional law. A spineless president signed a blatantly unconstitutional law saying, "Its probably unconstitutional" before he signed it. He and congress punted the whole issue to the supreme court just knowing SCOTUS would strike it down. SCOTUS shockingly found a "compelling governmental interest" in controlling money in the political process. Campaign Finance Control is now a law which has unleashed more untraceable money in this election than ever before.

CFR was a complete system failure. Yea, a UN gun ban being enforced in the US is not out of the question. It all depends upon on elected officials standing on principal and a judiciary limiting itself to stated law of the US.

stevelyn
October 4, 2004, 10:14 AM
RavenVT100 sez:

Might we, as legal owners not be targeted by this?

Do you really want to take the chance at giving them the benefit of the doubt? That somehow they may be benevolent enough to leave us alone?:scrutiny:

YankeeRebel
October 4, 2004, 11:08 AM
I wonder if a constitional amendment allowing that no treaty may override the constitution or laws of the U.S. would cure the whole thing. I am not going to hold my breath for it, but I would love to see it.

geekWithA.45
October 4, 2004, 03:44 PM
No need for an amendment to "clarify" the fact that no treaty may over ride the Constitution/B of R. The words "pursuant to", meaning "in conformance with" already covers that case.

If you enjoyed reading about "U.N. Treaty banning firearms?????" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!