Contact your Senators!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although both of Michigans Senators are Democrats, I sent them both an e-mail. I sent an e-mail to my Rep, Fred Upton, who has an A grade from the NRA. I don't expect anything favorable from the Sens, but they may surprise me, although I doubt it. Last time I sent Stabenow an e-mail was to get her opinion on Travers, when he was first being considered for ATF head. She supported him in the post, and never e-mailed me back after pointing out his very anti-2A track record.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Constitution take precedent over any foreign treaty.
And even if it does pass the UN's ability to enforce the treaty is pretty much useless.
Not saying I want it to pass but just asking a valid question.
 
Senators need to know through the process where we stand, not at the end when it moves through.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. " - Leonard H. Courtney

It's not really a matter of whether or not it passes and whether or not it can be enforced, or the lack thereof, it's our voice that matters. If you oppose, then oppose it. They should already that it isn't going to pass because they should already know that it's going to meet heavy opposition. I don't see how waiting will achieve that objective.
 
Got a call the other day from the NRA about this.

As they framed it, Iran and North Korea are voting on this in order to take away our 2nd Amendment rights. Yep. That's what they said :scrutiny:.
 
Absurd to think that this has any direct relevance to US law. Without Congressional ratification of the treaty it has no meaning. Remember that there are plenty of states that do not follow specific UN rules and orders. Heck, Iran has been under UN censure for years continues to thumb their nose at the UN.

Be sure you let your Senators know that you will not tolerate any laws restricting the 2A, regardless of where the proposed restrictions might come from. But at least be sure of what you're talking about if you're going to cite specifics instead of regurgitating some half formed propaganda.
 
The treaty can pass the UN, and probably will, but unless the Senate ratifies the treaty (which is unlikely to happen) even if other coutries do ratify it, it means nothing to the 2A. It would only effect those who ratify the treaty. I'm not dealing small arms to Equador, so it's not a big deal to me if Equador ratifies the small arms treaty. Still, even if it has a slim to none chance of being ratified by the USA, I still wrote to my lawmakers in opposition of such a chance.
 
Absurd to think that this has any direct relevance to US law. Without Congressional ratification of the treaty it has no meaning.
Click to expand...

That's very true. It takes a 2/3 Senate vote (of members present). My concern isn't necessarily that it will pass, the senators that signed the letter to the Administration are themselves enough to stop the treaty from being ratified. I believe that there were 45 total. My concern is, why only 45? Seems to me like that number should be higher.
 
I read an article summary on the NRA-ILA's site a few weeks ago that said 51 were in opposition. I'd have to dig around their archive when I have more time to find it though.
 
As much as I admire and suppor the NRA and their mission, I'll be the first to say the fear mongering is a BIG turn-off. Instead of getting everyone worked up with half-truths, they SHOULD have stuck to the facts....you know...truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.....not "whatever version of the truth brings us more donations" A brief explanation of what the treaty actually entails and what it would take to be approved in the US would have been appropriate. Instead, it gets painted as a sinister lot by the "axis of evil" to disarm us. REALLY? We get SO angry (and rightfully so) when the Brady bunch mutilates the truth in order to further their agenda, but yet we accept it when our side does it? Like i said, I support the overall mission of the NRA, but think tactics like these need to go.
 
As much as I admire and suppor the NRA and their mission, I'll be the first to say the fear mongering is a BIG turn-off.
Click to expand...

What Dave said.

The incoming NRA President is one David A. Keene, a former delegate to the UN Small Arms Conference under the previous administration. Keene is making this proposed treaty an NRA issue. Surely he knows better. LaPierre and Keene are pandering to the group of Americans who have absolutely no idea how the US gov't works.

i detest this tactic by the organization i have belonged to for over 50 years. i have written letters to Wayne LaPierre and will write a letter to Keene today.

The proposed UN treaty, even if ratified, would have no effect on our 2nd Amendment rights.

From the treaty proposal:

UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…
Click to expand...
 
I'm concerned that some often feel the NRA informing the public about threats to our 2nd ammendment rights translates to fear mongering. Where else will you get this information? The media is silent. The NRA is the only place I hear about upcoming threats, and enables me to take action. How is this bad?

If the Sentate ratified it would be law. It's simple. No Constitution would revert back to the original law, the 2nd ammendment for the US would be done. That's the plan for the lefties, any way they can get it.
 
It's simple. No Constitution would revert back to the original law, the 2nd ammendment for the US would be done.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS has ruled not so. There is no threat to our Second Amendment rights from this proposed UN resolution.
 
Guys, please read the Snopes item. In 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes treaties, even those ratified by the Senate. Therefore, the U.N. can barf up all the treaties it wants; any of them that violate American Constitution rights are dead on arrival.

Furthermore, ratification requires 67 Senators. Considering that even some of our Democrat legislators are conservative and either pro-gun or not opposed to them, any treaty that called for the restriction of Second Amendment rights wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of ratification.

So, there's no treaty yet, there's no way any treaty that was presented it could have the effect the NRA claims, and there's no chance it would be ratified if it even existed.

I hate to be cynical about this, but I have come to the conclusion that LaPierre is using this as a scare tactic to generate donations.

However, it never hurts to let your elected representatives know where you stand and remind them from time to time. Just don't get them all riled up about a nonexistent treaty.

Note: I am a member of the NRA. That doesn't mean I approve of everything they do.
 
never mind treaties,to add an amendment to the constitution is an even bigger hurdle. IIRC 2/3 of the senate and 2/3 of the states have to rattify any amendment. Our founding fathers were pretty smart guys even 200+ years ago.
 
IIRC 2/3 of the senate and 2/3 of the states have to rattify any amendment. Our founding fathers were pretty smart guys even 200+ years ago.
Click to expand...

Two-thirds of both houses of congress and two-thirds of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. The Equal Rights Amendment and the DC Voting Rights Amendment both failed the state ratification process.
 
The SCOTUS has ruled not so.
Click to expand...

The same SCOTUS that's a step away from changing from Cons to Lib? That's my main concern, SCOTUS has been helping us recently, but not always.
 
Yo Mama said:
The same SCOTUS that's a step away from changing from Cons to Lib? That's my main concern, SCOTUS has been helping us recently, but not always.
Click to expand...

Yup, the same one. Remember the ruling is 54 years old. It has survived liberal courts and conservative courts, so it's probably pretty safe.
 
Relying on a Supreme Court decision that is a half century old is what sounds foolish to me. What sounds sensible is fighting ratification of the treaty. So let me get this straight. We have nothing to fear, so go ahead and ratify the treaty because it won't make any difference anyway? Very strange thinking to me.

And there is no guarantee what this administration or others that follow would do by executive order. Laws seem to mean less and less these days.
 
Federal appeals courts operate under the legal principle of stare decisis : "Let the decision stand." SCOTUS very seldom over-rules a previous SCOTUS decision.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm

An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices.
Click to expand...
 
I'm with others who state that the US government should never ratify any treaty that aims to disarm any peoples anywhere. That's a pretty hypochritical thing to do, isn't it? If the US government agrees that other peoples should all be disarmed then it must certainly think we should be too. It's only logical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Yo Mama
  • Locked
U.S. Senate Stands with NRA on UN Treaty
Replies
5
Views
487
Art Eatman
A
T
  • Locked
U.S. Senate Stands with NRA in Strongly Opposing U.N Gun Control Efforts
Replies
5
Views
603
Art Eatman
A
E
  • Locked
UN Small Arms Treaty - Contact your legislators ASAP!!!
Replies
7
Views
816
hso
hso
M
  • Locked
Senator Wants Interior Dept. to Change Policy Regarding Carrying Guns on Public Lands
Replies
18
Views
1K
ptmmatssc
P
M
  • Locked
NRA: Four More U.S. Senators Request Policy Change Regarding Guns in National Parks
Replies
3
Views
603
Winchester 73
W
Back
Top