1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UN Arms Treaty - quick question

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Uncle Richard, Nov 12, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Uncle Richard

    Uncle Richard Well-Known Member

    The United Nations treaty regarding firearms is being reviewed again March 18-28, 2013. What I don't understand is how this treaty or any others can be implemented?

    The Senate votes to ratify any international treaty into law and then the President signs it effective. However, I got the impression from a news article that the US President has the option to bypass the senate and sign a treaty into law. Is this true?
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
  2. Nico Testosteros

    Nico Testosteros Well-Known Member

    No. It is not true. And no treaty can go against the constitution. Reid v. covert.
  3. Kyle M.

    Kyle M. Well-Known Member

    The way I understand it that is false he still needs the senate to ratify it. I could be wrong but I'm guessing whoever published this article either doesn't know what there talking about or there trying to panic people, both are common with news reportings. I am also told that even if the treaty is signed that it does not override the constitution, again I may be wrong.
  4. legaleagle_45

    legaleagle_45 Well-Known Member

    Some times a President will implement the terms of a treaty without obtaining ratification of the Senate. This can only occur if the terms which are implemented are otherwise within the power of the President acting alone. These are sometimes referred to as "executive agreements".

    As is mentioned previously, a treaty can not violate an express prohibition found in the Constitution. What it can do is "expand" the power of the federal government to act in areas where there is otherwise no express power to act.... that requires some explanation since it really does not expand federal power... the Constituion grants the feds the power to act in certain limited areas (express powers) and those which are "necessary amd proper" in pursuance of those express powers. The treaty making power is an express power and so long as the subject of the treaty is a matter of international concern it may give the feds power to act in an area which is otherwise not subject to another express power (or even one which is necessary and proper to such other express power). However, since the treaty power is an "express power", it really does not expand the power of the feds.
  5. Colonel

    Colonel Well-Known Member

    My understanding is that a president can sign a treaty and then leave it for the senate to ratify later. For example, Clinton signed the CIFTA treaty in 1997, and Obama has called on the Senate to ratify it.

    As for "no treaty can go against the Constitution," take a look at the Supremacy Clause – plenty of room to play games with words.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 12, 2012
  6. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Well-Known Member

    True, QoT, but a semantic argument... two-thirds majority consent of the Senate is legally necessary for the treaty to have force of law, and it remains open to Constitutional challenge.
  7. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    And this treaty in question has nothing to do with domestic firearm ownership, but the trafficking of international small arms
  8. popper

    popper Well-Known Member

    oneounceload You need to learn to read between the lines and the fine print. And of course we always abide by the treaties but other countries don't even attempt. Look for all kinds of strange stugg coming out of the WH now. All the acceptable pols are going to be replaced by real buddies, of KBO.
  9. RatDrall

    RatDrall Well-Known Member

    Thank you so much for quoting the supporting case.

    So much more helpful than the emotional nonsense floating around the internet about this.
  10. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Well-Known Member

    You are *right* onceload
    but part of the state's duty UNDER the treaty is to "Identify" and PREVENT the possiblity of arms entering "illicit" trade...

    SO, you have some form of UN reportable registration scheme
    and there's afew more treats like that in there

    *of course* this has "No effect" on privately owned firearms......
    coming from the 'Kinda folks' who gave us other such hits as Operation Fast and Furious...
  11. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member

    For a SCOTUS decision, Reid vs Covert is easy to read and understand.

    For your reading enjoyment, Reid vs Covert (bold mine):


  12. leapfrog

    leapfrog Well-Known Member

    Bobo will stop at nothing to get his way, he can sign a executive order, he has a bunch of them already.
    Who is going to stop him? all anyone can do is file a law suite and that will take forever to be heard, we all thought the obumacare was unconstutional until Mr. Roberts showed us how wrong we were.
    Obuma has already shown that he has no use for the constitution and will get away with anything, or if push comes to shove all his brothers will come to his aid.
  13. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member

    Yep, i was waiting for that answer. :rolleyes:
  14. 481

    481 Well-Known Member

    He might try, but I would offer you this from the Supremacy Clause as quote by alsaqr-

  15. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Having read between the lines, and sorry folks - I do NOT wear a tinfoil hat - this treaty has NOTHING to do with us inside the US - you have more to worry about Cook County and NYC laws becoming adopted than anything the blue helmet idiots could imagine

    Again - this is for exportation - are you exporting guns? Except for some small manufacturer for guns and accessories like suppressors, the rest of us will never see the effect of this stuff
  16. Colonel

    Colonel Well-Known Member

    Yeah, they used to say that about domestic U.S. laws, too.

    But if you want a glimpse of how bad it can get, forget about international treaties and look at domestic law.

    Who would have thought that there could be a law in the U.S. that prevents you from having a gun in your own home for self defense?

    Who would have thought that such a law could be passed in the U.S., in clear contradiction to the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment?

    And yet, just such a law was on the books for 30 years – in Washington, D.C. – until the U.S. Supreme Court in D.C. vs. Heller overturned it.

    So don't kid yourself about what an international treaty can and cannot do, if it gets misapplied and perverted by the same kinds of people who passed the D.C. ban or, or that matter, the Chicago ban.

    Oh, and here's an interesting tidbit I found about the Supremacy Clause:

    In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.​
  17. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    The initial question has been answered, and nothing is going anywhere for a while.

    Nothing more to really discuss at this point.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page