United Nations Arms Treaty

[AXI]

What weight would this have if it were attempted? The U.N. is not recognized on our constitution, yet I've heard things about this.

Any information? I'm thinking that it will fail miserably, the U.N. does not have the resource or power to alter America and not all states will agree to the U.N. America =/= one big government, America = lots of small governments with one networking them.

Last I recall the U.N. isn't very respected here, I know when they tried that summit and wanted America to "go green" what ended up happening was we said no, and Japan signed off their own treaty (Kyoto treaty).

 

[henschman]

The UN isn't recognized by the Constitution, but treaties are. They have to be ratified by the President and the Senate. The Supreme Court has ruled that they trump all laws that conflict with them, other than the Constitution itself, of course. There is very little, if any, limit to the subject matter that can be legislated by a treaty, at least in the court cases that have dealt with them. It is one way that the feds got away with regulating things the Constitution didn't give them authority under, before the Roosevelt supreme court started letting them do anything they want under the commerce clause.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I've read a lot of things that say that IF passed, it would be the first step to global gun control, eventually leading to registration and confiscation of all firearms. Now, they ceertainly have their work cut out for them, but our President and SoS seem to favor this treaty. The Senate seems to treat treaties much in the same way as Supreme Court nominations... which is to say it's waved on through without much ado. Anti's aren't out there making a lot of publicity about this, don't know why. It's the Pro 2a and RTKABA folks that are making a lot of noise.

I'm hoping it will fail miserably. But in reality, I'm not so sure.

 

[alsaqr]

This one has been making the rounds for a couple of years. The authors of the myth would have you believe that the US president is making an end run around the US Constitution. The myth makers would also like for you to believe that the UN treaty would automatically trump the US Constitution and that ratification of the treaty by the US senate is not required.

The proposed arms treaty has nothing to do with guns in the hands of US civilians. Besides, there is a UN Resolution that reads:

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…

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/

 

[rbernie]

"Patriot talk" or any other noise that does not directly address the OP has been, and will continue to be, deleted.

 

[Bhamrichard]

What weight would this have if it were attempted?

Zero effect on the us consumer market... The U.N. or treaties that the U.S. is party to, cannot override/countermand the U.S Constitution. It is the Supreme law of the land, and supersedes everything else. SCOTUS has previously ruled on that issue several times already, always in favor of the Constitution.

 

[Sunray]

The Third World Debating club has no mandate nor authority to make laws for any country. The treaty is about stopping the international arms trade and has nothing whatever to do with domestic firearms. Treaties with other countries don't have anything to do with domestic issues or laws either.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Actually I believe the issue is actually not that one, rather if you look at the non proliferation (which the US does in great numbers, SO I doubt we would ever sign..) that is out of the UN or EU ( I forget which, but I did check that such a thing exists) It has a tracking clause that makes shipments and sales of anything beyond 'sporting' quantities of ammo registered in a central database (think the Cali ammo law) and restricts the sale of components with the said reason of preventing the availability of ammo to 3rd world nations for the continuation of 'internal conflicts' and genocide...

I doubt that we would ever sign, the defense industry and gun lobby is pretty much against it, and in the end it is pointless, lets not forget that the genocides in Rwanda and Congo, the Machete is the favorite weapon.

 

[stickhauler]

Sorry, Obama has already said if there was agreement, that he would sign the treaty, as yet, unwritten. It was fought through the Bush years as John Bolton, our UN Ambassador, refused to even discuss it because of our constitutional right to bear arms.

It might have been slowed down by the resignation of Rebecca Peters who was head of the chief anti-gun group pushing for the treaty, but it's hardly a rumor, and remains in my mind anyway, a threat to out RKBA.

The way the UN looks at it, if the president signs it, they consider it the rule of law worldwide, whether the Senate chooses to ratify it or not.

 

[One-Time]

Id be concerned, our government has already signed a treaty previous to this to allow the UN to send troops to US soil, if we sign this treaty we are beholden to it, and the UN will have muscle to enforce it

 

[petey]

luckily the bulk UN forces consist of mostly our troops and other european industrialized nations....

the U.N. has little to no authority to "police" the world. look at the Darfur region.....how are they doing there?

I think that it sounds like Sunray is saying sounds more practical than they are going to confiscate our guns..