Could a U.N. resolution banning/taxing/regulating firearms in the US succeed?

Who is talking about treaties? President Kerry can simply create an "emergency", then announce that he is suspending the constitution, dissolving Congress, and placing the nation under the protection of the United Nations. Meanwhile, as commander-in-chief, he is ordering the armed forces to arrest all registered Republicans, potential "subversives", and members of "terrorist organizations" like the NRA.

Click to expand...

Oh man, I hope that was not to be taken seriously. Oherwise - time to break out the tinfoil.

The UN has no bearing on American Policy. They cannot impose taxes on anyone. Only our Senate can gather revenue if I remember my Constitution correctly. On top of that, if the UN did decide they wanted money from the US, where are they going to get tax collectors from? I will tell you where they won’t be coming from.

People like to think of the UN as some big powerful thing, because for a long time America made it a big powerful thing to justify its foreign policy. Then the Cold War ended and Europeans realized that their neighbor to the East wasn’t so big and bad anymore and they didn’t need America anymore and started using the UN against America.

Rules/Law/Mandates without the ability to enforce them is basically just a ink on paper and the UN charter give it no way to enforce it Resolutions.

I read somewhere that UN environmental rules are messing with our national parks and the folks that live and work in and near them.

any truth to this?

Yep!

World Heritage Sites is sponsored by the UN. Smokey Mountains National Park is a national heritage site and is Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

http://www.sovereignty.net/ is a primer on a number of UN initiatives.

Here is the specific world list. Thumb down to the US and get the whole picture.

http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31

IRC, the President may enter into treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, with other soverign nations. The UN ain't a soverign nation, so in order for the US to enter into a binding treaty with it would require a Constitutions amendment, which, IMNSHO, isn't likely anytime soon.

Click to expand...

It goes beyond that. Even if the UN were a soverign nation and the President had the power to enter into a treaty with it (with the advice and consent of the Senate), the terms of the treaty itself would be subservient to the Constitution. A treaty is on the level of a law, and may be overturned by the Supreme Court if it violates any section or clause of the Constitution.

Getting, however, to first matters: I believe that the life of any President who dared to even propose such an idea would be in grave danger. Mind you, I DON'T advocate the use of any violence on any federal official, but I believe that this would be the case. President Lurch or Hitlery would have to become like Hussein, constantly moving from one place to another, never sleeping in the same place two nights in a row...and if the ordinary citizens didn't get them, those in the military or the various lettered security agencies would. Ditto for any Senators that voted for such a treaty (and they have considerably less security than the President).

Black92LX

I like that picture, particularly the use of the pulled AP bullets.

Is that .30-06, or is it .308? Either way, what is the load you use, and what kind of accuracy do you get?

Chink

Only our Senate can gather revenue if I remember my Constitution correctly.

Click to expand...

Not quite right. Bills that will result in the collection of revenues must originate in the House of Representatives. Both houses must, of course, approve said bill before sending it to the President for signature. The Prez may sign it, veto it or "pocket-veto" it (i.e. not sign a bill within 10 days by "putting it in his pocket" at a time when the Congress is not in session). Until it goes through both houses and is signed into law, it is meaningless.

They simply have no authority over any US jurisdiction. I love it when people get so concerned about the UN becomng too powerful.

Click to expand...

If signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, international law becomes federal law. So yes, they would have authority if the Senate gives it to them.

Sam Adams, looks like .300 Win Mag to me.

I can look up load data for you later in my handbook, but the AP bullets are 167gr IIRC.

Not with ME!

The Senate has the authority to make treaties. They could concievably make one about weapons.

Who is talking about treaties? President Kerry can simply create an "emergency", then announce that he is suspending the constitution, dissolving Congress, and placing the nation under the protection of the United Nations. Meanwhile, as commander-in-chief, he is ordering the armed forces to arrest all registered Republicans, potential "subversives", and members of "terrorist organizations" like the NRA.

Click to expand...

Somebody is spending way too much time in the SHTF threads.

The NRA has got some of you chasing ghosts.......................

You forget quickly the result the AW ban had on the careers of some politicians to the point that the Democrats backed off the ban renewal and playing down the gun issue this election.
What do you think would happen if they even hinted at inviting the UN into controling our policies and laws?

The US is a strongly independant nation who would just as soon as stand by ourselves than become one of the UN lap dogs.
The Iraq war comes to mind as we gave the finger to most of the rest of the world.

Bush, Kerry or who ever would never get the support to suspend the constitution. If you believe that, then reality has left the building.

Molon Labe..

The UN can't even find its own @ss with a funnel. How can you expect it to do anything meaningful ( or in this case extremely stupid)?


AND WHAT THE F*#&@^ is MOLON LABE?

Molon Labe?

Greek for "come and get them" = Lionendes (sp?), Spartan king's response to Xerces (Persian king) at the battle of Thermopolye (sp?) around 600 BC (I wasn't there at the time), when the Persian offered to let the Greeks go free if thye'd hand over their weapons. Use the 'search' function for a full explaination

Cool. I like it.

Where are you in No. VA? I used to live in Manassas and shoot at Blue Ridge Arsenal or Clark Brothers. I'm in Virginia Beach now.

A treaty is on the level of a law, and may be overturned by the Supreme Court if it violates any section or clause of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

As good as the mutilation of the 1st amendment? All involved in it, especially McCain, Feingold, the Supreme Court, President Bush swore to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC!

Expect further infringements of the constitution, anything else is a pink dream!

So basically I'm the victim of a little fearmongering by the NRA, right?

Click to expand...

Yes and no.

Would the UN be able to send a multinational force into the U.S. to confiscate firearms. No way.

Could a President Kerry or President Hillary sign a U.N. Convention on Small Arms and push it through the Senate? Yes.

Then President Kerry/President Hillary could point to it as a binding agreement that would have to be enforced by the executive branch (like NAFTA, or GATT, or whatever). It could definitely be used to shut down FFL's, shut down manufacturers, and the like. (Look at how WTO decisions are in effect overriding U.S. trade policy in various areas.)

Would guys in blue helmets be coming to your door? No. But guys in suits and ties could shut down your local gun store, or all "civilian" sales of ammunition...

Do we really think that such a measure could pass the U.N.? Sure, there are some nations that would vote for such a resolution, either out of their own desire to ban the private ownership of firearms, or even because it's anti-U.S. But, think about the nations such a measure would affect. Germany (H.K.), Austria (Glock), Canada (Para-Ordnance), Italy (Beretta),China and Russia (all those SKS rifles we love, and the ammo). Money out of their pockets, and remember money does mean something.

Plus, as was pointed out along the way, the U.N. doesn't have the clout to pull off something that big and enforce it. Look at the situation in the Sudan. Genocide is actively occurring, and the matter is being debated in the U.N. Now, picture the same debate about the U.S. and arms control. They can't put together a peacekeeping force to stop the violence in the Sudan. Can they really muster an armed invasion of the U.S.?

And, even if it was with the U.S. Government approval (which would likely be the end of the Constitutional government we enjoy, think of the practicalities of the measure. A house-by-house search across the nation. There aren't enough troops to pull that off, even with minimal armed resistance. And, I think we'd be more than minimal armed resistance...

I find this discussion interesting.
Many of the posters to this thread state how the Constitution prohibits much of what the UN would like to do to the US via treaty, how we are protected by its existence.
And yet, many of these posters often complain about how our elected officials routinely ignore the Constitution, how the USSC has emasculated the 1st Amendment, etc.
Curious.

Vote and the UN will not come down your street. I'm sure that a Tactical Team from Botswana or Luxembourg is just raring to go to Houston or Harlem just to duke it out with Americans.

That's why I would join the Luxembourg Army.

The biggest threat is legislation in the USA. The UN is tinfoil hat crap to raise money.

Look, we told the UN to invade Iraq. We can tell them about any old thing.