anyone else get a call from the NRA today?

[beeenbag]

I just got a call from the NRA wanting contributions, which is not out of the ordinary, but it was what they were wanting it for that caught my attention.

They said to fight against the UN in a meeting already scheduled for 2012 to discuss an "international firearms treaty" that all other countries in the UN was in full support of. Also the Obama administration was in support of this treaty which dissarmed private citizens. I know that Obama could be an ex-president by then but that just makes it all that much more important to vote him out.

Let me know if you all know anything about this.

Could this be a NRA marketing ploy, or do you think it's for real.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

I'm a life member and only get called when they want to alert me to pending legislation before the Alabama lawmakers. I never get calls for contributions.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Could this be a NRA marketing ploy, or do you think it's for real.

Well it's real, but whether or not it will actually do what they claim is up for debate. Personally I'm disappointed the NRA is using this as a scare tactic when there are many more legitimate things to be concerned about.

Google around on the topic, there are lots of things out there about it, some paranoid some rational. Good luck figuring out which is which

 

[David G.]

To answer your question, I didn't get a call from them today, just my Feb. '11 issue of American Rifleman. The President's Column in the magazine talks about it. I learned a couple of things, though I admittedly did not know much about this specific topic to begin with.

 

[allank]

I get the occasional call from them with similar left-field "sound bites". In my opinion if they were more reasonable about their script they might get more donations.

 

[Kentuckiana rifleman]

I haven't heard of this (recently), but a few people have already posted what I was thinking and that is that the NRA is using this as a scare tactic. I really can't say more without sounding like some idiot on a rant.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

The UN issue is a dead, non starting one. I don't know why this subject keeps coming back.

 

[Leverb66]

I guess it came up because the NRA brought it up. I got the same call. Dislike the scare tactic.

 

[SpentCasing]

I cant imagine America being disarmed without anything less than a brutal civil war. As far as scare tactics, some people eat this stuff up and fork over wads of cash as a result. Im a NRA member, and support them on many issues but I agree with other posters, scare tactics are very low road.

 

[gearchecker]

Absolutly nobody can sign any treaty that violates our constitution. If they were to sign one, the treaty agreement will be void on our end. It would take an act of Congrees, and the House of Representatives to write an amendment repealing those rights and priviledges from our constitution. And that's probably not going to happen on our watch.
By law and the constitution's own words. (I'm grossly paraphrasing)
No person can sign a treaty with another state, country, or person, where that treaty is in direct conflict or would cause a violation of our constitution.

I actually got an NRA polster about a month ago argueing with me over the same issue. I told her the way the law is written, and she kept arguing that Mr. Obama has the power to sign our rights away. I told her to go back and read the constitution, and all of the amendments, and then tlod her to call me back if I was wrong. I never got that phone call.
Nothing to worry about yet. As long as America remains a Republic and our Constitution stands, were still safe from outside and internal tyranny.

 

[Mikee Loxxer]

They call me frequently asking for money using the UN boogey man as the reason. Every time I have to explain that the UN does not set US law, congress does. An treaty entered into by the US must be ratified by congress. It really is disappointing that they think most of their membership is stupid enough to buy into this line of "thinking."

I make it a point to tell them to drop the UN one world government/conspiracy theory nonsense. It is easier to respect someone who lives in the real world rather than the Alex Jones/Infowars one. Sigh...

 

[mbogo]

Absolutly nobody can sign any treaty that violates our constitution. If they were to sign one, the treaty agreement will be void on our end. It would take an act of Congrees, and the House of Representatives to write an amendment repealing those rights and priviledges from our constitution. And that's probably not going to happen on our watch.
By law and the constitution's own words. (I'm grossly paraphrasing)
No person can sign a treaty with another state, country, or person, where that treaty is in direct conflict or would cause a violation of our constitution.

Incorrect. (Ratified) Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution, so it is very important that the U.S. Senate not ratify it regardless of the support of the current administration and some Democrat legislators.

mbogo

 

[FlaChef]

I goth this call last week. i tried explaining to the nice moron on the phone why it was a non issue and how i hate these cheap tactics by the NRA when he just hung up.

At least the last lady who tried this tactic on me from the NRA over the whole Blair Holt bill (which had already died with no co sponsors by the time i got the call) had the decency to stammer a "uuuhh... uummmm" at me when I explained why Mr LaPierre's recorded speech was a huge wad of baloney.

I have also never had an ounce of respect for the EVP ever since and if it weren't for the instruction and shooting range support side of the NRA I would write them off totally in favor of SAF and/or GOA

 

[honestlou]

Incorrect. (Ratified) Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution, so it is very important that the U.S. Senate not ratify it regardless of the support of the current administration and some Democrat legislators.

mbogo

Treaties do not supercede the Constitution. Treaties are no different than any other law passed in that they would be null and void to the extent that they violate any rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause simply means that federal law is supreme over any other law in the U.S., ie. State or local. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows treaties to supercede the constitution itself.

 

[Art Eatman]

The NRA underwent great difficulty in achieving Non Governmental Organization (NGO) status for UN gun control efforts. I imagine the fund-raising effort is to cover the expenses of attending the meetings and speaking out against the Treaty.

The problem with a passage of that treaty is in the definitions. What are now fully-legal firearms could be declared illegal by Congress for future manufacture and purchase. Similar to Clinton's AW ban. And, given Obama's penchant for executive orders, some sort of idiocy could occur.

That gets back to "standing to sue", which could mean fighting a criminal charge and having the money--and the luck--to go through the appeals process on up to SCOTUS--and win.

 

[femoralis]

Yes, this is a real issue.

At the very least it could seriously screw up our importation of foreign firearms and ammo, if all milsurp guns and ammo are banned from export by the member nations. No more cheap Mosin Nagants, no more surplus ammo.

If I remember correctly, the treaty would, among other things, require members to prohibit making guns and ammunition by "unliscenced" people- so no more reloading ammo.

I suspect it would have a difficult time passing through the senate now, but who knows?