Texshooter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 481
Arms Trade Treaty
- Thread starter DSling
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, I'll bite. What's unclear to me now is what Neville Chamberlain's quote there is supposed to indicate in this context? Not even arguing ... just flummoxed!
JRH6856
Member
Texshooter, the meaning of your last two posts in this thread is unclear to me. While joeschmoe's posts you respond to are perfectly clear.
USAF_Vet
Member
Are we even worried about ratification of this in the Senate? 34 Senators have signed onto a resolution (S. Con. Res 7) that opposes the UN Arms Trade Treaty. Since it has to have a 2/3rds majority to pass the Senate and be ratified (that's 67 Senators for those bad at math) they don't have the votes. Isn't this mostly a moot point now, at least for those of us in this country? Mexico can do whatever Mexico does, treaty or no treaty. Same with the other countries that signed onto it.
Imports of modern guns and imports of mil surp guns and imports of ammo might be effected. I emphasize might simply because the treaty doesn't force anyone to adhere to anything, just urges countries to legislate more rules. But the US economy and free market capitalism will do what it does, and will fill the void of supply where there is the highest demand. US based ammo manufacturers can and will make 5.45x39, 7.62x54r, 5.7x25 and all the rest of the popular foreign rounds. Buying a foreign import gun might be more expensive because of restrictions on the export side of things, but that will leave a gap for a US manufacturer to step in and fill the void.
If the treaty is DOA in the Senate, is there really anything to worry about that cannot be overcome?
Imports of modern guns and imports of mil surp guns and imports of ammo might be effected. I emphasize might simply because the treaty doesn't force anyone to adhere to anything, just urges countries to legislate more rules. But the US economy and free market capitalism will do what it does, and will fill the void of supply where there is the highest demand. US based ammo manufacturers can and will make 5.45x39, 7.62x54r, 5.7x25 and all the rest of the popular foreign rounds. Buying a foreign import gun might be more expensive because of restrictions on the export side of things, but that will leave a gap for a US manufacturer to step in and fill the void.
If the treaty is DOA in the Senate, is there really anything to worry about that cannot be overcome?
JRH6856
Member
Do politicians always honor their resolutions? Or do they treat them more like campaign promises? Do you think you can trust that not 1 of the 34 might have a change of mind?
My concern is this: While the Constitution can not be violated or abridged by treaty obligations, existing laws can be nullified. When, as is the case currently, a single party controls the Presidency and Senate, a treaty can be a way to do an end run around a House that opposes desired legilation.
It is not clear that gun registration is unconstitutional; at present it is just illegal. But the UN ATT requires importing countries to provide end user information to the manufacturers in exporting countries and this requirement may be used to justify the creation of a firearms registry in order to maintain the end user information required by the treaty. Because of treaty obligations which make it law, such a registry could be created by executive order without House approval. It would be up to SCOTUS to determine if it violated the Constitution.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
How? How would you do that even if you wanted to? It isn't like the importer knows who the end user is when they purchase the firearms, or even when they sell them in many cases. Even if the importer did report that information, in many cases it is going to be another FFL who is the purchaser.
Alhough I agree that such a system would be troubling if implemented. It would essentially be a Project Echelon for guns - the United States would be prohibited by law from creating a centralized record system but they would be sharing the same information with countries that are under no such prohibition.
However, this Senate will not ratify the treaty. There were already 53 votes in the Senate for the budget resolution to oppose it. It needs 67 to be ratified. Just like CIFTA, it is going to linger around but there is no way it gets ratified in this Senate... Even after 2014, it would still be tough given how many votes they need to swing.
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
You would track the imported firearm from the country of origin to the importer to the distributor, to the retailer to the end user...and then from user to user.
May not be able to do that now. But it could be done if there were a national firearms registry.
From the UN ATT (linked earlier):
Article 3 Ammunition/Munitions
Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such ammunition/munitions.
Article 4 Parts and Components
Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components where the export is in a form that provides the capability to assemble the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such parts and components.
Article 5 General Implementation
4. Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties. States Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.
5. Each State Party shall take measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) and of items covered under Article 3 and Article 4.
~~~~
Article 8 Import
1. Each importing State Party shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, pursuant to its national laws, to the exporting State Party, to assist the exporting State Party in conducting its national export assessment under Article 7. Such measures may include end use or end user documentation.
2. Each importing State Party shall take measures that will allow it to regulate, where necessary, imports under its jurisdiction of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1). Such measures may include import systems.
~~~~
Article 12 Record keeping
1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate.
4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
FWIW, I agree that ratification is highly unlikely.
I agree. I think the main concern is that the political climate may change in the future. There are certainly powerful forces at work to make that change happen. If that were the case, it is certainly possible something like this could be ratified by a future Senate. That is why we must fight to make sure that political climate / reality does not happen.
(I believe that if the U.S. signs onto the treaty, and the Senate does not ratify it, it get's 'shelved' and could be ratified in the future?? I'm not too sure how that works...maybe someone else here knows if that's true?)
Also, the implementation of this treaty (as far as registration, etc is concerned), may well be difficult; however, difficult, stupid laws / rules have been passed before, so we should not let that be a reason to not be concerned.
It's not so much the current probability of this happening, as is the concern for the future possibility of where this might go, that has many people worried.
That's why the NRA takes, what many may consider (on the part of the MSM), a 'no compromise' view. Because the slippery slope, while laughed off by 'lunch room liberals' as paranoid, does happen.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. And that's what the anti's are doing.
JRH6856
Member
That is correct. Once signed, the next step is ratification and that can take as long as it takes. Unless the signature is withdrawn, or other signing parties withdraw in the meantime, it could be ratified 200 years from now and would then go into effect.
Amendments to the Constitution are the same way. The 27th Amendment was submitted to the states for ratification in 1789, but was not adopted until 1992 when enough states finally ratified.
JRH6856
Member
Well, you see, they kept adding more states, which meant the number needed to ratify kept increasing. And then a couple of states withdrew their ratification along the way. At least one ratified twice. It's an interesting story.
Arkansas Paul
Member
Well, I emailed my senators and got a response back from one of them. I didn't realize that it took a 2/3 vote in the Senate to ratify. That is good news for us, as a 2/3 vote is highly unlikely. Anyway, here was the Senator's response to me.
I have noticed that those who complain the Constitution does not work, are the same people who don't understand how it does work.
Read the Constitution and learn how your government works.
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
^
I'll challenge you to be a little more specific. It's easy to disagree in general terms.....
My .02
The problem is that in our system, it is left to the Judicial branch to sort it out AFTER the legislation / action is taken. They can rule on something on their own, but it doesnt seem to happen. Therefore, what I and many other worry about are these laws that pass, then are implemented and go many years before being challenged. Look at the Heller case....McDonald....etc.
I'll challenge you to be a little more specific. It's easy to disagree in general terms.....
My .02
The problem is that in our system, it is left to the Judicial branch to sort it out AFTER the legislation / action is taken. They can rule on something on their own, but it doesnt seem to happen. Therefore, what I and many other worry about are these laws that pass, then are implemented and go many years before being challenged. Look at the Heller case....McDonald....etc.
JRH6856
Member
Ohio Gun Guy said:
Before John Marshall realized that determining constitutionality was a task for SCOTUS, that task fell to POTUS. That is the main reason he was given veto power. He still has that power and has used it in the past. SCOTUS is properly the final resort when both the legislative and executive branches have failed to meet the constitutional standard.
But it is easy to disagree in general terms; what specifically about the process would you change?
I was very specific (3 times) and was given extremely vague and bizarre retort. If you can explain what texshooter specifically meant I can respond.
No. SCTOUS cannot just rule on their own. The president can veto before it becomes law. SCOTUS can only rule when their is a specific case before them. They do not rule on hypotheticals, only on specific cases that have worked their way thru the system. That's how it's supposed to work. They are not a replacement to Congress. They are not mullahs or an Ayatolla to sit in judgement of everything Congress does.
Last edited:
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
It's called judicial review.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Sheesh... Yes it is called judicial review. BUT judicial review only happens when some specific case is brought before the court (which takes years). The court cannot just look as the collection of new legislation passed this year and say, "hey, let's rule on that treaty they passed! I don't like that one!"
First the new law has to be passed. Then someone has to break it and get caught, tried, and convicted under it. Then they have to appeal, again and again up the chain (without their conviction being overturned at any point). Then it has the CHANCE to be heard by SCOTUS, if they decide to.
Then there may be some judicial review.
First the new law has to be passed. Then someone has to break it and get caught, tried, and convicted under it. Then they have to appeal, again and again up the chain (without their conviction being overturned at any point). Then it has the CHANCE to be heard by SCOTUS, if they decide to.
Then there may be some judicial review.
Last edited:
They are supposed to be slow. The symbol of the court is the tortoise. Seriously. The SCOTUS building has a tortoise and hare carved into the building referring to the Aesop's fable "slow and steady wins the race".
Most problems, like this treaty work themselves out before they get a chance to rule on it. This treaty is not likely to effect us, or at least not for a long time. Only then can they step to rule on it.
Most problems, like this treaty work themselves out before they get a chance to rule on it. This treaty is not likely to effect us, or at least not for a long time. Only then can they step to rule on it.
Thanks for another specific example of what I said. You claim the system doesn't work, but in fact you just illustrated you don't understand how the system is supposed to work.
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
Are you a legal scholar?
I was lamenting that our system relys on the judicial branch to litigate laws after the fact.... This I think we agree. I also said that there is a way they can directly review law....and there is, and as I alluded to, it is not used. It is original jurisdiction, and it may be applicable to a treaty in so much as a treaty is with another state. I am not a lawyer, but you continue to call those who disagree with you ignorant, not just here but in other posts...
Summary: Yes, the Supreme Court hears cases on review from lower courts. IT DOES have "Original Jurisdiction" in some cases. My whole point was that I dislike that we live with the poor/unconstitutional law until it is challenged. I believe some States - Legislative bodies rely on this to have their dumb ideas enjoy the force of law for YEARS... Washington DC & Chicago.
I have done all of this without alluding to tin foil hats or maligning your intelligence. Further, I have not quoted your post.
I'm done with this conversation with you. Hope things cool off, we'll see you around. OGG
I was lamenting that our system relys on the judicial branch to litigate laws after the fact.... This I think we agree. I also said that there is a way they can directly review law....and there is, and as I alluded to, it is not used. It is original jurisdiction, and it may be applicable to a treaty in so much as a treaty is with another state. I am not a lawyer, but you continue to call those who disagree with you ignorant, not just here but in other posts...
Summary: Yes, the Supreme Court hears cases on review from lower courts. IT DOES have "Original Jurisdiction" in some cases. My whole point was that I dislike that we live with the poor/unconstitutional law until it is challenged. I believe some States - Legislative bodies rely on this to have their dumb ideas enjoy the force of law for YEARS... Washington DC & Chicago.
I have done all of this without alluding to tin foil hats or maligning your intelligence. Further, I have not quoted your post.
I'm done with this conversation with you. Hope things cool off, we'll see you around. OGG
This treaty clearly encourages registration of all arms.
It should not be ratified.
However it is sad that most of the world will be passing it.
What this means is whenever you invade one of these other nations that has complied well with the law, you should be able to sieze local records of all law abiding gun owners and go round up all legally held weapons, and perhaps hold those that cannot answer for missing ones as suspicious in camps and prisons as potentiel rebels and terrorists.
In fact if it is in a database you could even sort or use software to sort by caliber or type and prioritize those weapons you feel are the biggest threat to your invasion force first.
Or sort by those that own the most legally owned weapons first, to get the most bang for your manpower in prioritizing those weapon caches first! Crush the gun nut civis first!
It should not be ratified.
However it is sad that most of the world will be passing it.
What this means is whenever you invade one of these other nations that has complied well with the law, you should be able to sieze local records of all law abiding gun owners and go round up all legally held weapons, and perhaps hold those that cannot answer for missing ones as suspicious in camps and prisons as potentiel rebels and terrorists.
In fact if it is in a database you could even sort or use software to sort by caliber or type and prioritize those weapons you feel are the biggest threat to your invasion force first.
Or sort by those that own the most legally owned weapons first, to get the most bang for your manpower in prioritizing those weapon caches first! Crush the gun nut civis first!
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
Ohio Gun Guy said:
The point is, even in cases with original jurisdiction, SCOTUS can not act on its own. It must wait for someone with standing to petition the court.
"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law."
In the case of a treaty, as in the case of a bill before congress, until it is ratified or passed and signed and actually has force of law, it can't harm anyone so no one has standing.
I did not comment on your intelligence but on your mistaken claims about the Constitution. Even very intelligent people can be wrong.
SCOTUS cannot rule on a law without a case; where someone has standing to bring a case. Please cite some example where this has happened.
- Status
