Contact Your Senator

[Artofgolf]

I've added a copy of a reply from one of Pennsylvania's Senate members to bring attention to the Administration's anti-activities; IMHO, they will use any tactic to further their agenda. Hopefully, members will see that contacting their elected representatives can help RKBA efforts.

View attachment ToomeyATTltr.pdf

 

[another pake]

My question probably demonstrates my lack of "general civics knowledge" but here goes.

Since the United States has already become a signatory to the treaty via President Obama's and Secretary Kerry's endorsement, how long can it lie in the drawer, so to speak, awaiting ratification by the Senate? While it may seem very unlikely to us today that such a move would ever occur, who knows what would happen with the passage of time, and a few key personalities in the Senate?

 

[Artofgolf]

My question probably demonstrates my lack of "general civics knowledge" but here goes.

Since the United States has already become a signatory to the treaty via President Obama's and Secretary Kerry's endorsement, how long can it lie in the drawer, so to speak, awaiting ratification by the Senate? While it may seem very unlikely to us today that such a move would ever occur, who knows what would happen with the passage of time, and a few key personalities in the Senate?

That's a good question. Personally, I don't know how the end-game plays out. IMO, I don't see how a Cabinet Secretary's signature to a treaty can supersede constitutional authority.

 

[JRH6856]

My question probably demonstrates my lack of "general civics knowledge" but here goes.

Since the United States has already become a signatory to the treaty via President Obama's and Secretary Kerry's endorsement, how long can it lie in the drawer, so to speak, awaiting ratification by the Senate? While it may seem very unlikely to us today that such a move would ever occur, who knows what would happen with the passage of time, and a few key personalities in the Senate?

The Senate does not actually ratify treaties. The Senate offers advice and consent, much like it does with Presidential appointments. The President actually ratifies the treaty after the Senate has given its consent in a Resolution of Ratification which must pass with a 2/3 majority. AFAIK, there is no time limit so once a treaty is presented to the Senate, it remains on the calendar until consent is given no matter how many times a consent vote fails to pass.

A good description of the process can be found here.

While the Senate must consent to the ratification of treaties for them to have the effect of law under the Constituttion, a President will have signed a treaty before presenting it for Senate consent. This means that as far as other signatory nations are concerned, the US is a signatory nation and the treaty applies in international relations. The President, who has sole authority to conduct foreign policy may (and this President likely will) comply with the treaty as far as he is able. Domestically, the treaty provisions may not have force of law, but he may use the treaty as justification for any number of Executive Orders and Directives in accordance with its terms.

 

[hso]

We went through all the arguments on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty months ago and nothing has changed. What is to be accomplished AFTER the ATT has already been signed AND after the House and the Senate are now in the opposition party control? No one seriously thinks that the Senate will ratify the thing if it actually had any domestic impact.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=711181&highlight=ATT

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=722797&highlight=ATT

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=729917&highlight=U.N.+Arms+Trade+Treaty

 

[barnbwt]

Forget the domestic market, we can take care of ourselves; I'm worried about us being cut off from the plethora of great and innovative designs available internationally (and morally appalled by the loss of the ratifiers' civic rights, but that doesn't make it my business). It's already bad enough here with 922r, assorted import bans/restrictions, and parts kits having both receivers discarded (it's no longer good enough to torch cut them anymore) and barrels, now torched. No more importable barrels of any kind, last I checked; that means no more German Elves barrels or Swiss match rifles, unless they are old, antiquated designs like single shots.

Our senators, who are probably at best the harmless type of Fudd (passive type), likely don't have the slightest inkling of any of these issues. I'll bet a good number of them have no idea that arms imports are regulated, already. They definitely aren't familiar with all the BS and paperwork that importers of guns and parts kits currently have to go through, and how an international arms trading freeze would shutter them. They don't have time for such small fish. I say there can be no harm in letting our senators (and president) know how important and crucial our peaceable international arms market is. If the UN wants to crack down on illicit arms dealers and 3rd world despots, they need to tailor their treaty far more narrowly (not to mention take a good hard look in the mirror)

Yes, a chunk of the lost import market would be filled by domestic growth and by foreign companies moving some investment here, but many/most of those firms are much more beholden to their/other governments' needs than ours, and would most likely write us US civilians off as too big a bother (case in point; H&K). I simply see no potential for good to come of this treaty's in any way, and that combined with its far-reaching ambition does worry me greatly. We should oppose it the same way we fiercely oppose equally-unenforceable domestic gun laws. They set a bad and dangerous precedent.

Or do we not care about the Colorado mag ban now, since it's both unenforced and unenforceable?

No, these international meddlers could never impact our lives directly. After all, the US is so insulated from foreign influence that our international policy is now dominated by global warming, and headed by a 'citizen of the world' who must suck up to China/Russia on a near daily basis anymore... Oh yeah, we also have enormous foreign debt loads, and most of our most crucial industrial entities are international conglomerates with more foreign interests than domestic.

TCB

 

[hso]

Whether we sign or not is not relevant to the other signatories prohibiting export to the U.S. since their restrictions impact us as much as our own import restrictions do or might. Making sure that the U.N. ATT didn't potentially infringe upon out right to keep and bear arms is what the topic is, not whether we can get product from outside the U.S.

We need to be very specific about what we want our elected officials to do in this respect. A bill sponsored and passed specifically stating that no funding for any activity restricting commerce in firearms related to the importation and sale and use of firearms into and within the United States will be approved. Further, no bill or treaty related to the importation and sale and use of firearms into and within the United States that restricts commerce in firearms shall be considered null and void as infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Ranting that the signed treaty somehow needs to be ignored does no good. Specifying that actions to protect our rights against abuses from such a treaty can.

 

[Artofgolf]

Specifying that actions to protect our rights against abuses from such a treaty can.

Agreed. Here's a link to an article on the ongoing treaty issue: http://nws.mx/1zAikjS

I can see why Glock has moved some manufacturing to the USA.

 

[hso]

Wrong.

Glock moved manufacturing to the USA for contracts (and long ago at that) and to reduce costs.