http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.co...nsAndMoney+(No+Lawyers+-+Only+Guns+and+Money)
Picked this up at another forum and thought it was interesting.
Picked this up at another forum and thought it was interesting.
HR 5846 - The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act
- Thread starter Sky
- Start date
- Status
lanternlad1
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2007
- Messages
- 770
The Constitution automatically has sovereignty as law of the land. They can make all the treaties they want, they will never trump the Constitution. This law is unnecessary.
Article 6
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article 6
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Radagast
Member
In a perfect work that would be the case. But this is not a perfect world ands there are officers of the government who will, if given the opportunity, use the treaty power to infringe upon the rights of the people.
By denying the administration the right to spend money to pass the treaty the bill stops civil servants from negotiating for it, photocopiers being used, computers being switched on, use of staff cars and drivers to meetings, etc.
A similar piece of legislation was used to prevent any negotiations re selling the F22 fighter to Japan & Australia, although both expressed interest.
If the bill passes the international anti gun agenda will be set back. Other countries (such as Australia) planning to use their treaty power to restrict civilain ownership of firearms at home will not be able to do so.
If the bill doesn't pass and the treaty is finalised then the antigunners will move on to the next point of their agenda.
By denying the administration the right to spend money to pass the treaty the bill stops civil servants from negotiating for it, photocopiers being used, computers being switched on, use of staff cars and drivers to meetings, etc.
A similar piece of legislation was used to prevent any negotiations re selling the F22 fighter to Japan & Australia, although both expressed interest.
If the bill passes the international anti gun agenda will be set back. Other countries (such as Australia) planning to use their treaty power to restrict civilain ownership of firearms at home will not be able to do so.
If the bill doesn't pass and the treaty is finalised then the antigunners will move on to the next point of their agenda.
Hypnogator
Member
I don't see how a US law would restrict other countries, or make passing a UN Arms Control Treaty more difficult. Perhaps Radagast means that it would discourage some US backers of such a treaty by making it abundantly clear that the provisions of the treaty would not apply to the US. If so, perhaps it might be worthwhile, after all.
Radagast
Member
The treaty has been stalled for years, since John Bolton, the Bush administration ambassador to the UN refused to support it, as to enforce it would be in violation of the US constitution. Basically the UN hasn't passed it because of US opposition.
In reality the proposed treaty will have zero effect on limiting war crimes or genocide, as totalitarian arms exporting countries such as China, North Korea & Russia will sign it and then do as they please anyway.
What it will do is provide western nations with a Federal system (Germany, USA, Australia & Canada for example) with a tool where regulation of individual ownership of arms can be consolidated at the federal level.
Actual military purpose weapons & equipment are already covered by the ITARS treaty, this proposed treaty is strictly about restricting the means to self defence.
By removing opposition to the treaty, the Obama administration is signaling that it will allow the treaty to go ahead.
Even if the US senate refuses to approve the treaty, the international status quo will have been changed in favour of the gun banners in those countries that do approve the treaty.
The proposed bill before the congress, if passed, effectively stops any member of the state department from acting to move the treaty forward at the UN. If they do so they will be using federal money (their wages) to do so and would then be in breach of the law. It also means the treaty will never be presented to the senate for approval, meaning one less political battle that the NRA will have to expend political capital on.
In other words, its a good bill.
In reality the proposed treaty will have zero effect on limiting war crimes or genocide, as totalitarian arms exporting countries such as China, North Korea & Russia will sign it and then do as they please anyway.
What it will do is provide western nations with a Federal system (Germany, USA, Australia & Canada for example) with a tool where regulation of individual ownership of arms can be consolidated at the federal level.
Actual military purpose weapons & equipment are already covered by the ITARS treaty, this proposed treaty is strictly about restricting the means to self defence.
By removing opposition to the treaty, the Obama administration is signaling that it will allow the treaty to go ahead.
Even if the US senate refuses to approve the treaty, the international status quo will have been changed in favour of the gun banners in those countries that do approve the treaty.
The proposed bill before the congress, if passed, effectively stops any member of the state department from acting to move the treaty forward at the UN. If they do so they will be using federal money (their wages) to do so and would then be in breach of the law. It also means the treaty will never be presented to the senate for approval, meaning one less political battle that the NRA will have to expend political capital on.
In other words, its a good bill.
SilentStalker
Member
So, how can we add support for this bill? Sorry, I am pretty ignorant when it comes to the political workings of things. I figure writing my senator might ^^^do some good but I am not really sure what he can ^^^do.
Everyone can relax on this. It isn’t gonna happen.
Regardless of Obama’s and Hillary’s support for the ATT, it has to get past the Senate. There are 57 Senators on record, 45 republicans and 12 Democrats who oppose this treaty. It takes a 2/3rds vote for Senate ‘consent’.
Additionally, the treaty isn’t even on paper yet and won’t be before July 2012.
Nothing has really changed since I wrote about this last year.
http://constitutionwatch.wordpress.com/nra-tilting-at-windmills-again/
Chris
Regardless of Obama’s and Hillary’s support for the ATT, it has to get past the Senate. There are 57 Senators on record, 45 republicans and 12 Democrats who oppose this treaty. It takes a 2/3rds vote for Senate ‘consent’.
Additionally, the treaty isn’t even on paper yet and won’t be before July 2012.
Nothing has really changed since I wrote about this last year.
http://constitutionwatch.wordpress.com/nra-tilting-at-windmills-again/
Chris
SilentStalker
Member
No offense but I ^^^do not or will not relax until it is off the table completely. You are also putting your confidence in the same people that control every other aspect of your life. I don't know about how it is for you or most other people on these boards but things are not getting better despite what the up and down sways of the media say. I would venture to say that things are getting worse it's just that most people ^^^do not hear about it. It is far from being over or not being something to worry about.
Byrd666
Member
lanternlad1
Do you really believe that the government we have now even cares a two (censored) about the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or any other citizen protecting documents or laws that are in place. That <deleted> that's in office, along with any and or all it's cronies have already proven blatant disregard for the Constitution and all it stands for. It has continually bent and broken any law(s) it deems to be in the way of total abolishment of any of our 2nd Amendment rights. And they are working on taking away a whole lot more than our guns.
Just consider the policies the Tyrant has put in place concerning Press statements, or opinions made on public forums such as Yahoo. As well as the continual monitoring by the government of private citizens making their opinion known on those same forums.
So once again, if anybody thinks the Obama administration has any regard at all for the laws of the United States, you really need to crawl out from under that boulder for a while.
These are my opinions only, and are not meant to start a peeing contest.
Do you really believe that the government we have now even cares a two (censored) about the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or any other citizen protecting documents or laws that are in place. That <deleted> that's in office, along with any and or all it's cronies have already proven blatant disregard for the Constitution and all it stands for. It has continually bent and broken any law(s) it deems to be in the way of total abolishment of any of our 2nd Amendment rights. And they are working on taking away a whole lot more than our guns.
Just consider the policies the Tyrant has put in place concerning Press statements, or opinions made on public forums such as Yahoo. As well as the continual monitoring by the government of private citizens making their opinion known on those same forums.
So once again, if anybody thinks the Obama administration has any regard at all for the laws of the United States, you really need to crawl out from under that boulder for a while.
These are my opinions only, and are not meant to start a peeing contest.
Last edited by a moderator:
husbandofaromanian
Member
I'm one of those people feeling pretty smug after Heller and McDonald. Yes I realize that Fast and Furious was an attack on the gun community. However, it was a poor one. It showed how desperate they are and what little chance they have of banning guns. Our want-to-be dictator will either be defeated in November or he will become a lame duck.
They have loaded their wagon so full trying to rule the world, even though the world did not elect them, that they really don't have the time and resources to take us on after the Supreme Court already ruled in our favor. Meanwhile, guns are becoming very popular and the AR is now a common firearm.
Also, let's not forget all of those Firearms Freedom Acts passed by several states including my state of Tennessee.
They are desperate and they will try anything. However, IMO, all will fail.
They have loaded their wagon so full trying to rule the world, even though the world did not elect them, that they really don't have the time and resources to take us on after the Supreme Court already ruled in our favor. Meanwhile, guns are becoming very popular and the AR is now a common firearm.
Also, let's not forget all of those Firearms Freedom Acts passed by several states including my state of Tennessee.
They are desperate and they will try anything. However, IMO, all will fail.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
This supposed proposed treaty is nothing more than a dictator/despot protection scheme. It's kinda hard to depose despots and dictators with a disarmed populace.
Woody
Woody
And since this is quickly degenerating into the usual pointless political squabble, it's over now.
- Status
