This is the next step!!!!!

[Charlie T]

This information was gleaned from the following Reuters article:
God help us all !
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress.
Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth?
What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.
We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictatorship).

The Full Article Here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

 

[TexasRifleman]

First, welcome to THR.

This information was gleaned from the following Reuters article:
God help us all !

Second, maybe read the Constitution before believing too much of that stuff. Apologies for the long post you're about to read, but this is a complicated subject.

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur ...”

U.S. Constitution, Article VI partly says:

“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.”

Supreme Court rulings have agreed with that, that treaties can have the same power as Federal Law but they do not supercede the Constitution, at least under current law.

So yes, it's something to keep an eye on but no, signing and ratifying a treaty does not automatically supercede the Constitution.

The damage from these treaties is more subtle. These treaties would limit the export of arms by signing countries. So, firearms imported into the US would suffer, as well as ammo.
Domestic production and sale would not be impacted, but US firearm companies couldn't export as much as they do now, hurting them financially to some extent.

Vigilance, not paranoia.

Cites, for more info:

Reid v. Covert, U.S. Sup. Ct., (1957)

No treaty "can confer power on
the Government, which is free from the restraints of the
Constitution

Foster v. Neilson, U.S.Sup.Ct., 1829

a treaty must "be regarded in
courts...as equivalent to an act of the legislature"

Acts of the legislature are still subject to the Constitution of course.

State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)

Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention. We do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power, but they must be ascertained in a different way. It is obvious that there may be matters of the sharpest exigency for the national wellbeing (sic) that an act of Congress could not deal with, but that a treaty followed by such an act could, and it is not lightly to be assumed that, in matters requiring national action, "a power which must belong to and somewhere reside in every civilized government" is not to be found

More from the Supremes:

“There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court
has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
Constitution over a treaty. ... For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133
U.S. 258, 267, it declared: The treaty power, as expressed in the
Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which
are found in that instrument against the action of the government or
of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the
government itself and of that of the States. It would not be
contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution
forbids, or a change in the character of the [p*18] government, or in
that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory
of the latter, without its consent.”

 

[Art Eatman]

No matter how much this poor old horse gets beaten on, he still doesn't get up.