UN vote July 27th. ??

Status
Not open for further replies.

4kdave

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
19
Location
Western Colorado
What are your thoughts on the UN vote to ban inter-continental sales of guns?

I suspect that our Rep. will sign on since that is what Obama will want.

Sorry if this has been discussed before but I just heard the date this AM
 
Last edited:
I hope they don't sign. Inter-continental sales are how we get a lot of great guns.
 
This Treaty is already dead, even before the ink is put to paper, let alone ‘dry’.

China has already said they would ‘veto’. It only takes one permanent member state/country to veto and it’s over. You can certainly add the UK and possibly Russia to the veto list.

Now we come to the US. 57 Senators, 45 Republicans and 12 Democrats are on record of writing to Obama and Hillary stating they will not support a Senate vote for ‘Consent and Approval”. Don’t forget it takes a 2/3rds majority to consent and approve.

My mental math makes that 3 and possibly 4 veto votes. And it only takes one.

We can certainly watch these idiots for entertainment, but we need to put our efforts into the elections.

Chris
 
Makes sense that China and Russia would be against it, considering how popular russian rifles and shotguns are.
 
If I was the pres on my first day of office I would do away with pennies and cut all funding to the UN. It has become a joke. I don't think it will ever happen. There are to many companies making a lot of money of exporting and importing guns.
 
it won't go, as stated, due to russia/ china.... BUT,

as weeny-ish and PITB as it would be, consider what giving U.S. gun manufacturers an ABSOLUTE CORNER on the U.S. gun market would do for the U.S. gun lobby! non-US companies can't contribute legally to US election campaigns... US gun makers, and their buyers, CAN AND DO... especially when the 'grabbers' do something to threaten 2A rights.

just as when the 'assault weapon ban' led to RECORD amounts of NRA $$ contribution to the 2000 elections, i would LOVE to see 'grabbers' walk face-first into that nasty 'unintended consequences' thing again...

PLEASE, Br'er Bear, DON'T throw me into the BRIAR PATCH!
 
Varmiter -- I share your views and sincerely hope our expectations are realized.

However, surprizing dissapointments over the past few years ( one recent and especially sickening ) tend to erode my confidence.

These dark forces are determined and will not rest. We must be ever vigilant and continuously vanquish their determination with our resolve.

The mistake I've made for over half a century has been believing my government to be trustworthy. I recognize now that it will only be so if it is closely watched and consistantly pressured.

Respect & Regards -- Al
 
If this comes up for a vote in the UN, the USA (under the current administration) would not veto it. However, as noted above the US Senate would not ratify it. Meaning it would remain in force for whichever nations chose to enact it, but the USA would not be obligated by it.

This, of course, assumes that no one else (like China) casts a veto. In that case it's dead.
 
I vaguely remember something about a sneaky "end run" the Admin could pull to get it past the Senate without a vote on it, but the specifics evade me now. (Given that it makes it throught the UN.)

Anybody else remember that? Can you refresh me on it?

Terry, 230RN
 
I have been watching this for over a year. My response here was not made just off the cuff. I said exactly the same thing a year ago in a published article in a following link.

The UPDATE, published at the bottom is a list of Senators who will oppose this Treaty. If your Senator(s) are not on the list, click on the map in the right hand column to easily contact either or both of them if you feel you must. In this political climate, regardless of which party he/she (senator) is, I think I would simply just inform them that I expect them to appear on the list of those who oppose, otherwise they will lose your vote. If in fact you wouldn’t vote for them anyway doesn’t matter. They don’t know that. But before you do that, you REALLY need to determine which Class your Senator is in. He/she may not be up for election this cycle.

http://tinyurl.com/7uqgugy

Now, just to clarify a couple of points in the posts above.

The Senate does NOT RATIFY in the case(s) of Treaties. The Senate ‘Consents and Approves’, and the President, upon his signing the Treaty ratifies. Just a small technical point. A point that even Hillary, who should know better, got wrong......Oh Well...... Most of our Congress Critters are at least one bottle short of a six pack.

If JUST ONE PERMANENT MEMBER vetoes, the UN resolution is dead as a UN resolution. However, if individual countries wish to adopt what is in the resolution LOCALLY, that is up to them. In a case such as envisioned, there will be no UN resolution/treaty.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Great piece of information, Varmiter!

We should all make note of the Senators that sent the letter of opposition to the current administration that are up for 2012 reelection and work to help them keep the balance of power in our favor by helping to get them reelected. One of my Senators is up and I want to make sure that either he or both he and his opponent are going to take the same position opposing any such potential treaty.
 
the UN vote to ban inter-continental sales of guns?

Of note, this is not what the treaty says.

The treaty is exclusively looking at a framework for UN member states to be able to identify and punish illegal international arms sales. It very explicitly has nothing to do with legitimate, legal international import/export/sale/trade of small arms and ammunition, and absolutely has zero to do with arms ownership and use in the United States.

There is so much misinformation on this issue...it's staggering.

If people want to be responsible American firearms owners, before posting anything about the UN Small Arms treaty, PLEASE take the time to go read up on OFFICIAL news sources (not blogs, not firearms enthusiast sites, not NRA-ILA -- try the actual UN site, which explains all aspects of this treaty in very clear words).

Educate yourself about what it is REALLY about, and what the status of it is.

It is all of our responsibilities to be watchdogs for our leadership and hold them accountable of the decision they make on our behalf. It doesn't do any of us any good to "go off half cocked" on our elected representatives when it is us who doesn't actually have a clear picture of the issues or decisions to be made.

Unfortunately, based on the posts I've seen in the firearms-o-sphere over the last 6 months on this topic, there are a LOT of people who don't know what they're talking about...and that hurts all of us.

Here's an example of a 'news' story I just pulled up off Google News:

Retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who has been at the forefront of citizen opposition to the treaty, stated,

There has been a decree by the administration by the president and the secretary of state saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons,” Boykin warned. “That means the United Nations, an international body will decide how you and I as Americans can buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are. This is a dangerous trend.

This quote from a retired 3-star General sure gives off an air of authority, and makes a pretty horrific statement about this treaty. Unfortunately, it's also phenomenally misleading....unless "you and I as Americans" are involved in international arms smuggling.

If we, indeed, are international arms smugglers, then he's right -- the treaty would decide how we "buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are."

Unfortunately, if we're just private American citizens, then this treaty has absolutely zero to do with us, and the fine General's words have no applicability.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, obama loves that treaty, and he would love to inventory privately owned firearm in the us. International law, you know. But thank goodness we can rely on china to scrap it.

And we've already educated ourselves about obama and his hatred of the 2nd amendment, and we've heard his lawyer argue the collective right hogwash.

Good thing we've got china to rely on, though. Obama is ready to sign on. :rolleyes:
 
Sure.

Here's the article the 3-star is quoted in.

http://www.examiner.com/article/senate-set-to-approve-controversial-un-gun-treaty

Here's a press release from the UN disarmament folks issued a couple days ago. It includes some summaries of the speeches from, and general positions of, the countries and reps in the conference.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/dc3364.doc.htm

Delegates to the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty met today to resume their general exchange of views in continuation of their negotiations towards a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

So why am I hearing two VERY different things in regards to treaties? The above quote is directly from the Constitution and says that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. While other people say that no treaty can trump the Constitution. Am I just seeing this incorrectly, or are other people misinformed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top