WAYNE LaPIERRE SPEAKS WITH 95% OF THE TRUTH ON UN GUN BAN

[One of Many]

I found the specific cites relating to the effective authority due to treaties to be interesting. I have stated repeatedly that treaties have no power over constitutional provisions (it is just plain common sense), but to know that there are codifications stating that clearly is useful information.

Whatever the merits of the case, or the lack of support from the NRA, the knowledge gained by users of this forum due to the posting of this information, is worth the attention of all gun owners.

I do not appreciate being lied to by fundraisers, whether they be NRA or other pro-gun groups. Don't try to make a fool of me, or anyone else, just to raise money, even if it will be used for my benefit.

 

[Hk91 Fan]

DonHamrick Posted:
"TRUTH IS: The provisions of any U.N. treaty or compact, whether in part or in whole, that conflicts with our U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights has no legal effect or authority over the citizens of the United States."

Personally, I find this statement to be a bit naive. Does anyone really believe that our representatives will not, at some point, enter into a treaty with the U.N. that would violate the Constitution? Are you sure it hasn't happened already? Moreover, have they needed an international treaty to violate our rights thus far?

You know, people can wrap themselves up in the constitution all day long and rant and rave about the immunity that it grants them. Generally, they do not help our cause in any way. In many cases, they hurt it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I found the specific cites relating to the effective authority due to treaties to be interesting. I have stated repeatedly that treaties have no power over constitutional provisions (it is just plain common sense), but to know that there are codifications stating that clearly is useful information.

Corpus Juris Secundum is not any kind of codification. It is just a legal encyclopedia that summarizes what the law is. It is used to familiarize lawyers with broad aspects of certain legal subjects. It has no legal force and citing to it in support of a legal argument is considered very bad form.

However, it does correctly summarize the law in saying that international treaties may not overrule the Constitution.

I do not appreciate being lied to by fundraisers, whether they be NRA or other pro-gun groups. Don't try to make a fool of me, or anyone else, just to raise money, even if it will be used for my benefit.

The issue here is that a treaty like that proposed by IANSA would only violate the Second Amendment if the Second Amendment protects an individual right. While there is a ton of evidence to support that argument, there is no Supreme Court ruling on the issue and if we had to get one today, it might not be favorable. So LaPierre makes a fair point that we should be concerned...