TexasCHLforum.com

AEA wrote:The NRA may be given the credit and I support them. But I have another suggestion why the US (MaoBama and Hillary) decided to stop this in it's tracks.

MaoBama must have got the word that a overwhelming number of Americans support the 2nd and he decided that this UN treaty (that they supported as an end run to enact more gun control - in the works for many months) was not worth it to him to loose any possibility of being re-elected.

As the election comes closer you will see more of this action by the administration to gain votes. He has already tied the hands of ICE and Border Patrol who can no longer deport illegals and he is trying to eliminate voter ID requirements by many States. Why? Cause he can get those votes!

He is a back stabber and a real conniver to get his way. Probably the same tactics he used to get his "education" and other things in his life.

Basically, he just makes me SICK!

A few posts before this one, I wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I think that Obama read the writing on the wall. He proposes banning stuff and dems insert a magazine capacity limit buried in a cyber bill, and then watches sales of AK47s and AR15s go off the charts in response and requests for concealed carry classes double, and he knows that if he signs the UN bill he won't be able to get elected dog catcher in Poughkeepsie. And except for those dems that are locked into "elected for life" districts, like Charles "Big Daddy Representative for life" Rangel, the rest of those running dogs know that they'll never get another cushy government job so long as they live. Harry Reid didn't even want to talk about it. He knows. He's a political dead man walking if this thing were to pass.

I will add the following, which I also posted in the "coup de grace" thread:

http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gu ... un-control

This column’s revelation that the treaty would create a new gun control “secretariat” — translation: a new international bureaucracy — raised even more alarms. That detail was buried several pages back in the treaty draft, and as the saying goes, the Devil is in the details.

{snip}

Global gun control proponents are determined to bring this treaty proposal back to the table in September. They are an unhappy lot, so much so that Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA, felt compelled to say this:

"This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line. It's a staggering abdication of leadership by the world's largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough."—Suzanne Nossel, quoted by USAToday.

The irony of this statement is perhaps most stunning to American gun owners, who see the Obama administration as the archenemy of gun rights. It was, after all, President Obama who appointed two liberal anti-gunners to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was Mr. Obama who provided last-minute cover to embattled Attorney General Eric Holder in his effort to withhold documents from the Fast and Furious investigation. It was the president who said in 2009 that he supported the ATT and indicated he would sign it.

{snip}

Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton’s State Department is quoted by the Associated Press story that appears in the Seattle P-I.com. She reportedly said the U.S. — meaning the Obama administration — wants another round of negotiations next year, as in “after the November election.”

Gun owners are coming to full realization just how important the election is, not only on domestic issues but also on an international scale. Because this treaty still has a genuine possibility of resurrection, it remains a threat and in the collective mind of the firearms community the most effective way to stop it is to replace the administration that wants to sign it.

True dat.

AEA wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wire ... de-treaty/

The UN Member States could not get an agreement and the Arms Control Treaty is a failure - for now.


MaoBama and his Dem croonies have shown their hand on this one, ("working under the radar" as he told Brady).

It is IMPERATIVE that he NOT BE REELECTED!

From the article:

"This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line," said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "It's a staggering abdication of leadership by the world's largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough."

A Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, also blamed the U.S., saying "they derailed the process," adding that nothing will happen to revive negotiations until after the U.S. presidential election in November.

I think that Obama read the writing on the wall. He proposes banning stuff and dems insert a magazine capacity limit buried in a cyber bill, and then watches sales of AK47s and AR15s go off the charts in response and requests for concealed carry classes double, and he knows that if he signs the UN bill he won't be able to get elected dog catcher in Poughkeepsie. And except for those dems that are locked into "elected for life" districts, like Charles "Big Daddy Representative for life" Rangel, the rest of those running dogs know that they'll never get another cushy government job so long as they live. Harry Reid didn't even want to talk about it. He knows. He's a political dead man walking if this thing were to pass.

AndyC wrote:If all else fails, blue helmets make great targets. Just sayin'.

Indeed.

chasfm11 wrote:The US did not sign the Kyoto Treaty. When you can explain to me how we are NOT implementing it through the EPA, I'll take my UN gun control paranoia and my tin foil hat and go sit in the corner.

Chasfm11, that is a legitimate concern with this administration. My point posting the above was in response to generalized panic not based on how things are supposed to work. Given Obama's imperial presidency (see my other thread by that title), I have no doubt that he would attempt to implement certain parts of the UN treaty even if it didn't get ratified, because as you point out, he used the EPA to implement Kyoto over the objections of Congress.

57 Coastie, while I appreciate the props, please note that I do view this administration as an imperial presidency which bypasses the rule of law whenever the law is inconvenient to its agenda. When George W. Bush's administration enacted Gunwalker, each firearm was meticulously logged, traced, and the Mexican government was notified of each one so that they could be aware of it on their side of the border, thus securing that government's cooperation, and all of it was lawful. Fast forward to Obama and "Fast & Furious," and we have an administration that does not log the illegal gun transfers meticulously, fails entirely to trace them just allowing them to vanish, and does not involved the Mexican government when those guns cross the border. The result? Brian Terry's murder, the murder of hundreds of Mexican nationals inside of Mexico, and the Mexican president publicly calling on the American president to illegalize guns in the USA. Nothing you could say would convince me that this was mere fecklessness and entirely accidental. When an administration is as deliberate and overt in its extra-legal actions as this one is, there is no reason to believe anything other than Fast & Furious was just another part of that record of that unconstitutional abuse of power.

My faith is that Congress will act to not allow ratification of the UN gun treaty. I have no such faith in Obama's willingness to act within the law. And, given his Fast & Furious record, I don't believe that he thinks he needs a UN treaty or congressional ratification to try and severely restrict gun rights in the U.S.

I believe in educating the young about his nefarious purposes so that they will vote correctly when they're of age to do so. I believe in voting myself at every opportunity to ensure that the criminals and bums get thrown out of office. I do believe in the ballot box above all else.........but I am keeping my powder dry......

03Lightningrocks wrote:I am believing there is more of a threat from this treaty than some here post of. One part of the treaty would require all gun purchases be registered to insure they don't end up in some other country. That would just be one small step from confiscation. I believe we would all be prohibited from selling our weapons to each other without going through the registration requirements. I have not personally read the entire documents and I am not a lawyer type. I am repeating some of the talk I heard on fox radio this morning. I do believe it was dick Morris they were talking to. Another concern he expressed, and I am in agreement with the concern, is that final ratification of this treaty will be voted on by a lame duck congress.

I hope some of you are right and this is going nowhere.

It's not the entire Congress, it's the Senate, and while democrats have a 7 vote majority in the Senate, some of those democrats are still more or less pro-gun......maybe not to the degree that we'd like them to be, but they at least are not antagonistic to gun rights. NRA gives some democrats decent ratings. And a letter signed by 60 senators was sent earlier to Obama, saying that the treaty will die in the Senate. That leaves only 40 who may or may not vote for it. It won't pass the Senate, and so Obama can't ratify it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#United_States

In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate a treaty, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.

In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories. Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states. An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is the Treaty of Versailles, which was part of the resolution of the First World War.

gdanaher wrote:The proposed treaty would regulate the sale of weapons to nations in crisis both militarily and in terms of human rights. The UN concern is that every minute, someone in these various countries, largely Africa and the Middle East, dies from violent combative gun fire. The goal is to prevent the sale to and distribution of weapons to those nations. Unless you are in the business of selling AK's to Somalia, you probably don't have much to worry about here.

I don't worry about this treaty with regard to the U.S., but I still think it is evil. Aren't these same restrictions aimed at preventing the victims from being able to arm themselves against the predators? If the UN and this proposed treaty had been in existence in the late 18th century, it would have been against international law for France to ship arms to the American colonies, while it would have been perfectly legal for the crown to send German mercenaries and German weapons to the colonies to suppress the revolution.

About half of the extra-legal killings in third world nations are done either by organized crime/narco-traffickers and/or tribal internecine conflicts (Rwanda). Most of the rest are done by repressive governments seeking to wipe out a religious minority (Darfur). If the UN bill passes and is accepted and enforced worldwide, those that already have the guns will not stop killing those that don't........but it sounds like you're in favor of that status quo if you support this treaty.

OldCannon wrote:Perhaps you're forgetting that China has clearly stated that our prolific gun ownership is a huge human rights issue?

Next objection?

And if I recall correctly, is not China now a permanent member of the UN Security Council?

Here's the truth underlying all of this....... The UN regards itself as the natural heir of world government, and most of its energies in the past 20-30 years have been directed against the idea of national sovereignty, and in favor of the primacy of international law, and in favor of the UN as the natural choice to administer and enforce those laws. It views its own international deliberative body as having greater legitimacy and sovereignty than those of its member nations. Thus, it promotes treaty after treaty after treaty, all aimed at constraining its member nations, and the intent/effect of these agreements is to further tread on human rights rather than promote them.

Here is a corollary: The U.S. is nearly unique among all of the member nations by having a right to keep and bear arms enshrined in its Constitution. Here in the U.S., gun owners rightly and correctly make the argument that the answer to crime isn't to disarm lawful gun owners, but rather to enforce existing laws against those who use guns in crimes, and actually punish them for such use, by means of a punishment so severe that most such criminals would never want to commit such a crime again. Thusly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms remains uninfringed, and criminals are rewarded their just deserts. We also maintain that if we disarm law-abiding gun owners then only law-breakers will have guns.

We maintain these truths to be self-evident. We believe this so strongly that we assert that anyone who cannot accept this fundamental truth is living in a state of denial.

So if this is a fundamental truth which is self-evident, then why on earth is it any less true in Rwanda or Darfur than it is in Poughkipsie or Houston? And yet, the ultimate aim of this UN treaty is to cut guns off at the source so that law-abiders in the world's trouble spots will no longer be able to lawfully defend themselves against predators, and otherwise peaceful civilians of one religious tradition will no longer be able to defend themselves against a predatory government of people from another religious tradition. Hutus will be able to slaughter Tutsies until the end of time, and Tutsies will no longer have access to the weapons that will give them parity and the ability to protect their families.

Furthermore, when the UN succeeds in outlawing the sale of guns into troubled regions, then the UN alone will control the flow of guns to where they are most needed. If the UN were to actually act justly, it would reprimand those member nations whose governments practice genocide, boot them out, and punish them by encouraging the flow of guns to rebel forces. Instead, it accepts them as members of the UN's own High Council on Human Rights. And this is the same UN that you want to entrust with gun control?

Like most "well-intentioned" pieces of legislation, this UN treaty has gravely irresponsible consequences, and it is thus, evil. As they say, the road to Hades is paved with the bones of the well-intentioned.

Dave2 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Dick Morris was just on Fox News claiming that the UN will vote on the gun control treaty this month. Is this something we need to worry about, or am I correct in thinking that the constitution overrides treaties?

The treaty has to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the Senate before the president can ratify it, giving it the force of law in the U.S. If the treaty requires any expenditure of U.S. funds to enforce it as law in the U.S., the House of Representatives can block the funding of it, rendering it de facto irrelevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#United_States

Furthermore, even if ratified, a later Congress can repeal ratification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal

It is a concern that the UN is voting on this, further confirming their immorality and irrelevance to U.S. law, but I don't think it is quite the cause for panic that some feel.

Let's say the treaty says "no private gun ownership" (and I don't know that it does), and it's ratified and passes and whatnot... Couldn't we ignore it because of the 2nd amendment? And I mean officially legally ignore it, not just hide all our guns and say we sold/lost them when asked.

It would be challenged by the NRA so fast it would make Obama's head spin like a top. The Court made a grave error, maybe, on the healthcare bill, but they've been spot on with 2nd Amendment cases lately.

Dave2 wrote:Dick Morris was just on Fox News claiming that the UN will vote on the gun control treaty this month. Is this something we need to worry about, or am I correct in thinking that the constitution overrides treaties?

The treaty has to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the Senate before the president can ratify it, giving it the force of law in the U.S. If the treaty requires any expenditure of U.S. funds to enforce it as law in the U.S., the House of Representatives can block the funding of it, rendering it de facto irrelevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#United_States

Furthermore, even if ratified, a later Congress can repeal ratification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal

It is a concern that the UN is voting on this, further confirming their immorality and irrelevance to U.S. law, but I don't think it is quite the cause for panic that some feel.