TexasCHLforum.com

This treaty is purportedly to limit the sale of guns between countries and needs to be ratified by a Senate vote to effect our 2nd Amendment BUT... International treaties by case law and precedent seemingly do not trump the US Constitution 1957 Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 in a landmark decision the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution SUPERSEDES international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. “This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.”

But then I was watching TV and they were talking about it and said it was on par and had as much standing as a Constitutional Amendment...I need to do more research.

SewTexas wrote:not to add to the paranoia, but...well...this sounds like yet another way to try to put all gun control at DC?

I understand your "paranoia" comment because sometimes I feel like my posts come across as if Im sitting in a Faraday Cage in a safe room wearing tinfoil and watching CCTV... Wait...shhhh...anyone else hear that?!? Seriously though ... In all the fog and rhetoric Ive simply lost the ability to believe anything (at face value by either party) that has been filtered down for public consumption. I do not believe we could find 10 people serving at the national level who does not ascribe to bending the truth or boldface lying for either personal or party gains under the auspices of "For your own good".

Depending on what you research (and I read ALL the info I can find on an issue) from extreme right to extreme left including foreign publications and it appears that it is so convoluted that unless you have a copy of the treaty to read I dont think we will actually know until we know. But, by that time it may be too late or nothing to worry about.

My issue is, I have YET to see any bureaucracy such as the one proposed to not be either, a huge sham solely for someones monetary gain or a way to limit someones freedom... It usually never benefits those it purports to be intended to aid. Which goes back to the unethical and or self-serving leaders we have put in power.

Just my 2 cents...

Let me see if I have a decent understanding of this process... meaning that, when this is signed on the 27th it must then be ratified by the Senate... Okay, so if it DOES get ratified it is then signed off and deemed on par with our constitutional amendments ie... Negating the 2nd amendment depending on the interpretation of the wording within the treaty as understood by whom? The U.N. and the nations that signed off on the treaty?!? AND, arent most of the arms trade done BY countries to other countries? So, who are they ultimately looking to limit trade to and from? Mexico initially didn't know Holder et al were essentially smuggling arms into Mexico for F&F...

Seems to me there is a lot of "Nothing to see here people go about your business we will feed you what you need to know when you need to know it" kind of like, " You need to pass it to see what's in it"

If Canada who has now had the chance to look into the treaty and who has now come out saying it is too far reaching and does nothing to protect the individual to own a weapon for protection or sporting ... That's CANADA saying that who I would surmise doesn't have much of a dog in this fight ... To me something seems a bit fishy.
http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+says+ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


It also deserves mentioning that it makes me a bit unnerved as to the whole backing and funding by Mr. Soros... Who just simply creeps me out anyway... "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain for I am the great and powerful OZ!"

If Canada, who isn't the shining pillar of personal gun rights, opposes this maybe it needs some closer scrutiny...

Just sayin'