TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2c3nhj/ww ... %3Fp%3D126" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The link has some rather dynamic text, other links and graphics which would put a strain on the posting capabilities here...

I would like to point out that this is yet another imflamatory article (my opinion), designed to bring out the worst in people, and that is apparent in the "free comments" section down in the bottom portion of the page...

But, it does bring up some points and something that obviously needs to be a personal "gut check" you might want to ask yourself...But that is a personal issue, and one that I would not want to draw anyone out here publically to express in an open forum like this...Remember, what you write here on the internet can be used against you...Maybe not in court, but it does set you up...

Let this be a reminder that our unalienable, moral and individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is always going to be under attack from a variety of sources, and it is not going to go away any time soon...

Let the stand we take be a personal and private decision...

There are some scary comments to that article.

Regardless of what Obama or Hillary sign at the UN, the U.S. Senate would have to ratify any treaty before it has the force of law in this country. Even then, I think it could be shot down by SCOTUS.

Unconstitutional law bears no power to enforce, it purports to settle as if it never existed, for unconstitutionality dates from the enactment of such a law and not such time as branded in an open court of law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. No courts are bound to uphold it and no persons are bound to obey it.

A treaty does not override amendments to the Constitution. Is it just me or is it sad that so many people seem to think it does.

Also, who is going to enforce it even if the SC says it is okay? Do you really think blue helmet troops from other countries want to come here and get shot? They aren't stupid.

It is just wishful thinking on the Anti-gun groups. President Obama does not have the metal to even try something like that. Can you imagine the back lash from around the country? This could only end badly for the President.

This has always scared me too. I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The finding of the Court being that the Constitution is SUPREME to any treaty.

WHEW!! Load off my mind.

Just think how inept the UN is at most everything they do.

Trying to take small arms away from the 2A-loving US people
will not happen.

Nothing to see here - just move along.

SIA

The simple fact of the matter is that if such a "treaty" were to be signed, I simply would not comply.

One scary thing is that several SCOTUS quotes I've read say that they take international treaties and laws into account when deciding the constitutionality of decisions before them.

Hoi Polloi wrote:One scary thing is that several SCOTUS quotes I've read say that they take international treaties and laws into account when deciding the constitutionality of decisions before them.

I remember that too, don't remember who said it.

If I recall correctly, Scalia had a few scathing public remarks over that.

I posted an earlier wiki link:

I was on snopes a few days ago and found this:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It also affirms that the Constitution overrides treaties.