Video: NRA details how UN aims to disarm the world. US too.

[juggernaut]

The question as presented by the OP is about some nebulous fear of a treaty superseding the constitutional protections laid out in our founding documents and laws. That is poppycock.

You said treaties are limited the same as laws, when it comes to superseding the constitutional protections.

OK. Go ahead and show us how little force those laws have by carrying a handgun openly on the National Mall.

I'll wait.

[Ashlar]

Perhaps you didn't catch it earlier in the thread..

Congress can, does, and has passed unconstitutional laws. Once challenged in court by an appellant with standing and a good argument, the laws are struck down.

Until challenged and ruled unconstitutional they hold the same force of law as other constitutional laws.

Quoting myself, with emphasis:

If Heller set a bar at not banning weapons 'in common use, for lawful purposes', and if McDonald, Heller II, or one of it's offspring accomplishes incorporation against the states, then no treaty that abrogates the rights protected by the second amendment (as interpreted by Heller, etc) could be held as constitutional.

That presupposes a challenge to the law by a person with standing, and a persuasive argument (persuasive to a court, not you and me.)

[juggernaut]

Treaties have the force of acts of congress (since Congress has to ratify a treaty.)

You also said the OP's worries are "poppycock" and I'll believe you when I see the photos of you carrying a handgun openly on the National Mall. Because it looks to me, based on existing antigun acts of congress, the OP has lots of reasons to worry. But I would be very happy if you prove me wrong with a WashiWalk.

[chabouk]

Perhaps you didn't catch it earlier in the thread..

Congress can, does, and has passed unconstitutional laws. Once challenged in court by an appellant with standing and a good argument, the laws are struck down.

Not necessarily.

A number of laws previously upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS have later been struck down by the court, or their previous rulings modified to significantly change the scope. There are other laws that are obviously, flagrantly unconstitutional but which have yet to be overturned.

The Founders warned against supremacy of the courts in constitutional matters, for good reason. We've reached the point where Congress will pass laws, and Presidents will sign them, all knowing they are unconstitutional, hoping/relying on the courts to overturn them. Or hoping they won't, which is even worse.

Worse than that, we've reached the point where the people are ignorant of their right and power to nullify laws in the jury box.

An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the moment it is passed and signed, not when it is overturned by the courts. This isn't like the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused. Every one of us has the ability and authority (and obligation!) to recognize unconstitutionality where it exists.

[Ashlar]

Treaties have the force of acts of congress (since Congress has to ratify a treaty.)

You also said the OP's worries are "poppycock" and I'll believe you when I see the photos of you carrying a handgun openly on the National Mall. Because it looks to me, based on existing antigun acts of congress, the OP has lots of reasons to worry. But I would be very happy if you prove me wrong with a WashiWalk.

I'm not getting your connection from one to the other- what does open carrying have to do with any treaty?

Not necessarily.

A number of laws previously upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS have later been struck down by the court, or their previous rulings modified to significantly change the scope. There are other laws that are obviously, flagrantly unconstitutional but which have yet to be overturned.

The Founders warned against supremacy of the courts in constitutional matters, for good reason. We've reached the point where Congress will pass laws, and Presidents will sign them, all knowing they are unconstitutional, hoping/relying on the courts to overturn them. Or hoping they won't, which is even worse.

Worse than that, we've reached the point where the people are ignorant of their right and power to nullify laws in the jury box.

An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the moment it is passed and signed, not when it is overturned by the courts. This isn't like the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused. Every one of us has the ability and authority (and obligation!) to recognize unconstitutionality where it exists.

If you have the time and money to get arrested for a law you feel is unconstitutional, feel free to have at it. That'll give you standing for a challenge.

The first amendment provides that 'congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech' - yet prior restraint has been ruled constitutional regarding obscenity (pornography, foul language, public nudity in some states). Technically, this is an abridgment of the first amendment, but to even suggest that to an 18th century court would have gotten you laughed out on your ear. What's considered constitutional does indeed change over time, as the scope and application of rights ebbs and flows, as well as what people consider to be their rights (falling into the 'unenumerated rights' categories.)

18 states have or had it in their state constitutions that concealed carry was not allowed (e.g. KY's 1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms.") Many of these statutes were ruled constitutional at one time or another. Either you admit that what is constitutional does indeed change, or you limit yourself only to one interpretation (whose? The founders? Or modern? Do you pick and whose interpretation applies for which right?)

There are checks and balances in each branch of the government- the president can refuse to sign or veto a law (congress can override, of course). He can refuse enforce a law that he feels is unconstitutional (a la Andrew Jackson). The judiciary can declare laws unconstitutional (at both state and federal levels, depending on whether the law is federal or state). The legislature can re-craft laws that the judiciary ruled unconstitutional before. They can also repeal laws that are considered (but not ruled) unconstitutional.

[marksiwel]

heck the "Freedom of Speech" as we know it now is much different than the Freedom of Speech of the early 1800's

[chabouk]

Ashlar, I think you're mistaking "judged constitutional" with actually constitutional.

This is like declaring that O.J. isn't a murderer because he was found not guilty. While not guilty in the eyes of the law, and adjudicated as such, that doesn't make him innocent. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional no matter what a judge or judges have said.

[Ashlar]

Ashlar, I think you're mistaking "judged constitutional" with actually constitutional.

This is like declaring that O.J. isn't a murderer because he was found not guilty. While not guilty in the eyes of the law, and adjudicated as such, that doesn't make him innocent. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional no matter what a judge or judges have said.

Fair point, but riddle me this.. were you an average Joe in 1850'ish, do you think you'd still agree that KY's language about disallowing concealed carry is unconstitutional? A majority of Kentuckians didn't think so at the time.

Opinions, mores, what's an acceptable limit on a right changes over time. Hanging horse thieves on the spot was legal and constitutional at one point, but would be against the law now as murder. Doling out 30 lashes for a wife-beater was legal in Delaware as late as 1935 (found one reference- http://www.jstor.org/pss/2086309" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Today that would be seen as a violation of the eighth amendment.

Whose interpretation of actual constitutionality matters to you? The originalist approach? Heck, there were gun control laws on the books _before_ ratification of the constitution, as well as immediately after. If you're looking at modern times, a majority of americans want the laws surrounding gun ownership to stay the same (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/ ... trol.poll/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). If you're looking for a philosophical spoon to bend around "What is constitutional?" then you're in good company with other philosophers who've been chasing the meaning of love, life, and liberty since we started writing on clay tablets.

Guilt or innocence are absolutes, once can't have both shot someone and not shot someone. What's constitutional isn't so black and white, as history has demonstrated.

[Purplehood]

This is a 9:14 video produced by the NRA, featuring commentator
Ginny Simone.

It is a scary blueprint of how the United Nations has been busy disarming
the world. I believe the statue of the revolver with the barrel twisted like
a pretzel is in front of the UN HQ in NYC.

The disarming of the people of the UK, Australia, and other nations and the
resulting violence against good people, should make all forum friends want to
sign up as NRA members if they have not done so already. The NRA is our voice
against being disarmed by unelected bureaucrats from anti-democratic nations.

The video shows many beautiful firearms confiscated and destroyed by the
truckload. That, my friends, is the protection of thousands of people destroyed
by liberals who have no idea what they are doing to democracy and self-defense.

Resistance is not futile. The 2nd Amendment will prevail if we defend it.
Any US politicians who do not support 2A should be voted out at the next election.

SIA

Sadly enough, I think they do.

[gabe]

Are you agreeing with the original poster that treaties could be used as an excuse to violate our civil rights?

[marksiwel]

I just finished the book "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse" by James Wesley Rawles. Basically *SPOILER ALERT* highlight to read the UN comes in and trys to Disarm Americans after the world has a melt down

That book will make you paranoid

[Jonathanaf]

I just finished the book "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse" by James Wesley Rawles. Basically *SPOILER ALERT* highlight to read the UN comes in and trys to Disarm Americans after the world has a melt down

That book will make you paranoid

At some point, you have to have common sense outweigh "what if what if what if" irrational belief. I'm positive that most "upcoming collapse" books, although I don't have experience with this one, are all about that.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Are you agreeing with the original poster that treaties could be used as an excuse to violate our civil rights?

Gabe, et al:
As the OP, I posted this UN issue to raise everyone's awareness of a POSSIBLE
event which could derail our 2A rights.

If we are aware of where a threat comes from, that's a good thing.

When we look at the UN, they are definitely "anti" our 2A rights.
Witness their handwringing over the use of armed resistance to pirates
off the African coast. Props to the Maersk Alabama for having guns the
2nd time the pirates tried to take the ship. No Navy SEALS were needed
the 2nd time! Just regular citizens with some firepower repelled the pirates.

But the UN is so ineffective on all other issues with which they deal,
I take comfort in the "committee" approach at the UN that they would
not be able to usurp our 2A rights.

The NRA is watching our back on the UN and others who would take
our guns. The American public opinion is moving more in the favor
of 2A rights as the antis' spin campaigns go nowhere.

SIA

[marksiwel]

Self Executing Treaties. Look it up, you will feel better, trust me

[KD5NRH]

Are you agreeing with the original poster that treaties could be used as an excuse to violate our civil rights?

Since when do they need an excuse?

'Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."' Opinion in Printz v. US. Now, go try to buy the firearm that comprises the most "ordinary military equipment" today.