UN Gun Control Treaty

[Dave2]

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?

[mr surveyor]

Hillary is all geared up to sign on to it....my hope is that the Constitution (and SCOTUS) will override the current administration's "opinion" on the matter, but now I'm in fear that there may be some new tax involved

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[Dave2]

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.

[OldCannon]

I think the only purpose this small arms treaty serves is to scare up NRA memberships.

It will _never_ ratify in the Senate, and this is one that Obama can't just executive-order into law.

[Dave2]

I think the only purpose this small arms treaty serves is to scare up NRA memberships.

It will _never_ ratify in the Senate, and this is one that Obama can't just executive-order into law.

Haha, yeah maybe. I've been thinking about joining (again) just to thank them for holding congress's feet to the flames over the Fast & Furious scandal.

And I'm not too worried about this treaty, either. I just wanted to ask if the constitution wins in a fight between it and the UN.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[C-dub]

Remember guys, never underestimate your opponent. Especially considering what the Dread Pirate Roberts just did with the ObamaCare ruling.

[gdanaher]

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.

[Kythas]

...Dread Pirate Roberts....

I love it! This is now in my vocabulary.

[OldCannon]

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.

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

Next objection?

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

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.

[57Coastie]

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?

I would suggest, Dave, that the answer to your question, broadly stated as it is, if it is looking for a "Yes" or a "No," is not absolutely clear. (I am assuming you refer to a treaty properly brought into force. Even in that case, whether or not a treaty is self-executing may well change the answer).

If you are asking whether a treaty trumps the 2nd Amendment, the answer is probably "No," but I suspect that most of the members of this forum, notwithstanding what many say over and over, recognize that as a practical matter we still have a way to go in learning just what the 2nd means, at least what it means to the Supreme Court, which, as things now stand, is what, in the final analysis, it means.

While you of course did not ask this question, the answer to whether or not a treaty trumps state legislation or other state actions in conflict with that treaty is generally considered to be "Yes."

If you are asking whether a treaty, which, along with the Constitution, is the "Supreme law of the land," trumps the 10th Amendment, the answer is less clear, as is the answer to whether a treaty trumps the limitation of Federal power expressed by the Commerce Clause.

You might take a look at the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 US 416 (1920), (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 4&as_vis=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

What this case means today with respect to your question, is still debated in the various elements of the legal profession, including members of the Supreme Court itself.

In summary, if your question is viewed broadly, looking a "Yes" or a "No," and not a "Maybe," I doubt that we will see the answer during my lifetime, if not yours as well.

Good question, Dave, and I cartainly cannot answer it unambiguously, but I recognize that there are scholarly persons, both lawyers and nonlawyers, who will venture that they know the answer..

Jim

[Jumping Frog]

IIRC, a recent news story said 65 Senators told the White House last week that a UN Gun Treaty would be dead on arrival.

[Heartland Patriot]

You guys (and gals) really aren't evil enough for the UN, I tell you. The point of this treaty is NOT to directly outlaw firearms in the USA; they know that will never happen. It is intended to make firearms and ammunition harder to sell on an open market, and thus drive the price up. In the short term, that may even benefit US manufacturers...but it will also hurt consumers, which is us. Without a robust market of foreign firearms and ammunition, the prices WILL go up; unless you are Marxist, that IS how the law of supply and demand works. And the end result will be to price many of us "common folk" out of the usage and ownership of firearms. I know gdanaher believes the UN cares so much about those poor, violence-torn nations, but I trust those self-serving, control-minded UN bureaucrats about as far as I can pick up their filthy headquarters building and throw it...and I ain't gonna get much distance out of that.