UN Gun Control Treaty

[gdanaher]

I would suggest that this treaty, by its own design is moot. Read the details, please. It is inherently designed to fail and is only offering lip service to show that the UN is concerned--much like it offers lip service to those murdered in Kenya, Somalia, Rwanda, Yemen, and Burundi, amongst others. Will this affect private gun ownership in the United States? Are you kidding me? This discussion reminds me of a group of old women, sitting around the quilting circle and wringing their hands in fear of a meteor strike in Kansas. Read the details of the proposed treaty and draw your own conclusions. But do read it first.

[chasfm11]

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.

It is strange to me that the UN's "good intentions" seem to get applied to the US far more often than to the places where they really might have an impact. For example,
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29 ... ns-rights/ (sorry about the Fox News link but they seem to be the only ones reporting this.)
Yep, when I think of Iran, I think of the paragon of women's rights, a shining example for other countries to emulate.

The UN has accused the US of voter fraud (and I can agree with them in some cities like Chicago and NY) but somehow Iran and Russian don't even get honorable mention in this category. Why? Does the US truly disenfranchise its voters more than Tehran?

I have no respect at all of the UN or any of its "elected" officials. When it comes to the worst places on the planet for mass murder, somehow, like Somilia, they turn a blind eye to the problem while all of the voices are clamoring for US intervention. Bosnia was another horribly managed mass murder situation from a UN perspective. Where is the UN outrage about Mexico? Oh, that's right - it is all the US's fault that the drug cartels are heavily armed and slaughtering 10s of thousands of civilians.

The US should tell the UN to read Matthew 7:5. That said, however, there are enough anti-gun Elites in the US, some in positions of power, who would like nothing better than to use a UN treaty as a means to their end. It is a sad commentary on our Federal government when I, as a citizen, have to worry about the clandestine implementation of a UN gun treaty. And I am worried. Since no one would tolerate the implementation of much of what is happening at the Federal level if it were exposed to the light of day, far too much is being done by stealth, backdoor means. Our Legislative branch seems more than willing to cede extraordinary powers to the Executive branch. I fully understand the treaty ratification process but I thought I understood the taxation powers, too. Boy was I wrong.

[C-dub]

I would suggest that this treaty, by its own design is moot. Read the details, please. It is inherently designed to fail and is only offering lip service to show that the UN is concerned--much like it offers lip service to those murdered in Kenya, Somalia, Rwanda, Yemen, and Burundi, amongst others. Will this affect private gun ownership in the United States? Are you kidding me? This discussion reminds me of a group of old women, sitting around the quilting circle and wringing their hands in fear of a meteor strike in Kansas. Read the details of the proposed treaty and draw your own conclusions. But do read it first.

Maybe. Or maybe not. So, why bother? Camel's nose under the tent, little toe in the water, whatever you want to call it. Give an inch and they'll eventually take a mile. Look where we're at with entitlements that were supposed to be temporary and never over 1% or something like that.

[sjfcontrol]

Gun-grabbing U.N. Treaty...
Article here

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[03Lightningrocks]

Thanks for the post TAM! Good info...

[57Coastie]

As is so often the case, Chris, the above is a well-reasoned and effective argument, and not the cant so often encountered here.


Jim

[chasfm11]

As is so often the case, Chris, the above is a well-reasoned and effective argument, and not the cant so often encountered here.


Jim

I understand how the Federal government process is supposed to work. For example, the DREAM act has been voted on and defeated by our Congress several times. Parts of it are being implemented anyway. Guns should not knowingly be sold to illegal drug cartels, but they were, driven by agencies of the Federal government. The government should not own and control car companies, but they do.

My point on the UN treaty is that it, too, could be implemented without being officially approved by the Senate as it is supposed to be. Either in an act of desperation in anticipation of an election loss or as a celebration for an anticipated 2nd term victory, those in power could start defacto implementation, claiming UN sanctions.

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.

[Heartland Patriot]

Some folks on this forum support the current administration. They have not come out and straightforward said that, but they do. Any time anyone talks against anything the current administration is for, they immediately come on to tell the rest of us why we're wrong. Me, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I do NOT like the current administration or the Democrat Party. Both of them stand for gun control in one form or another, and I cannot abide that, among other items they do that I don't like. This treaty, whether it is ratified by Senate and signed into law or not, WILL be used by the UN to push for more control, to create a bigger "global norm" that the USA will be pressured to conform to...the leftists will take it as their baseline to show how the USA is "out of step" and any other number of boilerplate phrases designed to guide the narrative, which the "free press" and mass media will gladly give them the bully pulpit to accomplish...AND it will be pushed to the younger generation(s) through our education (brainwashing) system. So, whatever you make of this treaty, it is a bad thing that will be used against us, the firearms owners of these United States, IMHO.

[Heartland Patriot]

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

[03Lightningrocks]

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

Somebody owes me a keyboard and a cup of coffee.

[The Annoyed Man]

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......

[The Annoyed Man]

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

Indeed.