TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I agree with Rand's letter, but I hope he isn't really working with NGRA.

Does that mean you believe the Small Arms Treaty is a viable threat to our rights? A brief search seemed to indicate it was leftist wishful thinking. I presume the NRA is on top of it anyway?

It absolutely is a threat and the NRA is on it. With the Heller decision, no UN treaty could disarm Americans. However, since Heller was a 5/4 decision and could be overturned if Obama gets to replace Justice Kennedy, then a UN treaty is dangerous. A UN treaty could be passed and not be effective against U.S. citizens, but a later change in the Heller holding would render the previously passed UN treaty effective against Americans.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: Does that mean you believe the Small Arms Treaty is a viable threat to our rights? A brief search seemed to indicate it was leftist wishful thinking. I presume the NRA is on top of it anyway?

It absolutely is a threat and the NRA is on it. With the Heller decision, no UN treaty could disarm Americans. However, since Heller was a 5/4 decision and could be overturned if Obama gets to replace Justice Kennedy, then a UN treaty is dangerous. A UN treaty could be passed and not be effective against U.S. citizens, but a later change in the Heller holding would render the previously passed UN treaty effective against Americans.

Chas.

Charles, I'm not arguing with your analysis, just trying to understand the risks. It was my understanding that SCOTUS was reluctant to revisit it's previous rulings. If that were not the case, wouldn't it mean that every time the court's balance changed, everybody would attempt to re-try their previously losing cases? Perhaps while we have a conservative court, we should revisit Roe v Wade, for example.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: Does that mean you believe the Small Arms Treaty is a viable threat to our rights? A brief search seemed to indicate it was leftist wishful thinking. I presume the NRA is on top of it anyway?

It absolutely is a threat and the NRA is on it. With the Heller decision, no UN treaty could disarm Americans. However, since Heller was a 5/4 decision and could be overturned if Obama gets to replace Justice Kennedy, then a UN treaty is dangerous. A UN treaty could be passed and not be effective against U.S. citizens, but a later change in the Heller holding would render the previously passed UN treaty effective against Americans.

Chas.

Charles, I'm not arguing with your analysis, just trying to understand the risks. It was my understanding that SCOTUS was reluctant to revisit it's previous rulings. If that were not the case, wouldn't it mean that every time the court's balance changed, everybody would attempt to re-try their previously losing cases? Perhaps while we have a conservative court, we should revisit Roe v Wade, for example.

As a general statement you are correct about the Court following "established law," or what is called stare decisis. However, the Heller decision is in danger because of these factors: 1) two justices are calling to reverse Heller (Ginsburg & Breyer); 2) Justice Sotomayor lied during her confirmation hearing stating Heller was established law,then signed on the dissent in McDonald that argued in dicta that the Second Amendment is not an individual right; Justice Kagan is a political hack and not an experienced jurist; and 4) issues that are high on emotion are easier for the Court to revisit. There are more reasons to worry, but these are the primary ones.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
As a general statement you are correct about the Court following "established law," or what is called stare decisis. However, the Heller decision is in danger because of these factors: 1) two justices are calling to reverse Heller (Ginsburg & Breyer); 2) Justice Sotomayor lied during her confirmation hearing stating Heller was established law,then signed on the dissent in McDonald that argued in dicta that the Second Amendment is not an individual right; Justice Kagan is a political hack and not an experienced jurist; and 4) issues that are high on emotion are easier for the Court to revisit. There are more reasons to worry, but these are the primary ones.

Chas.

It would seem from statements I have seen that someone with the correct resources could find sufficient reason to impeach Sotomayor and/or Kagan within the next few years.

Charles,
I am not really familiar with the precise process in the Senate during the confirmation process, but doesn't the "candidate" have to testify to the commitee under oath and penalty of perjury? Would that make Sotomayor subject to impeachment due to her position on McDonald?

Is it even possible to impeach a supreme court judge?

hirundo82 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I agree with Rand's letter, but I hope he isn't really working with NGRA.

Does that mean you believe the Small Arms Treaty is a viable threat to our rights? A brief search seemed to indicate it was leftist wishful thinking. I presume the NRA is on top of it anyway?

It's less of a threat than it was pre-Heller (since we have a clear statement that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and treaties can't override the Constitution), but it could still be an issue. For example, the Treaty requires signatories to keep track of all firearms, requiring a national gun registry. It also requires all ammunition manufacturers to be registered; it's unclear if that would impact reloaders as well.

I don't think it is a big threat at present, but it is something to be aware of. Even if this administration wanted to ratify it, there's no way it would get past the current Senate (requires 2/3rds majority).

Treaties can't override the Constitution, nothing can override our Conssssss, oh wait that may not be correct, it seems some things do.

Well this post got me on a complete internet research tangent.

I knew nothing about the UN small arms treaty. This video by the NRA is pretty good at summing it up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is written with an obvious NRA slant, but is pretty terrifying. The lady who is the head of the anti gun folks is really scary looking, like your worst nightmare. Think female lesbian Nazi.

It brought up the nationwide Australian gun confiscation (forced buy back) which I didn't know about. This then led to the increase in crime in Australia or not depending on who is figuring http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If crime increases in Australia after guns are confiscated is it a cause and effect thing or if crime was already going up and the trend continues it is not. All I know is if they take your gun, your really not free to do anything about it.

The report kept referring to the Port Arthur Massacre which I had forgotten about. This is where an unhappy rich man decided to kill 35 innocents with an AR15 in Tasmani, Australia. Australia has a much smaller population than the US so this was a really big deal. Probably a much larger event in Australia than the Virginia Tech Massacre, even though the deaths were about the same. This obviously led to the gun confiscation which occurred later in the year.

The net result was I felt as unsecure as I have ever been about how long we will get to freely keep our guns.

We could be just one nut job massacre away from the same thing.

sjfcontrol wrote:Is it even possible to impeach a supreme court judge?

Yes. It is the same procedure as impeaching a President.