Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: Obama and UN gun control end-run around the 2nd Amendment?  (Read 1377 times)

xsquidgator

  • Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 1824

  • Offline
Obama and UN gun control end-run around the 2nd Amendment?
« on: November 16, 2009, 06:23:49 AM »
I know it's WND but I have heard little bits here and there of the current admin's support for this UN "arms trafficking" treaty.  Is this another step in that direction or just old news?   :doh  If only John Bolton were still our UN ambassador...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116041

Quote
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


United Nations headquarters

Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.

Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord
in 2012.

"Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms," Clinton said in a statement. "The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area."

Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous submission of America's Constitution to international governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control laws it couldn't pass through Congress.

Bolton, for example, told Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle Association's NRA News and host of the NRA's Daily News program, "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt - as was the case back over a decade ago - that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."

He continued, "There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda."

    


WND WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control
NRA guests warn international treaty would strip 2nd Amendment rights
Posted: November 14, 2009
7:05 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


United Nations headquarters

Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.

Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord
in 2012.

"Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms," Clinton said in a statement. "The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area."

Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous submission of America's Constitution to international governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control laws it couldn't pass through Congress.

'Shooting Back' tells of lives saved from attackers. Learn the Bible's defense of bearing arms from a man who defended his church from terrorists

Bolton, for example, told Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle Association's NRA News and host of the NRA's Daily News program, "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt - as was the case back over a decade ago - that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."

He continued, "There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda."

(Story continues below)

       
   

Brian Wood, disarmament expert for Amnesty International, explained in a Bloomberg report why his organization and others are pushing for the U.S. to join Arms Trade Treaty talks. Wood said the U.S. is the largest conventional arms trader in the world and the unregulated trade of conventional arms "can fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism."

"All countries participate in the conventional arms trade and share responsibility for the 'collateral damage' it produces - widespread death, injuries and human rights abuses," said Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms in an Agence France-Presse interview. "Now finally governments have agreed to negotiate legally binding global controls on this deadly trade."

But Bob Barr, a former U.S. representative and presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, explained in a separate interview with the NRA's Simone how a treaty that looks like it's all about fighting international crime will necessarily lead to erosion of Second Amendment gun rights:

"Even though [treaty advocates] all say, 'We are not going to involve domestic laws and the right to keep and bear arms, that won't be affected by all this,' that's nonsense," Barr said. "There's no way that if you buy into something like this and a treaty is passed regulating to ensure that firearms transfers internationally don't fall into the hands of people that the U.N. doesn't like, there's no way that that mechanism will work unless you have some form of national regulation and national tracking."

Bolton not only agrees with Barr's assessment but also sees the treaty as an Obama administration end-run around the Constitution:

"After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," he said. "The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. ... They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise."

Clinton's October statement of support for the treaty negotiations was filed with a caveat that the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty operate under the consensus rule of decision-making, essentially that its provisions be adopted unanimously.

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the treaty," she stated, "and to avoid loopholes in the treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly."

But Bolton warned gun owners not to think the consensus rule will stop the treaty from passing.

"Consensus at the U.N. is a way of saying unanimity, everybody agrees, but in fact, the U.N. in the last eight years could have been very close to consensus on exactly this kind of treaty but for the Bush administration," Bolton said. "So I don't think her comment about consensus offers Second Amendment supporters any consolation, because absent the United States, nobody is really going to put up an objection to this."
NRA Life Member, Member GOA, JFPFO, Unified Sportsmen of Florida, American Legion.
NRA-Certified Instructor.  IDPA Safety Officer.  Appleseed IIT.


tuts40

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Buck Ofama
    • You know this stuff

  • Offline
1)If the NRA doesn't compromise then Obamao doesn't lie. 
2)Get to www.jpfo.org and purchase materials to pass out/leave behind to help edjukate others!

Old Trooper

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241

  • Offline
Re: Obama and UN gun control end-run around the 2nd Amendment?
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2009, 12:12:26 AM »
The US Constitution is not a negotiable Item. If Mr. Obama really wants to be thrown out of office, impeached, all he has to do is allow Foreign Powers to fool with Our Bill of Rights. I have no doubt that The Military will not buy into it nor will Most LEOs.

A Failure to Protect the Constitution is an Impeachable Offense.
Old Trooper

akodo

  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3238

  • Offline
Re: Obama and UN gun control end-run around the 2nd Amendment?
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2009, 09:48:03 PM »
Okay, time to talk about the supremacy clause

"and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"

Generally, that's the part that gets repeated, supreme law of land is stressed, and people get undies in a bunch.

However, the full text is a bit more enlightening

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Note that there are actually 3 items listed that constitute the supreme law of the land.
1. Constitution
2. Laws made after the Constitution, but following it's rules (51% in senate +51% in house + pres signature, or 67% senate + 67% house override of veto)
3. Treaties

Obviously, category #2 can be overturned by the Supreme Court due to conflicts with the Constitution, so 'supreme' doesn't mean a whole lot.  Treaties, too, in as far as they overstep the Constitution can be struck down as well.

So why the term 'Supreme Law of the Land'?

because our legal system at it's heart is a 'Common Law' system, which means the decisions of previous judgments are what are used to decide cases.  The idea being is everyone gets treated fairly then. ( If act A is a crime when person X commits it, then it is a crime when person Y commits it too.  If X and Y are of different social standings, without common law it would be okay for Y to get away with it)

Hence a judge's decision sets 'legal precedent' and that actually legally binds judges who serve at a similar level.

So what happens when a judge makes a decision and sets a legal precedent that people dislike? Well, they create a new law.  Due to the Supremacy Clause, this law supercedes the previous decisions made.

What also throws some people is the end phrase of

"any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding"

Note it says 'the Constitution' not 'THIS Constitution'  The Constitution of the United States of America is recognizing that there are and will be OTHER constitutions, no matter how much we seem to forget it and term the C of the US of A as simply 'The Constitution'

It is best read as 'any thing in the Constitution of a State or Laws of a State'

As Notwithstanding means 'despite' it fully means

Constitution, Federal Law, Federal Treaties bind EVERYONE of this land Despite anything in State Law or State Constitution that say different'




Hence, Obama can sign a treaty but it won't LEGALLY affect our RKBA.

Of course, many current ILLEGAL laws are on the books and enforced.  We are best served by NOT getting such a treaty approved.


Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.