Legal Disclaimer

Views expressed are opinions. Not responsible for other's views, opinions, comments, or statements of fact.

Now that the legal mumbo jumbo is outta the way...

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Clinton reversing stand on Small Arms Ban Treaty

Many, including me, have been warning of this possibly coming through soon. Looks like while we were all involved in the big oil spill, our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy seeing how she and Obama could pull a fast one on our Second Amendment rights.

Previous posts here on subject.

This is not a done deal but is getting too close for comfort.

Original article from Reuters. I picked up this morning from Armand Hale. He had an interesting quote from Paul Broun.

The UN's Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and commandeer firearms owned by private citizens like you. The Obama Administration would be working hand in glove pass a new, "Small Arms Treaty." The National Association for Gun Rights wants you to understand just how dangerous this global gun ban is. It will enact tougher licensing requirements, confiscate and destroy all "unauthorized" civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded). Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons. Create a international gun registry. Source: Dr. Paul Broun, M.D. U.S. Congressman (R-GA)

Clinton is demanding that each nation have veto which the UN is fighting.


off the reservation said...

Some random thoughts here.

If the treaty only concerns imports and exports to other countries then it would appear that the 2nd Amendment would not be infringed. Import/export is not gun ownership.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI makes treaties made under the authority of the United States the supreme law of the land.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause empowering the president of the United States to make treaties with other countries upon consent of a super-majority or 2/3 vote of the Senate (part of the advise and consent power of the Senate).

Historically, treaties have also been made by sole-executive signing and through the process of obtaining majority votes in the House and Senate followed by approval by the President (sounds suspiciously like a law). The second known as a Congressional-Executive agreement.

So, three mechanisms for creating an international accord. From the perspective of a foreign country, the three methods are indistinguishable. Internally, the impact of the three methods ARE governed by constitutional restrictions and its amendments.

The sole-executive and the congressional-executive are only as enforceable as permitted by the normal powers of an executive order or the passing of the law would have in the US.

Arms control agreements fall under the classical treaty process. The president's signature and 2/3 senate vote required.

A congressional-executive agreement may be used in areas involving trade agreements with other countries since the constitution already grants the congressional-executive a process through the Commerce Clause.

So, let us revisit the situation. If the current administration is looking at import/export controls (e.g., commerce regulation) then a congressional-executive treaty may be all that is required. Attempting to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of US Citizens to own weapons in this situation would be subject to Supreme Court scrutiny and would nullify the treaty in accordance with precedence in Missouri v. Holland.

Now, should the president sign a treaty that would limit or extinguish all gun rights under the 2nd Amendment AND have such treaty ratified by 2/3 vote of the Senate then we would essentially lose the 2nd Amendment.

Hope that this helps. There is a lot of information going on out there. The item we really need to focus on is the President signing and 2/3 of Senate ratifying. Otherwise, we still have our 2nd Amendment rights.

weasel slapper said...

They have been going after our guns for years. I'm not saying that we should not be vigilant in struggle but keep something in mind. Us law abiding citizens always say that criminals will always have guns regardless of the law. Well, I guess if they outlaw my guns then I will become a criminal. I will always protect my family, my property and myself by any means necessary.

Auntie Em/Libertarian Woman said...

I'm more concerned about what this "Conference" could do in future meetings. Once we agree to it, we agree to any future changes.

It's that old saying "once they get their toe in the door" that worries me. And the NRA is afraid this will also require more licensing requirements.

It's a slippery slope.

off the reservation said...

The whole thing bothers me. What I wanted to do was to identify where the argument is. Right now, I believe that the liberal talking point is that we are dealing with exports/imports. In that regard, they are correct. So, elections for House as well as Senate MATTERS! If it is done on the basis of trade then Obama could make this work as a Congressional-Executive Agreement having the force of law as any regular bill that was passed through the normal Federal Law process. He has majorities in both House and Senate.

The impact here is on whether firearms are imported/exported to the US. We still have US manufacturers that would still be free to sell in the US.

If we attempt to make the argument that they are infringing the 2nd Amendment then the liberals have an out on this. Certainly, I am angry even about import/export controls. A number of the weapons I own were manufactured by Austrians and Belgians. If parts supplies are cut off then I would lose the use of those firearms, yet the liberals could argue that they never infringed the 2nd Amendment and regrettably, they might have a valid argument here.

Elections have consequences and we need to educate more gun owners that voting for a liberal/Democrat can infringe on their ownership in more ways than they can imagine.

And yes, I pity the fool that comes to take away my firearms. Oh, and I doubt that they will knock first.

J Cooper said...

Dang,OTR you are a typing Son of A Gun.And the part that scares me,I got most of it...

Weasel, that's dead on,I can't see anything going up against that...

EM,I'm dumb,Butt will tell ya,is Hillery on my side on this one,veto rights!!! So we can veto this??

All I can say is,I vetoed this, say 50 fuggin years ago when I got my first RED RIDER BB GUN. Still go it,still works,come take the son of a ----- . Sorry EM I hate this gun talk!!!