[Tuttyd]

Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US constitution:

I think you both did.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

But, weren't you the one that posted Article V1 paragraph 2 to demonstrate Tom's point that a treaty could override a constitutional right?


Tut

No sir, I posted it to demonstrate that the second amendment is the law of the land.

[talaniman]

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.

I think you are in error,

Reid v. Covert (1957) ruled that no branch of the United States Government can have powers conferred upon it by treaty that have not been conferred by the United States Constitution.

Since you cannot change the constitution except by a lenghty process, any treaty argreement that doesn't meet the laws of the constitution are null, and void.

Congress must ratify any treaty agreement, and it still open to challenge.

From what I have read of the arms agreement in the UN, it has nothing to do with countries as individuals, but global arms trading between counties, and I fail to see where the fear is unless you are an international arms dealer.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3318708-post3.html

[paraclete]

I

From what I have read of the arms agreement in the UN, it has nothing to do with countries as individuals, but global arms trading between counties, and I fail to see where the fear is unless you are an international arms dealer.

Tal, you have identified the important point, the whole of this debate operates out of fear and maintaining the business of arms manufacturers and arms dealers. Whether you can own a gun isn't the issue but what type of weapon you might own and how you might use it, is the issue, it is a big leap from regulating the type of weapon, or how it might be stored, to removing the right to own a weapon. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically speaks to the sale of weapons or the trafficking of weapons, so the right of ownership can be maintained while the sale can be restricted

[tomder55]

As the world body meets this week to hammer out an agreement to restrict international arms trade, our Secretary of State commits us to pushing a treaty that may also restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week.

Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.

Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is "likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."

We have noted that a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."

Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a "misuse?"

"We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment," Secretary of State Kerry tried to reassure us — even as he represents an administration that seeks to ban weapons on their scary appearance rather than their genuine lethality, thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with deer-hunting rather than British tyranny in mind, and would be happy if the entire U.S. were a "gun-free zone."

As the Heritage Foundation notes, imported firearms, considered part of the "arms trade" to be regulated, constitute about 35% of the new firearms market in the U.S.

"Under the guise of adopting what it deems to be 'appropriate measures,' an Administration could restrict imports by redefining what qualifies as a 'sporting' firearm — the definition of which is left completely to the discretion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives," Heritage reports.

The ATT, Heritage warns, "could create a national registry (initially) limited to imported firearms. It could impose new requirements on importers of firearms, or parts and components of firearms, for example, by requiring them to provide the identity of the final end user.. ."

Restrictions on imports might be extended to ammunition as well.

Last Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa. introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the treaty. The resolution states the U.N. proposal "places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality" and represents a threat to U.S. national security.

Our Constitution is unambiguous in its protection of gun rights. The ATT is not.

Interestingly, just as the world's worst human rights violators have sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America's enemies, was elected to a top position at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held in New York last July.

The U.S. is one of few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government.

The fact that an organization full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.

Somehow, administration assurances that the treaty won't infringe on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't reassure us.

John Kerry Announces U.S. Support For U.N. Arms Trade Treaty - Investors.com

[paraclete]

Of course it will limit your rights, it's a treaty

[speechlesstx]

Yeah, another Friday news dump along with Obama having achieved "flexibility" by abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland.

[speechlesstx]

Gov Cuomo finally figured out his rushed gun control bill is unworkable so he plans on easing the 7 round magazine limit - because no one makes them.

after weeks of criticism from gun owners, Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would seek to ease the restriction, which he said had proved unworkable even before it was scheduled to take effect on April 15.

The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines.

The solution? Again, you just can't make this stuff up...

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.

Absolute genius. Now why didn't Colorado think of that, keep the magazines and the jobs they're about to lose and just forbid you from loading more than 7 bullets.

[talaniman]

Yeah, another Friday news dump along with Obama having achieved "flexibility" by abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland.

That was last years news so try to keep up.

[NeedKarma]

That was last years news so try to keep up.

hahahahahahhahahahaha!!

[speechlesstx]

That was last years news so try to keep up.

No, it was last Friday's news, hence the mention of the Friday news dump that Obama has perfected.

Obama, Hagel Kill Missile Defense in Europe

Hence Obama has achieved his promised "flexibility." Try and keep up.

[speechlesstx]

hahahahahahhahahahaha!!!!

Another of your brilliant (read ignorant) contributions.

[talaniman]

The Poles can't afford a missile defense system. And why do they need one since we are broke? So are they.

[NeedKarma]

Another of your brilliant (read ignorant) contributions.

You're an angry man. Meds or therapy would help.

[tomder55]

Meanwhile ,the 1st thing Zero did when he got off the plane in Tel Aviv is to walk across the tarmac and inspect an Iron Dome system. D@mn that star wars Reagan introduced!!

[speechlesstx]

You're an angry man. Meds or therapy would help.

I'm not the one with premature jocularity.

[NeedKarma]

I'm not the one with premature jocularity.

No, you were a year late LOL!

[speechlesstx]

No, you were a year late LOL!

Are you that dense or just enjoy me drawing attention to your foolishness?

Yeah, another Friday news dump along with Obama having achieved "flexibility" by abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland.

The subject of the post was last Friday's news dumps by the Obama administration with the object of my reference being "abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland."

That sir, was Friday's news. I can't help it if you don't understand the concept of historical references relevant to current events.

[talaniman]

In light of current fiscal woes, spending money so Poland can defend itself from a mystery enemy is a dumb idea.

[speechlesstx]

In light of current fiscal woes, spending money so Poland can defend itself from a mystery enemy is a dumb idea.

I believe part of the point of these long-range missile interceptors was to give the US two shots at an Iranian ICBM. Iran is not a "mystery enemy."