[tomder55]

I won't go into hysterics that Obama is going to take away our guns.

Just one question. If the US backs a UN Treaty to restrict small arms ,what is the law of the land ? The treaty ,or the Constitution of the land... specifically the 2nd Amendment ?

After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks | Reuters

[speechlesstx]

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

One can only hope. What do you bet Obama will continue to be the top gun salesman in the country? All those bitter clingers are probably more bitter today.

[ebaines]

Just one question. If the US backs a UN Treaty to restrict small arms ,what is the law of the land ? The treaty ,or the Constitution of the land ...specifically the 2nd Amendment ?

This is not a serious question, is it? The law of the land is whatever our elected representatives and executive branch say it is, as interpreted by the courts.

And besides, the treaty is about exports of guns, not your right to pack one.

[tomder55]

Yeah that's the spin they want you to believe . But the last version of the treaty left open “without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals.”
Now why would they add that ? Because the Non-alligned movement nations and other NGOs want to add language to restrict domestic gun sales too.

[tomder55]

This is not a serious question, is it? The law of the land is whatever our elected representatives and executive branch say it is, as interpreted by the courts.
.

If we are signatories to a treaty ,that becomes the law of the land .

[talaniman]

Show me where any treaty trumps US federal law.

[Wondergirl]

Worry only if you are involved in "illicit arms trafficking and proliferation."

[speechlesstx]

Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US constitution:

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.

[Wondergirl]

What does that have to do with private and legal ownership of weapons?

[speechlesstx]

Tal said "show me" and I did. Read tom's answer here and follow the conversation.

[Wondergirl]

No one is going to take away your guns.

[tomder55]

I made it a point at the start of this conversation that I did not think it was a threat. But it will be impetus for the Obots to make Federal law that restricts the type of guns that can be purchased .

[Wondergirl]

But it will be impetus for the Obots to make Federal law that restricts the type of guns that can be purchased .

Bet they won't get that impetus.

[paraclete]

You asked a specific question about law, there are various intrepretations regarding treaty obligations and the constitution of any nation and it sort of works this way, when there is a conflict the treaty obligations prevail and it behoven to the country concerned to amend their laws to fall in line with their treaty obligations after all the treaty has been established under constitutional powers. What this means is no constitutional provision can stand alone for its own sake so the second amandment or any amendment cannot be exorcised from treaty obligations.

The US therefore has various courses of action:

Repudiate the treaty and ultimately its membership of the UN

Amend the Constitution to define classes of weapons under the second amendment


The second amendment says nothing about the traffic in arms, it refers to a personal right to have arms. There has been a liberal interpretation that it means you can have any arms you want and as many as you want. I doubt that was original intent. It exists because in the early days they didn't intend to have a large standing army. The Constitution confers the power to regulate commerce, therefore movement of arms and sale of arms can be legally restricted without contravening the second amendment rights.

The issue really isn't hand guns or long arms but the number of weapons in the hands of criminals. In the interests of the public good this cannot be permitted

[tomder55]

The real issue is that dictators don't want an armed populace.

[speechlesstx]

Exactly right, tom. And that's what amazes me about Obots, they're blind to his imperial presidency... willfully or not.

[Wondergirl]

President Obama doesn't want your guns either, He wants you to keep them close by your side.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

what amazes me about Obots, they're blind to his imperial presidency

It IS true, that when I walk out of my house every morning, I see an entirely different country than you do.

Excon

[J_9]

President Obama doesn't want your guns either, He wants you to keep them close by your side.

I'm sorry. I have to laugh out loud at this. He doesn't want us to have them at all.

[Wondergirl]

I'm sorry. I have to laugh out loud at this. He doesn't want us to have them at all.

That's not true at all. Do you have a quote to that effect?