United Nations small arms treaty

[Roger Bacon]

What's going on with this?  Obama is pushing it?  It would completely circumvent our 2nd Amendment Rights?

[Hugo Chavez]

What's going on with this?  Obama is pushing it?  It would completely circumvent our 2nd Amendment Rights?

found a snopes article on it:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

[Roger Bacon]

found a snopes article on it:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Thanks, check this out...

http://www.examiner.com/article/senate-set-to-approve-controversial-un-gun-treaty

[Hugo Chavez]

Thanks, check this out...

http://www.examiner.com/article/senate-set-to-approve-controversial-un-gun-treaty

I'll look some more into this.  I don't think the president can do this on his own.  But it's scary, any time they are talking about this kind of thing it means they want to make it happen at some point down the road.

[syntaxmachine]

The author of the Examiner article is a fool. He claims that the bill is part of an effort to "implement gun control without the approval of Congress."

I was going to bring up Reid v Covert but the Scopes article covers it well enough. International agreements (whether they be executive agreements, treaties, or whatever) cannot be harnessed as an indirect path to restrict constitutionally guaranteed rights. Thus, nobody's 2nd Amendment rights are under threat here.

Please, get better sources of news. Any dipshit can write for the Examiner, like this fat idiot you linked us to who doesn't know the basics of constitutional law.

[Roger Bacon]

I'll look some more into this.  I don't think the president can do this on his own. 

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obama-told-to-back-off-u-n-gun-treaty/

Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty

Over 100 members of Congress appear to share the concerns of a former Army general who has sounded the alarm over efforts by the Obama Administration to push through the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT.


I think I read that it takes 2/3 of the senate to ratify this.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread858229/pg1

[Roger Bacon]

The author of the Examiner article is a fool. He claims that the bill is part of an effort to "implement gun control without the approval of Congress."

I was going to bring up Reid v Covert but the Scopes article covers it well enough. International agreements (whether they be executive agreements, treaties, or whatever) cannot be harnessed as an indirect path to restrict constitutionally guaranteed rights. Thus, nobody's 2nd Amendment rights are under threat here.

Please, get better sources of news. Any dipshit can write for the Examiner, like this fat idiot you linked us to who doesn't know the basics of constitutional law.

I hope you're right, I got this off abovetopsecret.com. 

[Hugo Chavez]

It may not be possible now, but if they're talking about it, it fucking means they want to do it at some point.

[syntaxmachine]

It may not be possible now, but if they're talking about it, it fucking means they want to do it at some point.

Maybe, but in a law-based society such as ours they can dwell on what they want to do all they want; it just isn't going to happen given what the Constitution says and the S.C. decisions that have been handed down.

[Hugo Chavez]

Maybe, but in a law-based society such as ours they can dwell on what they want to do all they want; it just isn't going to happen given what the Constitution says and the S.C. decisions that have been handed down.

now you have me lost... You're saying this can't happen.  If a treaty is signed and passed through congress how can you say it isn't going to happen?  Even SC decisions get reversed by later decisions.

It's not uncommon at all for things to be pushed that can't happen at the time but knowing the constant push will one day pay out.  If there is even talk about it, it shouldn't be ignored just because it can't happen right now.

[d0nny2600]

I was expecting a big down hill picture

[syntaxmachine]

now you have me lost... You're saying this can't happen.  If a treaty is signed and passed through congress how can you say it isn't going to happen?  Even SC decisions get reversed by later decisions.

It's not uncommon at all for things to be pushed that can't happen at the time but knowing the constant push will one day pay out.  If there is even talk about it, it shouldn't be ignored just because it can't happen right now.

Yes, it is conceptually possible that the S.C. decision that makes international agreements subservient to the Constitution will be reversed. It is also conceptually possible that I am an alien.

Unless one has some reason to suppose the S.C. decision will suddenly be reversed, there isn't much point in putting stock in the possibility. This is a decision relating to one of the most fundamental matters in constitutional law, the relation between the Constitution, treaties, and federal laws. Can you imagine any situation in which a case will come to the court and it will decide to throw out all precedent and suddenly decide federal laws are all inferior to international agreements?

If the Senate gives its consent for the President to ratify the treaty and it genuinely subverts any constitutional rights, then it will quickly be challenged and struck down. It is that simple.

[Roger Bacon]

Maybe, but in a law-based society such as ours they can dwell on what they want to do all they want; it just isn't going to happen given what the Constitution says and the S.C. decisions that have been handed down.

The law hasn't been repeatedly circumvented in the last half century to push these kind of agendas? 

[Hugo Chavez]

Yes, it is conceptually possible that the S.C. decision that makes international agreements subservient to the Constitution will be reversed.

whoa buddy, that's not what I was talking about, I gotta stop you right there before I even read the rest of your post.  All they would have to do is reverse rulings on the 2nd Amendment that stood in the way.  And that wouldn't matter from the start if they made a move in this direction.  The president could sign a treaty like this then if congress passed it or the other way around; it would then take court challenges to change it after the fact.

[syntaxmachine]

whoa buddy, that's not what I was talking about, I gotta stop you right there before I even read the rest of your post.  All they would have to do is reverse rulings on the 2nd Amendment that stood in the way.  And that wouldn't matter from the start if they made a move in this direction.  The president could sign a treaty like this then if congress passed it or the other way around; it would then take court challenges to change it after the fact.

Reid v Covert established that no international agreement shall stand if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is such an international agreement. Whether it will require local legislation for the purposes of implementation or whether it is "self executing" doesn't even matter: if it actually violates 2nd Amendment Rights, then it will quickly be challenged and brought to the court, subsequently getting struck down. This is assuming that U.S. lawmakers would (for reasons unknown) consent to the ratification of an Amendment-violating treaty in the first place.

[Jack T. Cross]

It's not uncommon at all for things to be pushed that can't happen at the time but knowing the constant push will one day pay out.  If there is even talk about it, it shouldn't be ignored just because it can't happen right now.

[Hugo Chavez]

Reid v Covert established that no international agreement shall stand if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is such an international agreement. Whether it will require local legislation for the purposes of implementation or whether it is "self executing" doesn't even matter: if it actually violates 2nd Amendment Rights, then it will quickly be challenged and brought to the court, subsequently getting struck down. This is assuming that U.S. lawmakers would (for reasons unknown) consent to the ratification of an Amendment-violating treaty in the first place.

So what you're saying is that I was right, all the the SC would have to do is change their ruling on the 2nd, then it would be "constitutional".  Also I'm right that the executive could do this and it would later need to be challenged.  Thanks.

[syntaxmachine]

So what you're saying is that I was right, all the the SC would have to do is change their ruling on the 2nd, then it would be "constitutional".  Also I'm right that the executive could do this and it would later need to be challenged.  Thanks.

Yes, an alternative route to gun control would be to strike down the numerous rulings on 2nd Amendment rights and then pass this international agreement. However:

1. If these rulings are reversed, then the international agreement is redundant, because our 2nd Amendment rights will already have been effectively curtailed by the reversal of the rulings under consideration. If that is done then the treaty is irrelevant anyways because it will become possible for the government to establish domestic gun control laws without having to resort to treaties.

2. There are a big cluster of rulings that would have to be reversed, and the chances of the S.C. suddenly going on a streak of reversing over a century of case law is essentially zero, and

3. Since the case reversals in (2) aren't going to happen before this treaty emerges (if they happen at all), they have no bearing on it. The treaty isn't getting passed if it conflicts with the Constitution, and even if it did it would get challenged and struck down in a heartbeat.

Since I'm only focusing on what I think is humanly possible rather than possible in theory, I dismissed what you said. But it is definitely possible in theory, and further, you are definitely right that the treaty could be put in place by the executive (with the consent of the Senate) even if it was inconsistent with the Constitution; it would have to be struck down later.

[Roger Bacon]

You idiots all post on the political board this early?  Are you crazy?