Global Gun Control
SAF reports that the Barry administration just hitched their wagon to the UN arms treaty:
Less than 24 hours after winning re-election, President Barack Obama’s administration joined with China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and more than 150 other governments, in supporting renewed debate on the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, confirming the worst fears of the American gun rights community.
November 7th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
And this is my shocked face.
Did anyone expect any different?
November 7th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
@Jailer – Took the words right out of my mouth.
November 7th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
The nations will blow a lot of hot air. There is too much money in weapons for it to work. They will want it to apply to someone else.
November 7th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
If it’s real, it’s impeachment time.
November 8th, 2012 at 12:00 am
He won. Who was expecting Obama the Magnanimous?
Jerry, which 2/3 of the Senators do you have lined up?
Count them off; I’ll wait.
November 8th, 2012 at 1:18 am
I hope he makes this mistake.
November 8th, 2012 at 1:44 am
What mistake?
Who is going to stop him or even criticize him? If F%F didn’t result in impeachment, this won’t even make the news.
November 8th, 2012 at 2:03 am
FILL YOUR FUCKING HANDS!!!!
November 8th, 2012 at 3:19 am
Ok, so I expected him to go for this treaty, but I kinda figured he’d wait til January. Guess he was just ITCHING for the flexibility, and now that he has it he just can’t help himself.
@ harp1034
Here’s the problem: Our Constitution incorporates a signed and ratified treaty into domestic law–if we sign and ratify it, we have to abide by it. Other nations do not have such a structure and make a habit of signing treaties that they have no intention of following (e.g. none of the Kyoto signatories have bankrupted all of their industries by adhering to it).
Russia and China will sign this, and then violate the hell out of it by shipping guns and ammo anywhere they damn well please except the US. Will they take a hit by losing this market? Maybe. Maybe they’ll be able to make a mint by selling it to us at higher prices on the black market.
Either way, they keep up their profits everywhere else and make Obama happy so that he will give them some flexibility elsewhere. This treaty will do nothing to stop the arms trade; it will only make guns and ammo harder to acquire here. The naive might call that an unintended consequence, but as Prof. Reynolds would say, “That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.”
November 8th, 2012 at 7:27 am
Now if I read this correctly it is saying that arms may not be traded between countries. As a hypothetical thought, would this not be good for us consumers to have nothing but American made guns to purchase ?
However I do realize what the ultimate goal here is, The outright taking of all individual weapons…
November 8th, 2012 at 10:45 am
@spud
I know what you’re saying, but protectionism is never a good thing. It plays out in Japan right now. Even though cheap arms and ammo don’t compare to the quality in general of domestically produced products, They still keep prices down because manufacturers know that when russian steel cased 5.56 is $6/box and American ammo averages $20/box even the most finicky AR owner will pick the russian ammo. That’s just one example.
This treaty business is infuriating but not surprising. I think this is the first of many examples where people who abstained from voting are going to see that not choosing was in fact a choice. Say what you want about Romney, but this wouldn’t have happened if he was set to be sworn in this January, or if it did happen he would simply stop it then. It sounded great to feign concern over Romney’s attitudes towards guns, but now reality is facing us sooner than most of those types thought. Obama’s gun control agenda will be a series of small losses for us because of the Republican house. 4 years of these small losses will be only the beginning as the Supreme Court with 2 to 3 Obama picked judges starts to take up cases and continues to well beyond 2016.
Nice work guys.
November 8th, 2012 at 10:52 am
@UTLaw-
Treaties do not and cannot supersede any Amendment in the Constitution, the Constitution is the ONLY Supreme Law of the Land.
A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that:
“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”
Also see Geofroy v. Riggs
November 8th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Then what is the POINT of signing up for them John Locke???
November 8th, 2012 at 11:06 am
@John Smith
Your guess is as good as mine I suppose.
To make it look like the United States cares?
In all reality, what is it that ensures any country to abide by a treaty? What if said treaty no longer serves the interests of a country? What possible action can be taken? A strongly worded letter? Kind of hard to put a whole country in prison.
November 8th, 2012 at 11:17 am
Just look at the cluster bomb and landmine “bans” or all the global warming pap.
It’s feelgood makework that gets very nice dilpo jobs for cronies and chums.
And hey if it can help take down those Ameri-cowboys. Bonus.
I mean China, France, Germany and the UK are all major arms exporters.
November 8th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Ahh that touchy feely bullshit that people eat up.
November 8th, 2012 at 11:23 am
It looks good on paper, and will make the Brady bunch feel good. It will never be ratified due to the “evil gun lobby’s pressure on the senate”, and everybody will be happy.
November 8th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Ok, after pulling up a slightly less one-sided report on this, all that happened was the US agreed to have another round of talks next year, in a vote that ended up yesterday due to Sandy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107
With the caveat “U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.“.
November 8th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Just to add to what John Locke said…
They cant bargain away our second amendment right. Not possible. The constitution does not grant us this right, it acknowledges it as an UNALIENABLE right, see definnition below.
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken.
I think some in the .gov think it is an inalienable right, huge difference, see definition below:
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government.
NOTE:
US Decleration of Independence…
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
November 8th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
@TJ Well said, or should I say, well posted.
I ran across this by David Codrea and echoes a thought/sentiments most of us have already thought or have.
Which is why we the PEOPLE must remain vigilant and keep the pressure on no matter what.
November 8th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Sounds like it essentially fucks gun manufacturers who Export…
November 8th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Harry Reid was the one who told Hillary to go peddle her papers, the last time. Wonder if he’s still pro-gun. If so, this will go nowhere.
And BTW, John Locke, good constitutional argument. States’ rights have been prevailing over federal treaties.
November 8th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Question: WHAT, precisely, stands in the way of the President now?
The House has no stomach/balls for impeachment (especially not when Boehner is making kissy-face with the Prez); impeachment would never fly in the Senate; and the media would trash any attempt to hurt their Messiah.
The next two years are going to be worse than the 2009-2011 period — we’ll all gonna get f***ed by Executive Order.
November 8th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Legislative Branch doesn’t get SS protection.
Just saying.
November 8th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
It doesn’t effect domestic gun sales except for the massive effect it has on domestic gun sales.
November 8th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
What kind of reloading press do you recommend?
November 8th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
A big thanks to all the libertarians who stayed home, or voted for Mr. Johnson, because there was no difference between Obama and Romney.
Just in case you missed it, Eric Holder is preparing to leave Justice so he available for the first open slot on SCOTUS.
Again, my heart felt thanks to all of you that helped make this possible!
Morons…
November 8th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
The re-election of America’s best gun salesman is having the predictable effect of boosting gun sales. It’s too bad that Barry is a cross between a commie douchebag and a liberal scumbag, because he’s really being quite helpful to our side of the gun rights fight.
As for that UN treaty, if our Republicans fail to suggest to Barry that he shove it back up his ass where it came from and offer to help him do it, we’ll just have to have a chat with our Republicans. And they won’t like it. We can ensure that they won’t like it.
November 8th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Yeah, we can leave the party, or vote democrat I suppose…of course, there is a strong argument to be made that the Tea Party and libertarian candidates are the ones who lost, so we may actually help them out.
November 8th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Looks like this election we only lost 4 of the 58 bipartisan signers of the anti-UN Treaty letter the Senate sent to Obama in July, but two might have been replaced by as good or better?
Many of the rest will be up for re-election in 2014 so they can probably be kept in line.
Not sure if we actually net gained more pro-gun Senators or not, but if Obama tries anything too unpopular the Senators that back him will be vulnerable and we might make more bipartisan gun rights gains. That raises some hope if any SCOTUS seats come open in the last two years of his lame-duckery.
November 8th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
The House won’t go for it. So the ‘treaty’ will not have force in this country (at least until Pelosi somehow gets control of the house again.)
November 8th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Forward
November 8th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
4strokes Says:
November 8th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
A big thanks to all the libertarians who stayed home, or voted for Mr. Johnson, because there was no difference between Obama and Romney.
Just in case you missed it, Eric Holder is preparing to leave Justice so he available for the first open slot on SCOTUS.
Again, my heart felt thanks to all of you that helped make this possible!
Morons…
___________
You picked a gun banning, insurance mandating, leftwing ex governor of Massachusetts as the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Coolidge, Eisenhower, Goldwater and Reagan are spinning in their graves. Give me one major point of difference between the two. Because I don’t see it, honestly.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-06/it-doesnt-matter
It doesn’t matter who’s calling the dance. The building is on fire, and the exits are chained shut. Just go and kiss the girls, and spike the punch. Eat, drink, and be merry because we are about to enter a world of pain.
November 8th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
Britt:
First, Romney wasn’t my pic – I voted for Paul in the primary. I also agree, no matter what happened on Tuesday, there is a world of pain ahead. Where you are dead wrong is that it does matter who calling the dance when the building is on fire and all the doors are chained.
So, when the real choice was presented to you, you decided that there was no difference between a soulless, sociopath (who will demand we dance faster to fan the flames) and a decent man who would attempt to start a bucket brigade… Thanks.
I am sorry if signing on to the UN Small Arms Treaty and Justice Eric Holder is not enough of a difference for you to see. I see the difference between a generation of pain and the end hope. Thanks.
November 8th, 2012 at 11:53 pm
I did not read every comment. I do say this. The Constitution. The last refuge of a scoundrel. Iffin’ your not a scoundrel, why not uphold the damn thing?
November 9th, 2012 at 4:13 am
So, when the real choice was presented to you, you decided that there was no difference between a soulless, sociopath (who will demand we dance faster to fan the flames) and a decent man who would attempt to start a bucket brigade… Thanks.
I am sorry if signing on to the UN Small Arms Treaty and Justice Eric Holder is not enough of a difference for you to see. I see the difference between a generation of pain and the end hope. Thanks.
__________
Bucket brigade? Try a dixie cup brigade.
Look, if there is to be any hope whatsoever there will have to be massive cuts to all discretionary spending, and even more massive cuts to entitlement programs. Advocating for even slight cuts is political suicide. Rommney/Ryan had a plan to sometime in the next ten years balance the budget. Not make drastic cuts, not eliminate entire departments. No, they wanted to trim the fat a little bit each year until the multi trillion dollar budget was balanced. They lost.
It’s over. Romney was not the answer, no one is the answer. The Gods of the Copybook Headings will limp up to explain things once more, hopefully without terror and slaughter.
You think we’re in for a generation of pain? Ha. 60 trillion is the amount of promised payments. It can’t be paid off, except in worthless paper. So worthless paper is what we will get. It will not be a generation, but a total collapse.
Look, the UN treaty will not get two thirds of the Senate. You need 67 Senators to ratify. Does anyone think Obama can get 67 Senators? Oh, and it honestly doesn’t matter which leftwing hack he appoints to the Court. He won, he’s going to appoint a commie stooge to the Court. Doesn’t matter if it’s Holder or Napolitano or someone else.
Again…it’s not the people, it’s the spending. Doesn’t matter who sits behind the Resolute Desk, because the path has already been laid down.
November 9th, 2012 at 10:42 am
If signed, President Executive Order will simply implement it via diktat, just as his EPA has been working to implement the signed (but not only unratified, REJECTED) Kyoto Accord.
If one of the Heller Five dies, Justice Eric Holder will simple sign on with the rest of the liberals and rule that the treaty doesn’t unconstitutionally infringe upon the Second Amendment, and that the Executive Branch has merely acted with due discretion.
November 9th, 2012 at 11:11 am
Paul says The House won’t go for it.
Treaties are ratified by the senate, the house does not get involved in it.
November 9th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
@Geodkyt-
Even if a president goes full on dictator and signs a treaty and tries to implement it via EO, you will still need the House and Senate to come up with bills to be signed into law to comply with the terms set forth via a treaty. Then the next issue we have are all of the Constitutional challenges to said EO and the Constitutionality of the treaty and the laws that were passed to comply with the terms of said treaty.
This UN ATT is a very steep up hill battle.
November 10th, 2012 at 7:18 am
#24: Neither do the low-level bureaucrats who have to enforce this crap.
#39: Yeah, I’m sure the ATF will be real worried when you tell them Congress didn’t pass a law as they’re kicking your door and shooting.
November 10th, 2012 at 10:20 am
@SDN-
That is where the story of a horrible boating accident comes into play, when the ATF comes to the door.
The other question is, are they going door to door, or going by registration records?
November 10th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
John Locke,
In agreement with your #12, it is the reason that the Bill of Rights were added according to the following excerpt from their Preamble:
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/preamble-bill-of-rights.html#ixzz2BsD8dKMq
November 11th, 2012 at 10:02 am
John, they won’t give a f*ck what actually happened to your guns; their lists show you have them and that’s all they need to make sure YOU aren’t around to use them.
November 11th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
SDN- kind of hard when my weapons are NOT on any lists, the same hold true for millions of Americans.
November 12th, 2012 at 10:59 am
As far as EO goes, big O has issued hundreds, from conscription to seizure, hardly anyone knows about them let alone challenges them. The Repud party has to be seriously voted against until they wise up and either get some decent candidates or the libertarians take over. Both of the last two candidats for the repuds were soft dems, a slow decent, but still decent into blackness.