The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 30, 2013, 05:19 PM   #26
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,759
I don't think they are trying to sneak this in between elections so no one notices. They wanted to do it now so they can point to their attempts when addressing anti-gun voters and say 'democrats did not pass any restrictions on second amendment rights" to pro gun voters who will cool after the senate fails to ratify.
Just political pandering like the AWB that is introduced by one senator every year. I am sure the Brady campaign gives him a big hug even if no one co-sponsors it.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old October 2, 2013, 09:05 PM   #27
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 760
I can see how the wording of the document could lead to national registration of personally owned weapons. Let's say, just for fun, that in the future too many weapons are getting across the border into Mexico illegally. (Sound familiar?) We are required by the treaty to investigate, disclose and terminate such illegal trade. Well, says our government, we can't know the true scope of the illicit trade unless we have a record of all firearms in the country. Only then can we truly see just what is happening. Granted the idea seems far fetched to the common man with common sense, but we are dealing with a government that has apparently abandoned logical thought processes in order to pander to special interest groups and their own twisted mode of thinking. Also, never forget that just because the treaty sits unadopted by our Senate at the present time, it can be ratified at any time in the future. May I also remind you, regardless of how ludicrous the idea sounds, past administrations and particularly the one now in power, have had no qualms whatsoever trampling on the Constitution and our rights in order to further their political goals.
ronl is offline  
Old October 20, 2013, 06:42 AM   #28
Cnon
Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2005
Posts: 75
Good news from Washington -- UN Arms Trade Treaty DOA in US Senate

Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) released a bipartisan letter this week signed by 48 of their colleagues pledging to oppose the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which Secretary of State John Kerry signed on behalf of the United States in September.



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...tcmp=obnetwork



Cnon
Cnon is offline  
Old October 21, 2013, 10:42 AM   #29
scpapa
Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 67
Just out of curiosity, could a future Sec of State recind the signature? That is "un-sign" the traty?

Rick
__________________
NRA Training Counselor
NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor
NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor
NRA Benefactor Member
scpapa is offline  
Old October 21, 2013, 12:40 PM   #30
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,082
It still has to get ratified by two thirds of the Senate. It's in the Constitution.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 21, 2013, 01:18 PM   #31
Valornor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2010
Location: Orem, Utah
Posts: 244
Yes formally it should be ratified by the senate for it to take effect but I remember hearing somewhere that there are treaties we honor that we're never ratified. Some loophole that basically says we will honor it until such time as we ratify it. So if it never gets formally brought before the senate it's never nullified, so we just keep honoring it...

Frankly I think this treaty has been blown out of proportion. I don't like it, and I think it's a step in the wrong direction but I don't think it's the end of the world as some people keep saying it is.
Valornor is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07681 seconds with 9 queries