|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 25, 2013, 04:42 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
John Kerry signed the treaty today in New York City.
The Democratic controlled Senate will pass it on to Obama for his signature. Last edited by Tom Servo; September 25, 2013 at 05:50 PM. |
September 25, 2013, 04:46 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
All window dressing.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
September 25, 2013, 05:06 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
I think you need to revisit how a treaty is ratified. It requires 2/3's vote of the Senate. There isn't a majority let alone 67 votes to ratify. Nothing is going to happen.
|
September 25, 2013, 05:15 PM | #4 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
SCOTUS, in Reid vs Covert, ruled that treaties to not supercede the US Constitution. Quote:
For what it's worth: The treaty contains this phrase: Quote:
Quote: Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law: Read the treaty here, click on E for English: http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/documents/ Last edited by thallub; September 25, 2013 at 05:36 PM. |
|||
September 25, 2013, 05:41 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
While I believe as TXAZ and others have posted that this is 'all window dressing' and will not go anywhere, it flat out shows where some of our political figures heads are at.
These are the kind of antics that happen during non-election times that voters need to remember come election time, know who generated and supports this stupidity and vote accordingly. |
September 25, 2013, 05:42 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
The Administration is relying on state-level Democrats to do what they can to achieve the goals, explicit and implicit, of the Treaty.
Here in CA, they have sent a slew of trash to the Governor, much of which (if not all) I expect he will sign. NY has the SAFE Act, etc, etc. Hopefully SCOTUS will grant cert on Woollard, to confirm the human right of self-defense involved therein and in 2A.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
September 25, 2013, 05:52 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Thallub is correct. I don't see it affecting domestic ownership.
The reason I don't care for the treaty is that it's a steaming pile of hypocrisy for us to ratify it. Outside the Soviet Union, we've historically been one of the biggest suppliers of arms to rogue states and organizations. Nicaragua? Liberia? Sudan? Mobutu Soko's regime in the DRC? The Mujahideen, I mean, Taliban? We armed them. Then there are the 2,000 weapons smuggled to the Sinaloa cartel on this administration's watch. In no conceivable way do we occupy the moral high ground on this one. |
September 25, 2013, 06:43 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
The US is currently shippings arms and ammo to rebel groups in Syria; never mind that some weapons will their way into the hands of allies of al Queda. |
|
September 25, 2013, 09:06 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 8,306
|
Quote:
Also true that as written It would not affect our 2nd A rights. However, It would be the proverbial foot in the door, or camel's nose that would eventually lead to a loss or serious reduction of our right to keep and bare arms.
__________________
Cheapshooter's rules of gun ownership #1: NEVER SELL OR TRADE ANYTHING! |
|
September 25, 2013, 11:26 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
|
I can't see this by itself bringing about any sort of gun confiscation, but I do most certainly see it making imported guns harder to obtain (as if imports weren't restricted enough already.)
__________________
Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250 Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging. OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe |
September 26, 2013, 12:02 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,403
|
Although it cannot affect gun ownership, it would be quite easy for anti-gun persons to argue that the rest of the treaty, governing small arms ammunition, is not superseded by the Constitution.
That would open the door to attacks on reloaders, reloading equipment, and everything associated with it...
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
September 26, 2013, 12:09 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2013
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 165
|
I don't believe the treaty has a one in a million chance of being ratified. I just hope all the talk doesn't set off another ammo/gun frenzy.
|
September 26, 2013, 02:47 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Posts: 102
|
A little history on the SALT II agreement -
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda/treaties/salt2-1.htm The completed SALT II agreement was signed by President Carter and General Secretary Brezhnev in Vienna on June 18, 1979. President Carter transmitted it to the Senate on June 22 for its advice and consent to ratification. On January 3, 1980, however, President Carter requested the Senate majority leader to delay consideration of the Treaty on the Senate floor in view of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Although the Treaty remained unratified, each Party was individually bound under the terms of international law to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty, until it had made its intentions clear not to become a party to the Treaty. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Once it is signed, a treaty will have teeth even if the Senate never gets around to ratifying it. If there are not enough votes to ratify the treaty, it is possible that Harry Reid (or his successor) will prevent the Senate from ever voting on ratification. |
September 26, 2013, 06:05 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 545
|
Politically impossible to ratify, a purely symbolic display, a wish for a world that currently doesn't exist, that describes the event. It might be more significant to gather at the beach before sunrise link hands and hum.
|
September 26, 2013, 08:37 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
It may not affect the 2A, but it raised some fairly major 4A concerns for me. Article 12, Section 3. The "end user" list part.
|
September 26, 2013, 09:05 AM | #16 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Good news:
I don't think it will pass the Senate at this time. Bad news: I don't now of any "expiration date" on treaties, so it could sit there for a long while, just waiting for the Senate to approve it. Good news: The treaty won't take effect until 50 countries have ratified it. See Article 22. Bad news: Six countries already have.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
September 26, 2013, 11:38 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
It's silly to say the least.
Regardless what we, the US will do, does anyone really expect countries like Iran and N. Korea to abide by the treaty. Bad guys (countries) wont stop selling and using these weapons any more then street gangs will stop their illegal gun activities because of Chicago's gun laws. What will happen, if passed, the treaty is going to cost a lot of money to implement. Guess who's gonna have to pay the biggest portion of that cost? Any way, you wont get the Senate to ratify it so its a moot point.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
September 27, 2013, 02:54 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Posts: 102
|
Now that Kerry has signed the treaty, it appears that international law requires us to honor the treaty, even while we're waiting for the Senate to ratify it.
See Article 18 in the 1969 Vienna Convention - http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...s/1_1_1969.pdf So.... if Harry Reid doesn't have enough votes to ratify it, why would he even allow the Senate to vote on it? Perhaps the next POTUS will formally announce that we are withdrawing from the treaty..... |
September 27, 2013, 05:29 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 358
|
Oh the irony
In broad strokes, this sounds parallel to what has been happening nationally.
The US gov'ts keep passing laws to stop violence and trafficking of guns. These laws negatively affect the good citizens while the criminals ignore them. Now the UN is trying to do the same thing on a global level which puts the U.S. on the other end of the argument-where we are signing this treaty while sending arms at the very same time to Syria. It will be interesting to see how the very same people who creatively try to kill the 2nd amendment will justify future actions when they feel the need supply another country with arms without a background check nor care where those weapons end up. (ironically, this is a global version of the 'gun show' loophole they have twisted except it is a little worse , no background check, it is using tax dollars that came out of our paychecks and it's not even face to face). Who knows, maybe they will create a playbook the NRA can use.
__________________
L2R |
September 27, 2013, 07:00 AM | #20 |
Member
Join Date: February 26, 2009
Location: TX
Posts: 40
|
The ratification process
Senators have warned that the treaty has to be ratified by the Senate (probably because Obama has a history of violating the Constitution and ignoring requirements for Congressional authorization).
If Obama signs the treaty it still has to be ratified by the Senate. But its’ important to note that the Constitution doesn’t require 2/3 of the Senate to approve — only 2/3 of those PRESENT have to sign it. Will Harry Reid schedule a vote during a recess to get it ratified? |
September 27, 2013, 08:23 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 4,193
|
Political Kabuki theater.
__________________
Pilot |
September 27, 2013, 10:03 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
|
If there were any lingering questions of where the present administration stands on this issue, all doubts are now removed.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.” |
September 27, 2013, 02:21 PM | #23 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
September 28, 2013, 12:30 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
September 30, 2013, 10:27 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Yes, this is a bigger threat to the fourth and fifth amendment. Also probably not high on the current administration's priority list.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|