obama finds legal way Around 2nd Amendment

[misnomerga]

Wonder what people think about these article? I tried to do a snopes on them but did not find anything either way.


On Wednesday Obama took the first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States

The Obama Administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama Administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

The Obama Administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

Read the Article

U..S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Herehttp://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q92009101514 Nov. 2009
<http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015>

[Double Naught Spy]

This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

I am not so sure. Obamacare is no more being forced on the American people than any other legislation and it followed the proper Congressional channels. If by "whatever means necessary" you mean standard operating procedure and government process, then I guess your point would be valid, just like any legislation passed by the Republicans.

So explain how it is that international arms transfers is related to the 2nd Amendment and bypassing it. The 2nd Amendment does not extend beyond our own borders.

[carguychris]

The Obama Administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama Administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress.

The last sentence of this statement is blatantly incorrect. The Senate must ratify any international treaty by a 2/3 majority.

Read Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution and report back.

Better yet, read what happened to Woodrow Wilson's unpopular League of Nations proposals after the Senate took a closer look at them.

[Dragon55]

Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.

Law enforcement Fed, state, or otherwise can only enforce laws passed by legislative bodies.

[AirForceShooter]

a treaty doesn't trump the constitution.

I call, garbage

AFS

[jmortimer]

obama has stated that people should not be allowed to own guns. As for the treaty assult on the Second Amendment, it is currently being negotiated by sec state clinton. The whole one world government/currency is picking up steam. The treaty route is now the one being used by liberals as most States are for sure headed in the right direction and the liberals are losing on a state level. Treaties still need to be ratified but with the kook liberals/socialists running the senate and house and white house dont think the U.N. Arms Treaty will never happen. Look at how faw we have gone down the toilet in the last year and a half.

[Edward429451]

Lock and load.

SO who's going to enforce it? Feds? Local Law enforcement?

[riverwalker76]

This is pure BS.

It's either a bad April Fools Joke, and / or someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

Somebody is pulling your chain!

This OBAMA SCARE stuff is really starting to get on my nerves. IN all reality it's just a bunch of people making rash decisions about a leader, and falling prey to their self inflicted propaganda.

[Silver Bullet]

What's the source ?

[Doc Intrepid]

I think folks should remain calm and keep the faith.

Ask Democrats how well Gun Control as a national issue worked for the Clinton Administration?

It is not conducive to accomplishing their broader political agenda.

Wednesday's policy reversal is not a step in the right direction, but it's a long, long way from any 'done deal' regarding gun control in the U.S. I certainly do not trust the Obama Administration, but considering the other things they have working right now (health care reform, immigration reform, the economy, the jobs bill, impending bankruptcy of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, 2 wars overseas, the imminent nuclearization of Iran, the international nuclear security summit in April, not to mention some critical elections occurring in November, etc. etc.) taking up the banner of gun control in the U.S. seems a bit unhelpful...

JMHO. YMMV.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

First of all, there are two different treaties/programs of action - the UN Arms Trade Treaty and the UN Small Arms and Light Weapons Treaty. The second treaty has more potential to affect your gun rights. The next meeting for the UN Small Arms and Light Weapons Treaty is this July 2010.

However, no treaty is superior to the Constitution. For us, that means that no treaty can be stricter than the decision handed down in Heller.

From the political reality standpoint, a treaty requires approval by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. Currently, there are nowhere near 2/3 antigun Senators in the Senate. On the contrary, the number of antigun votes is probably not even a simple majority. Also, the current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has been a consistent vote against gun control and faces a difficult midterm reelection. The chances of any UN treaty affecting U.S. civilian firearms ownership making it through this session is next to zero.

Like always, this can change if we do not elect the right people or stay vigilant in defense of our rights; but right now, I'd rate this threat as minimal until after Feberuary 2011. At that point, it will be time to look at the results of the 2010 midterms and see if the threat has decreased even further or has increased.

One more note on political realities:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

Like most politicians, this Administration is playing a shell game. They want to "look like they are doing something" for their base; but they realize that actually doing something would be suicidal. As Russia, China, and a number of other countries have signifcantly less restrictive arms trade regulations (remember this is ultimately about import/export on the international level) and make a great deal of money this way, the Administration gets to pretend like it is "reversing" the previous Administration while at the same time knowing the likelihood of such a veto being exercised is practically 100%.

[dogtown tom]

Well..........today IS Saturday...and I believe Saturday is the designated "OMG!OMG! OBAMA'S GONNA TAKE MY GUNS!" day of the week.

As a teacher, I find it sad that many in our firearms community are experts on the Second Amendment, but apparently slept through the rest of their US History, Civics and American Government classes in school.

Now, remember that with Sunday being Easter Sunday, the "Secret Obama Law Requires You to List All You Guns On Your 1040!!!" day has been pushed to Monday. Please do not post any "Secret Obama Law Requires You to List All You Guns On Your 1040!!!" postings until Monday.

[Sefner]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

Well..........today IS Saturday...and I believe Saturday is the designated "OMG!OMG! OBAMA'S GONNA TAKE MY GUNS!" day of the week.

As a teacher, I find it sad that many in our firearms community are experts on the Second Amendment, but apparently slept through the rest of their US History, Civics and American Government classes in school.

Now, remember that with Sunday being Easter Sunday, the "Secret Obama Law Requires You to List All You Guns On Your 1040!!!" day has been pushed to Monday. Please do not post any "Secret Obama Law Requires You to List All You Guns On Your 1040!!!" postings until Monday.

Hahahaha I lol'd. I first heard this garbage in a gun shop (I know it's not the best place for intelligent political discourse) and my dad was all freaked out about it. The same thing happens when every year the same Senator introduces a bill to ban all handguns in the United States. He introduces it every year, and every year it never even makes it into committee. He has been doing this for decades. Tons of Senators do that for a very specific reason:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

They want to "look like they are doing something" for their base; but they realize that actually doing something would be suicidal.

This. There are crazy bills introduced every year so that Senators and Representatives can go home and say that they are sponsoring legislation to <insert something important to their fringe base here>. That's all it is. Sometimes I feel that people are just looking for something to latch onto and get outraged about.

[Doc Intrepid]

Heh....pretty good DT...

There are elections in November, and the Obama Administration is keenly aware of campaign promises - which if not kept can work against him in November:

"...the change he had promised upon winning the White House is being delivered..."

(Googled from this source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 )

Also this citation contains a video-link to a Lou Dobbs report containing footage of Obama's actual announcement, which is fairly alarming in tone:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6943

On the other hand, the report indicates that Obama made his remarks upon returning from Mexico, where Obama is under pressure from the Mexican Administration to support Calderon in his war against narco-trafficking (and weapons trafficking). Calderon is not happy with the U.S. - see: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/28-7

Gun control disguised as foreign policy, and particularly as support for promises made during his past campaign (to support his position vis a vis the November elections).

Still, the fact is that it is by no means a done deal, and there would be tremendous resistance to this not only in the Senate and House, but amongst voters as well.

[Dewhitewolf]

I've heard all about this sort of thing when I bought my first gun (ten years ago now). The idea that the President would try to use an international treaty to ban firearms is nothing new.

Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate, as some folks above pointed out. I am not an expert on international law, but as far as I understand it, ratified treaties can only affect the enforcement of local and federal laws. Again, not saying I'm an expert, but as far as I know, a treaty cannot nullify an individual's rights protected by the Constitution. Example, the UN cannot take away your right to freedom of worship, freedom of speech, right against unreasonable searches, right against self incrimination, etc. by way of a treaty.

[jmortimer]

The obama/clinton treaty issue is a fact - obama wanting to ban all gun ownership is a fact. obama and holder working to reinstate the "Assult Weapons Ban" and ban on "high capacity magazines" - that is a fact. liberals and socialists wanting to "grab guns" is a fact. The real issue is how far will liberals/socialists/obama/holder/clinton/pelosi/reid get. Right now they are losing but we are one Supreme Court Justice away from losing everything. So we may be winning the battles but could easily lose the war. Pray that the four good Supreme Court Justices survive obama and that Justice Kennedy keeps voting in favor of gun rights.

[thallub]

a treaty doesn't trump the constitution.

I call, garbage

It is pure unadulterated garbage. It surprises me that a poster passed on something like this without vetting it first. This mis-information is from a chain e-mail. This stuff is being concocted by wannabee pro-gun organizations and distributed far and wide by gunshow promoters, gunshop owners, ammo sellers and others who have a vested interest in keeping gun and ammo prices high.

First of all there is no treaty: There will be no treaty until at least 2012. There are dozens of UN treaties. Few, if any, of them have any effect on US citizens. There is a UN resolution that states that a country's citizens will keep their guns:

UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…

This one was debunked some time ago:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/int...un-ban-treaty/

[DZcarry]

This is pure BS.

It's either a bad April Fools Joke, and / or someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

Somebody is pulling your chain!

This OBAMA SCARE stuff is really starting to get on my nerves. IN all reality it's just a bunch of people making rash decisions about a leader, and falling prey to their self inflicted propaganda.

exactly

[Mike Irwin]

Yet another example of the screaming hysterical crap that gets passed around the internet.

It's pretty damned sad that people read this and can't see, right off the bat, that the entire premise flies in the face of US Constitutional Law.

Closed.