The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 23, 2011, 10:47 PM   #26
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
I would hope that someone in the Whitehouse can count. that was 44 Senators (both of mine) that signed that letter!
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 11:23 PM   #27
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,338
Both of mine too.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 02:02 AM   #28
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,680
45 by my count; but conspicuously absent on the letter were many "pro-Second Amendment" Dems like Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Joe Manchin etc. In fact, it looks like the 45 names were almost all Republicans, including Rs I'd normally count as weak on gun rights like Olympia Snowe.

However, the good news is even if that list represents all we can count on, then we could still survive as many as 11 defections and defeat any treaty ratification.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 07:18 AM   #29
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,092
The proposed arms treaty is no threat to our Second amendment rights. As much as i like the NRA; i've been a member for well over 50 years, that organization is wrong on this issue.

From the proposed treaty:

Quote:
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…

No treaty can trump the US Constitution.

Quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Reid vs Covert:

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm
thallub is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 07:26 AM   #30
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
Both of mine too
Not from the predominate side of the aisle, but sadly...Virginia's senators Warner and Webb seem to have not signed that letter. Embarrassing actually, since within the state...things are reasonably pro 2a.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 11:10 AM   #31
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,680
Well, I'd agree and disagree. As long as the continue to include the regulation of civilian arms inside a country,the treaty is a threat to our rights. As this letter makes clear, it isn't a serious threat because it will never be ratified by the current Senate; just as CIFTA hasn't been ratified in over a decade.

While relying on the Constitution adds an additional fallback position, the problem there is we were just one vote away from not having an individual right at all. There are at least 3, probably 4, votes on the Court right now who would likely have no trouble finding a UN Arms Treaty constitutional.

I think the NRA has a good approach on this. Both the UN and the White House know what is realistic. We can now see what their response is.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 03:37 PM   #32
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
As long as the continue to include the regulation of civilian arms inside a country,the treaty is a threat to our rights.
It ain't in the proposed treaty. This is in the proposed treaty:

Quote:
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…
thallub is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 04:48 PM   #33
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
It 2011 and the treaty did not see the light of day in 2010. Obama and the Dems have too many front burner issues right now. There is no way this thing will be drug up until after the 2012 election if Obama wins a second term. Even with that if the election for Congress does not go Obama's way you will probably never see the treaties for a while.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 05:43 PM   #34
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,680
Quote:
It ain't in the proposed treaty. This is in the proposed treaty
Currently, there is no official draft of the treaty. That is what the past week in New York was about, to try and get a working draft that can be used to generate an actual treaty in the 2012 meetings. The "draft" on the UN website has been changed several times.

Keep in mind, the treaty referenced in the Senate letter is the Arms Trade Treaty, not the Inter-American Treaty

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; July 24, 2011 at 05:48 PM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 06:08 PM   #35
poptime
Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 2008
Location: foot of MT Rainier
Posts: 88
Notwithstanding

Quote:
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Notwithstanding...in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by.

i.e., nothing to the contrary in the Constitution can "withstand" a treaty.
poptime is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 06:15 PM   #36
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,084
Notwithstanding

Quote:
Originally Posted by United States Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(emphasis supplied)

I believe that the above-underlined clause means that such a treaty would trump State constitutions. I do not think it means that the UN treaty would trump the United States Constitution. That does, however, present it's own set of problems.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman

Last edited by Spats McGee; July 24, 2011 at 08:33 PM. Reason: spelling
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 06:22 PM   #37
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
I believe that the above-underlined clause means that such a treaty would trump State constitutions.
UN member countries are called member states.

Quote:
Keep in mind, the treaty referenced in the Senate letter is the Arms Trade Treaty,
i'm well versed on the proposed treaty.

Snopes on the proposed treaty:

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

factcheck:

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

Last edited by thallub; July 24, 2011 at 06:27 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 06:25 PM   #38
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,084
Yes, but the language quoted by poptime is from the US Constitution.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 07:34 PM   #39
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Yes, but the language quoted by poptime is from the US Constitution.
i will say again: A treaty does not trump the US Constitution.

This is the UN document that set the ground work for the proposed treaty. Look at the bottom paragraph on page 1.

http://www.disarm.emb-japan.go.jp/st...t/N0958107.pdf
thallub is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 08:19 PM   #40
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by thallub
i will say again: A treaty does not trump the US Constitution.
I understand that. I was simply pointing out (in reference to poptime's post) that "State," in the context of the clause quoted by poptime, is not the same as "State," in the context of the proposed treaty.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 08:25 PM   #41
poptime
Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 2008
Location: foot of MT Rainier
Posts: 88
Quote:
I believe that the above-underlined clause means that such a treaty would trump State constitutions. I do no think it means that the UN treaty would trump the United States Constitution. That does, however, present it's own set of problems.
Yes I can see that as the most likely interpretation. I do hope that is it.
poptime is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 09:56 PM   #42
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,680
Quote:
I am well versed on the proposed treaty
Then you understand that the resolution you are quoting is not part of the treaty but just an earlier resolution proposed by the U.S. when John Bolton was ambassador indicating the direction the U.S. thought the negotiations should go?

This last week, a large number of countries basically insisted the final treaty (which has not been drafted) require member states to adopt registration and restrictions on internal civilian sales as well. That view seems to be tempered by those nations who understand this will be both unworkable and kill the treaty; but the potential is there for a threat to our Second Amendment rights.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 25, 2011, 09:44 AM   #43
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
the potential is there for a threat to our Second Amendment rights.
Treaties have the standing of laws, and cannot alter the Constitution any more than ANY law can.

It takes an amendment.
brickeyee is offline  
Old July 25, 2011, 10:03 AM   #44
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,680
Quote:
Treaties have the standing of laws, and cannot alter the Constitution any more than ANY law can.
Correct, treaties cannot override the Constitution. However, as applied to the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty (or the CIFTA Treaty), that leaves us with two big problems.

Problem #1 is that at least 3 of the existing Supreme Court Justices (and likely 4 if we include Kagan) do not believe that an individual right to bear arms even exists in the Constitution. So they would have no problem finding this treaty constitutional if it were challenged in the Supreme Court. That leaves us either one or two votes away from losing if one of the majority from Heller is replaced by someone with a different view.

Problem #2 is that in the past week, several of the nations made calls for centralized registration of all firearms as a part of the treaty. So far, no case has challenged the constitutionality of registration of firearms and in fact, the argument that it is constitutional is good enough that even with no change in the current SCOTUS line-up, we might still lose that vote.

Right now, our biggest advantage is that the Senate hasn't shown the slightest inclination to ratify this treaty or any other arms treaty. For that reason alone, I don't consider the Arms Trade Treaty a very serious threat; but I don't think we should be complacent about it either. The reason it isn't a threat is because Senators on both sides understand that would cost them their jobs. We want to continue to make sure they don't forget that point.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 28, 2011, 12:32 PM   #45
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,680
Just in case you were wondering if the current Administration has changed its stance, they decided to clarify by making it clear they would continue to push Congress to ratify both CIFTA and the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty when it is presented (page 15-16):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa..._July_2011.pdf
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 31, 2011, 12:40 PM   #46
Dan F
Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 54
A bit belated, but here's a link to an article on the NRAILA website about the Senate letters to the Obama Administration expressing opposition to the ATT as it currently stands.

There are TWO letters, the one from Senator Moran (R - KA) mentioned above, with 45 signatories, and one from Senator Tester (D - MT), with 13.

I guess the Dems don't want to sign on to a Republican letter (they might seem bipartisan? Get cooties? I dunno...).

58 opposed... If this number doesn't change, due to defection, election, etc., the ATT will never pass.
Dan F is offline  
Old August 1, 2011, 08:50 AM   #47
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,680
Thanks for the update Dan_F, I was initially disappointed to see that none of the NRA-endorsed Dems signed the letter. I'm glad to learn that it was just a format thing and that those Senators didn't place party over the Second Amendment.

As you point out though, it means that as a practical reality, neither CIFTA nor a UN Small Arms Trade treaty incorporating civilian firearms will ever be ratified. A treaty would need 66 votes in the Senate to be ratified and an agreement would need 50.

With 58 Senators on our side and on the record, we can still defeat ratification of these types of treaties, even if as many as 20 Senators defected.

Looking to the longer term 2012-election view, here is a quick list of the 2012 elections. Senators who signed the NRA letter are in bold:

RETIRING:
1. Joe Lieberman CT
2. Daniel Akaka HI
3. Jeff Bingaman - NM
4. Kent Conrad - ND
5. Jim Webb - VA
6. Herb Kohl - WI
7. Jon Kyl - AZ
8. Kay Bailey Hutchison - TX

UP FOR REELECTION:
1. Diane Feinstien - CA
2. Tom Carper - DE
3. Bill Nelson - FL
4. Ben Cardin - MD
5. Debbie Stabenow - MI
6. Amy Klobuchar - MN
7. Claire McCaskill - MO
8. Jon Tester - MT
9. Ben Nelson - NE
10. Bob Menendez - NJ
11. Kirsten Gillibrand - NY
12. Sherrod Brown - OH
13. Bob Casey, Jr. - PA
14. Sheldon Whitehouse - RI
15. Bernie Sanders - VT
16. Maria Cantwell - WA
17. Joe Manchin - WV
18. Richard Lugar - IN
19. Olympia Snowe - ME
20. Scott Brown - MA
21. Roger Wicker - MI
22. Dean Heller - NV
23. Bob Corker - TN
24. Orrin Hatch - UT
25. John Barrasso - WY

As you can see, out of 33 seats up for election in 2012, only 15 Senators who signed that letter face a reelection challenge. That means even if the antis are successful in a clean sweep of every pro-RKBA Senator who signed the letter (which would entail the unlikely task of unseating long-term incumbents and replacing them with antis in states like MT, WY, TX, etc.) WITHOUT losing a single one of the other 18 races, they still wouldn't have the votes necessary to ratify a treaty if these Senators hold true to their signed pledge.

So as a realistic threat, it looks like neither of these treaties are going anywhere until 2014 at the earliest (and even that would require some unlikely wins by the antis in 2012).
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 24, 2011, 10:55 AM   #48
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
Chuck Norris on Treaty - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61942.html

Surprising for that site.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old August 25, 2011, 06:25 PM   #49
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Norris-Oba...8/24/id/408533

mike irwin, I saw the last post on my thread...can you expand what you mentioned about Chuck misrepresenting what the treaty would do? I am interested in this.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old August 25, 2011, 07:01 PM   #50
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,092
For over 50 years i've been an NRA member active in the fight against gun control.

What Norris is saying is absolutely not true. Norris and others who talk this stuff are pandering to the large number of US citizens who have no idea how our gov't works. Lies and rumors detract folks attention from the real threats to our 2nd Amendment rights.

1. There is no treaty.

2. There will be no treaty before next year.

3. If there is a treaty it will have the following caveat:

Quote:
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…
4. In Reid vs Covert the US Supreme Court ruled treaties do not supercede the US Constitution.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=354&page=1

This stuff has been flying around since early 2009. Someone ginned up a lie, posted it on the web and it went viral.

This one from last year claimed that the treaty was signed:

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

Last edited by thallub; August 25, 2011 at 07:12 PM.
thallub 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 09:42 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 0.15017 seconds with 7 queries