The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 25, 2011, 10:07 PM   #51
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by thallub
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.
Really? What and when did I say anything about the proposed treaty that was not true? What stuff am I talking about that is supposedly pandering?

Since you have called me out by name, put up or shut up.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 26, 2011, 12:11 AM   #52
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,664
Thallub --

I think most of us here know that even a treaty cannot supersede the Constitution but that doesn't tell the whole story.

Before, McDonald and Heller, it was not firmly established that the 2A had anything to do with protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms. In fact, most lower courts had ruled otherwise. Even after these cases, the lower federal courts have generally read these cases very narrowly, some so narrowly that they believe the 2A applies only to a revover kept in your home. There are lots of posts on these cases and Al Norris has done a herculean job in keeping up with the major cases.

Given the fledgling nature of 2A jurisprudence and demonstrated hostility of many on the bench, it would be unwise to assume the courts will take on the mantle of champions for 2A rights. Some members of the Supreme Court believe it is perfectly appropriate to consider current international law in interpreting our constitution. Thus, it is entirely plausible for the Court could refer to the U.N. treaty and other international law to help define the scope of our 2A rights, especially if we are signatories to the treaty.

So, what might the treaty do to infringe upon our rights, or, rather, upon our privileges? We don't know for sure since the treaty has not been drafted. However, a look at CIFTA might provide some insight as to what many countries believe to be appropriate regulation of small arms.

The operative provision of the treaty starts out with a BANG! It defines "illicit manufacturing" as the manufacture or assembly of firearms or ammunition from components illicitly trafficked or manufacture or assembly without a license from the government. Art.I, sec.1. Thus, every reloader would have to be licensed. Even reloading with the little Lee Classic Loader would require a license. Article VIII would require confiscation of any illicitly manufactured firearms or ammo and would prohibit auction or sale to private business or individuals.

Is there a constitutional right to reload ammo? My copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about it and I'm not sure how many shooters would consider this a fundamental right. Certainly, a hostile judiciary would not.

Furthermore, the president would likely have authority to implement many aspects of the treaty without Congressional approval. The treaty, ratified by the Senate as contemplated by the Constitution, would give the president that authority. The national government would not implement full changes immediately; but creeping, incremental change would occur.

Don't let the hyperbole of a few people blind you to the real possibility of what might happen. Maybe I'm wrong about all this but I, for one, do not wish to take that chance.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old August 26, 2011, 04:50 AM   #53
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
Al, thallub isn't calling you out!

He's talking about CHUCK Norris!

__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old August 26, 2011, 05:23 AM   #54
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
"Don't let the hyperbole of a few people blind you to the real possibility of what might happen."

Yep...

Then again, the skies might go black, the earth split open, and a host of Rosie O'Donnells from Hell might crawl forth to scourge the land.

Right now NRA and Chuck Norris are ignoring the treaty guidance as it has been published and conveying the image that 5 seconds after US ratification, Obama will open the doors to secret staging areas and a powder-blue helmet army will issue forth to confiscate privately owned firearms.

It's a bit... disingenuous.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old August 26, 2011, 05:40 AM   #55
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Since you have called me out by name, put up or shut up.
Well, Al: i didn't mean to get you on my case. Next time i'll specify Chuck Norris.


Quote:
Furthermore, the president would likely have authority to implement many aspects of the treaty without Congressional approval. The treaty, ratified by the Senate as contemplated by the Constitution, would give the president that authority. The national government would not implement full changes immediately; but creeping, incremental change would occur.
If one dares to violate the new UN mandate; the bluehats could haul you off to one of those FEMA internment camps that Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno personally manage. The spectre of Janet Reno in leather, carrying a whip is just too much for some.

Last edited by thallub; August 26, 2011 at 05:50 AM.
thallub is online now  
Old August 26, 2011, 07:12 AM   #56
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Chuck Norris?

Who's he?
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 26, 2011, 07:36 AM   #57
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
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…
While I generally agree that the UN Treaty doesn't represent a credible threat at this time (in part because of the work of the NRA), I wouldn't rely too much on the above resolution. It merely indicates where the U.S. wanted to go with the treaty when John Bolton was still ambassador. The new U.S. ambassador is the former Mayor of Seattle who attempted to implement gun bans even when the state of Washington's preemption law prohibited it - he fought it all the way to litigation even. And beyond that, this is only the U.S. view and may not prevail in any case.

So when the treaty is actually drafted, I would expect this provision to be eliminated entirely or rendered toothless. The good news is that as long as the Senators mentioned earlier hold true; we could suffer massive losses in 2012 and still be able to defeat ratification of a treaty until at least 2014.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 26, 2011, 10:13 AM   #58
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,732
Not to divert but from what alternate dimension would the UN get enough troops to do anything in the USA?

Mike - I think the earthquake in VA was the portal opening up for those troops to come to our Earth?

But Chuck can take them on. Didn't he save Florida from invasion single handedly?
__________________
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 26, 2011, 10:43 AM   #59
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
"Not to divert but from what alternate dimension would the UN get enough troops to do anything in the USA?"

The Chinese look very fetching in powder blue helmets...

Indians, not so much, but they can pull it off.

Come on, Glenn, you know a "threat" doesn't have to be realistic in order for it to be effective. The big lie, and all that...

Or, in this case, the big fib.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old August 26, 2011, 02:59 PM   #60
Bernie Lomax
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2010
Posts: 161
Quote:
But Chuck can take them on. Didn't he save Florida from invasion single handedly?
Yup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHGB...eature=related

__________________
"People in Arizona carry guns. You better be careful about who you are picking on."--Detective David Ramer, Chandler police spokesman
Bernie Lomax is offline  
Old August 26, 2011, 03:39 PM   #61
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,968
Does that say anything about civillians in foriegn countrys owning full auto rifles? What they gonna do about them folks? or is this a US only treaty?

Chuck Norris is old now, he had issues in the ring so he went hollywood with sammo and jackie chan....

Superfoot was a better fighter......

Chuck lost all credibility for me here and he is the only western man to achive the level he has achieved in his art. Too bad he is all "I want ot be in the news" like all them hollywood creeps.

Nuge was the first to go, I turn him off when his songs play...sold out for publicity.
markj is offline  
Old August 27, 2011, 12:51 AM   #62
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
to me chuck will always be

"Forced Vengeance" and oh yeah I guess I have to throw "missing in action" in there too.

thanx for explaining that stuff more but I have one issue: many pro gun and anti gun issues are played out this very same way...same as politics w/republicans and democrats, so what makes that any different
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 04:27 AM   #63
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,688
I notice a lot of discussion about the UN treaty recently. It seems many people are unaware of the already signed CIFTA treaty or the political realities in play. While it is still important that we make our voices heard with our Senators, I thought this thread was worth bringing back up to keep people informed.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 06:52 AM   #64
misnomerga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 137
Do we really trust the Senate

I read that 58 Senators out of 100 stand ready to vote against ratifying any treaty coming out of the U.N. concerning foreign regulation of the rights of U.S. citizen's gun rights. I am concerned that the number is not higher than 58. That tells me we should not take for granted that either CIFTA or UN Treaty will not be ratified. As one poster stated the balance of the Senate is crucial to preservation of our rights.
misnomerga is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 07:44 AM   #65
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 636
This discussion shows how important it is to vote. I know more than one gunowner who says almost every election: "My one vote doesn't matter at all." That's what I call a 'DULLARD'
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 09:51 AM   #66
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,257
I have a question:

Last night I saw former Ambassador Bolton on a news talk show explaining that the U.S. already regulates arms sales to foriegn countries, and that we have some of the best regulations in the world dealing with import and export of weapons. He also stated that many of the U.N. members pushing for this ban are countries that export freely without much regulation. His point being that the Administration just wants to become party to the treaty so they can have another tool to slow the LEGAL American imports, exports and domestic sales of firearms.

Mr. Bolton is no hack, he has been there and seen that, so I tend to agree with him. What do you think?
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 09:58 AM   #67
misnomerga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 137
That gives life to the old adage

coined by Niccolò Machiavelli, "The ends justify the means". Whatever it takes to accomplish their goal even if it means subverting our government and Constitution to do it.
misnomerga is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 02:14 PM   #68
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
To me as much as anything it seems like this is in part a covert way to choke american gun manfacturing... Making foreign sales harder or impossible hurts the bottom financial line...
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 10:44 PM   #69
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,664
Part of the problem with CIFTA and other arms treaties is that once signed, they could sit unratified for many years but then ratified when the right membership of the Senate is in place. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution took 203 years to ratify once proposed but it is now part of our Constitution.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old July 14, 2012, 05:01 AM   #70
misnomerga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 137
I learn something new

every day! Thanks Jim for that info. I did not know that about treaties. Basically there is no expiration date on those things, ouch. They just lay in the weeds till the right time and they get ratified. That scares the crap out of me. Thank goodness for groups like the NRA that can keep reminding us to keep our vigilance up.
misnomerga is offline  
Old July 14, 2012, 06:30 PM   #71
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
Part of the problem with CIFTA and other arms treaties is that once signed, they could sit unratified for many years but then ratified when the right membership of the Senate is in place. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution took 203 years to ratify once proposed but it is now part of our Constitution.
Bingo, and this is one of the things that worries me.
__________________
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 14, 2012, 08:27 PM   #72
mes227
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2010
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 535
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
Part of the problem with CIFTA and other arms treaties is that once signed, they could sit unratified for many years but then ratified when the right membership of the Senate is in place. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution took 203 years to ratify once proposed but it is now part of our Constitution.
Bingo, and this is one of the things that worries me.
True, but there's a world of difference between a Constitutional amendment and a treaty. No treaty can ever supersede the Constitution. It can, however, cause a lot of controversy and years of legal wrangling.
mes227 is offline  
Old July 15, 2012, 06:31 AM   #73
misnomerga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 137
Even though it may not be a Constitutional Amendment a ratified treaty does in affect allow the government to wield power that they perceive is theirs. As an example, the NAFTA Treaty (North American Fair Trade Agreement), has greatly affected the lives of every American whether you are for it or against it. I fear there would be similar repercussions from this U.N. Treaty if it were ever ratified.
misnomerga is offline  
Old July 15, 2012, 08:14 AM   #74
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyoredman
Last night I saw former Ambassador Bolton on a news talk show explaining that the U.S. already regulates arms sales to foriegn countries, and that we have some of the best regulations in the world dealing with import and export of weapons. He also stated that many of the U.N. members pushing for this ban are countries that export freely without much regulation. His point being that the Administration just wants to become party to the treaty so they can have another tool to slow the LEGAL American imports, exports and domestic sales of firearms.
Since we already have more stringent controls than would be required by the treaty, there is no reason to participate in the treaty except as a symbolic, feel-good act.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 17, 2012, 10:29 AM   #75
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,732
Law of the Sea sinks: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78568.html

Doesn't a vote like this, tell the rational mind that a treaty loaded with seemingly gun control issues has zero chance of passage. Thus, the attack of Rosy O'Donnells is precluded.

Glenn
__________________
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  
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 07:31 AM.


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 0.15047 seconds with 7 queries