The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 17, 2012, 11:18 AM   #76
misnomerga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 137
So how does this work though, once a treaty comes up for a vote on the Senate floor and does not get ratified. Does it simply get put back in the drawer and pulled out again at a later date when conditions for it's ratification are more favorable?
misnomerga is offline  
Old July 17, 2012, 07:41 PM   #77
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,718
Quote:
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.
That treaty has been kicking around for awhile now and it looks like the vote might be somewhat close. Who's to say what might happen in five years. It's been hanging around for a long time and I think you and I are both old enough to understand how attitudes can change over time. That's the reason Heller and McDonald were so important. They at least establish, legally, a baseline.
__________________
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 online now  
Old July 18, 2012, 06:34 AM   #78
misnomerga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 137
So unlike the legal system where if a person is tried and found innocent they cannot be tried again on the same charges a la O.J. Simpson, treaties can come back over and over again over time to be voted on more than once? That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. I believe treaties are not open ended in that they have to be re-ratified so the hope is if we ever sign up for something stupid we can nix it the next time we are asked to re-up.
misnomerga is offline  
Old July 18, 2012, 07:41 AM   #79
Nico Testosteros
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 24, 2010
Location: Austin, Tejas
Posts: 110
Reid v. Covert established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties.
Nico Testosteros is offline  
Old July 18, 2012, 08:57 AM   #80
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,799
misnomerga - can we have a reality check? Of course, an item can come back to be voted on again. It happens with legislation all the time.

That's not a disaster, if you like a bill or a treaty - it might be a good thing.

So you don't like this treaty and thus the normal workings of the legislative branch is a disaster. Hey, sometimes shall issue bills had to be voted on several times. Disaster waiting to happen for the antigun world!!

Vote for people who support your position, that's the way it works.

If someone says they support the AWB, which keeps coming back, don't vote for them. If someone says they support campus carry, which keeps coming back, vote for them.
__________________
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 July 20, 2012, 04:45 AM   #81
misnomerga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 137
Glenn,

Did not intend to irritate you just simply wanted to make sure I resolved all my questions. Sometimes it is better to ask even a stupid question and get a very spot on answer. Some claim the 5th amendment, I claim Newton's unspoken law of physics I am just dense sometimes LOL
misnomerga is offline  
Old July 20, 2012, 09:31 AM   #82
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Testosteros
Reid v. Covert established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties.
That's true, however that which a past Supreme Court has decided can be UNdecided by a future Supreme Court. Remember that Justice Ginsberg (the same Justice Ginsberg who thinks the United States Supreme Court should look to international law rather than to the language and original intent of our Constitution for interpreting said Constitution) has gone on record as believing that the SCOTUS should reverse some previous decisions.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 20, 2012, 03:17 PM   #83
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
On a related side note.. I just got a call from the NRA about this.. Apparently they are supposed to be launching the biggest NRA TV advertising campaign in the NRAs history on this subject.

Its supposed to be a unpresidented media blitz.
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; July 20, 2012 at 04:21 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 21, 2012, 10:45 AM   #84
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Apparently they are supposed to be launching the biggest NRA TV advertising campaign in the NRAs history on this subject.
Too bad the organization i've belonged to for over 50 years is spending money on this misinformation campaign. That money could be better spent in a campaign to reform the BATFE.
thallub is offline  
Old July 24, 2012, 03:45 PM   #85
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
The UN has proposed a draft of the final treaty. The language in that treaty can be found here: http://www.thegunmag.com/breaking-ne...es-small-arms/

As currently written, the treaty will regulate small arms and light weapons (pretty much any kind of firearm) the same as attack helicopters and missiles.

Edited to add IAPCAR's link to the full proposed treaty, which appears to be identical to the link above at first glance:
http://iapcar.org/?p=970

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; July 26, 2012 at 11:21 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 24, 2012, 05:48 PM   #86
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
From the proposed treaty, Preamble item 9:

Quote:
Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
From the Protocol mentioned above:
Quote:
Article 3:
(d) “Illicit manufacturing” shall mean the manufacturing or assembly of firearms, their parts and components or ammunition:
(ii) Without a licence or authorization from a competent authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place;

Article 5:
1. Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the following conduct, when committed intentionally:
(a) Illicit manufacturing of firearms, their parts and components and ammunition;
gc70 is offline  
Old July 24, 2012, 06:29 PM   #87
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Also note what is missing from this description:

Quote:
Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
Looks like the invidious sporting purposes clause written on a global scale. No mention of self-defense in the context of lawful private ownership.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 25, 2012, 10:45 AM   #88
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,799
Wouldn't 'cultural and historic' include the USA's view. Esp. since Heller noted the historical precedents for self defense here?

Just asking.

I grant you that sporting and hunting is still the bleat of some folks who claim to support the 2nd but are clearly gun banners.
__________________
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 July 25, 2012, 02:49 PM   #89
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
You could make that argument. Unfortunately, international law is even more full of vague undefined terms and nonsense than U. S. law.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 25, 2012, 06:17 PM   #90
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Im no legal scholar... so those of you that are what are we looking at if this thing ever gets ratified? What is the probable end result? Certainly the Supremes must have some say here? Right? Wrong?
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; July 25, 2012 at 06:26 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 25, 2012, 09:39 PM   #91
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,718
Obviously a treaty cannot override the Constitution but there's arguably room for regulations and restrictions that would impact a lot of us without violating the Constitution. For example, the possible requirement to obtain a license to reload or perhaps magazine capacity limits. I'm not saying either of those actually are constitutional, just that an unfriendly administration might think they are and impose them.
__________________
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 online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:05 PM   #92
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Informative article by Reuters that gets into the actual treaty ratification process - though it raises as many questions as it answers. It looks possible that the treaty will not make it out of the Arms Trade Treaty conference due to dissent among the various participants.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...8IO8XK20120724

That would not be the end of the treaty as it could still be brought up in the UN General Assembly; but there appears to be a decent chance that it doesn't pass even the UN. It also appears that ammunition was dropped from the treaty.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 06:32 PM   #93
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,513
Before you think the UN Arms Treaty isn't a problem read the draft, pay attention to Article 20, Amendments.

After the treaty is radified, any member state can submit amendments, to be voted on by 2/3s of present members, then they become part of the treaty without having to go back to the Senate for radification.

Looks to me like this treaty is nothing more then a Pandora's Box.

I know my two senators wont vote to ratify it, but that's only two, we need at least 1/3 +1 senater to kill the treaty.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:25 PM   #94
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Well as I said in 2010 no interest in Senator Reid of rocking the political boat. The problem will be if Obama gets a second term. Listening to him lately he seems to live in his own world of reality. He might try some shenanigans via executive order.

In the Senate it only takes 34 to oppose a treaty to sink it..pardon the pun.

However, are there not USSC Rulings on treaties that say they can not over ride the U.S Constitution?
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:40 PM   #95
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,522
Quote:
However, are there not USSC Rulings on treaties that say they can not over ride the U.S Constitution?
Yep, in Reid v. Covert.

At this point, good luck finding many congresscritters willing to stick their heads up and vote for ratification. This thing is too public and too controversial. I really wish this whole thing would die down so folks could find something else to panic about.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 06:44 AM   #96
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,205
Quote:
I really wish this whole thing would die down so folks could find something else to panic about.
I couldn't agree more.
And c'mon folks, do we really have to panic about something to begin with?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 07:27 AM   #97
wingman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2002
Posts: 2,074
Quote:
I really wish this whole thing would die down so folks could find something else to panic about.
Panic with the current administration seems to me a good thing we've been sticking our head in the sand and saying I'm ok for far too many years and we're losing.
wingman is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 07:44 AM   #98
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
wingman, where and what are we losing?

Paying attention to what is going on is helpful. Panic however, is non-productive.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 08:09 AM   #99
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,522
Quote:
Panic with the current administration seems to me a good thing we've been sticking our head in the sand and saying I'm ok for far too many years and we're losing.
I'm sorry, but who's this "we" you're referencing?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 08:22 AM   #100
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
At this point, good luck finding many congresscritters willing to stick their heads up and vote for ratification. This thing is too public and too controversial. I really wish this whole thing would die down so folks could find something else to panic about.
I totally agree with you Tom but lets face it at some point this or another treaty will almost certainly be a serious contender for ratification... It might be 10 year or 100 years down the road..

I look to how the SCOTUS did not affirm the 2A for what? Well over 200 years.... Im sure someones got a more exact number but basically it seems the assumption was the 2A would always stand and then over time political winds changed. The absence of a ruling was tantamount to saying the 2A had little standing and every anti gun law in the world was allowed. I personally see it as a epic failure and one Im not proud of as a citizen..

A government that truly understands the constitution and the rulings of the SCOTUS you would think would make some clear points about the language of such treatys... Truly what does it say about our government?

We the people will pay for our ever continuing lack to understand the people we are electing and the laws and treatys they are willing to pass in our names..
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; July 27, 2012 at 09:44 AM.
BGutzman 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 11:39 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 0.14862 seconds with 7 queries