thallub said:
Quote:
The UN Small Arms treaty is a red herring issue: The folks who start this stuff are counting on the fact that many gunowners will react to threats to their Second Amendment rights, real or imagined, without first vetting them.
No UN treaty trumps the US Constitution. The SCOTUS ruled so in 1957. Read Reid Vs. Covert:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0001_ZO.html
It is the policy of the UN not to interfere with the rights of gunowners in member countries. It says so in the proposed Treaty outline:
http://www.disarm.emb-japan.go.jp/st...t/N0958107.pdf
Read the last two paragraphs on the first page.
Quote:
Quote:
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…
|
|
Sir, I think you are being very naive. The danger is never that they're going to break down our doors and take our guns today. It's the creeping incremental approach that is worrisome.
The constitutional "right" has only been recently recognized by the Supreme Court. Litigation abounds about what is and what will be permissible. The Supreme Court has already said some regulation will be allowed. While a treaty may not directly result in handguns being banned, it may certainly impact gun owners a great deal.
Like shooting that Eastern European AK-47? Kiss it goodbye as imports of the gun could easily be banned (where are all those nice Chinese Norincos?). All the European guns could be banned. Springfield Armory would probably be forced out of business. All the ammo from both Europe and Mexico could likewise be banned.
That's just some of the low hanging fruit. It could get much worse.