|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 17, 2012, 11:18 AM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 139
|
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?
|
July 17, 2012, 07:41 PM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
July 18, 2012, 06:34 AM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 139
|
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.
|
July 18, 2012, 07:41 AM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 24, 2010
Location: Austin, Tejas
Posts: 110
|
Reid v. Covert established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties.
|
July 18, 2012, 08:57 AM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 20, 2012, 04:45 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 139
|
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 |
July 20, 2012, 09:31 AM | #82 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
|
|
July 20, 2012, 03:17 PM | #83 |
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. |
July 21, 2012, 10:45 AM | #84 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
|
|
July 24, 2012, 03:45 PM | #85 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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. |
July 24, 2012, 05:48 PM | #86 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
From the proposed treaty, Preamble item 9:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 24, 2012, 06:29 PM | #87 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Also note what is missing from this description:
Quote:
|
|
July 25, 2012, 10:45 AM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 25, 2012, 02:49 PM | #89 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
You could make that argument. Unfortunately, international law is even more full of vague undefined terms and nonsense than U. S. law.
|
July 25, 2012, 06:17 PM | #90 |
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. |
July 25, 2012, 09:39 PM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
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.
|
July 26, 2012, 12:05 PM | #92 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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. |
July 26, 2012, 06:32 PM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
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 Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
July 26, 2012, 09:25 PM | #94 |
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 |
July 26, 2012, 10:40 PM | #95 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 27, 2012, 06:44 AM | #96 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
And c'mon folks, do we really have to panic about something to begin with?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
July 27, 2012, 07:27 AM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 20, 2002
Posts: 2,108
|
Quote:
|
|
July 27, 2012, 07:44 AM | #98 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
wingman, where and what are we losing?
Paying attention to what is going on is helpful. Panic however, is non-productive. |
July 27, 2012, 08:09 AM | #99 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 27, 2012, 08:22 AM | #100 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|