U.S. signs U.N. Gun Ban Treaty - Page 2

johnwilliamson062 · September 30, 2013, 05:19 PM

I don't think they are trying to sneak this in between elections so no one notices. They wanted to do it now so they can point to their attempts when addressing anti-gun voters and say 'democrats did not pass any restrictions on second amendment rights" to pro gun voters who will cool after the senate fails to ratify.
Just political pandering like the AWB that is introduced by one senator every year. I am sure the Brady campaign gives him a big hug even if no one co-sponsors it.

ronl · October 2, 2013, 09:05 PM

I can see how the wording of the document could lead to national registration of personally owned weapons. Let's say, just for fun, that in the future too many weapons are getting across the border into Mexico illegally. (Sound familiar?) We are required by the treaty to investigate, disclose and terminate such illegal trade. Well, says our government, we can't know the true scope of the illicit trade unless we have a record of all firearms in the country. Only then can we truly see just what is happening. Granted the idea seems far fetched to the common man with common sense, but we are dealing with a government that has apparently abandoned logical thought processes in order to pander to special interest groups and their own twisted mode of thinking. Also, never forget that just because the treaty sits unadopted by our Senate at the present time, it can be ratified at any time in the future. May I also remind you, regardless of how ludicrous the idea sounds, past administrations and particularly the one now in power, have had no qualms whatsoever trampling on the Constitution and our rights in order to further their political goals.

Cnon · October 20, 2013, 06:42 AM

Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) released a bipartisan letter this week signed by 48 of their colleagues pledging to oppose the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which Secretary of State John Kerry signed on behalf of the United States in September.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...tcmp=obnetwork

Cnon

scpapa · October 21, 2013, 10:42 AM

Just out of curiosity, could a future Sec of State recind the signature? That is "un-sign" the traty?

Rick

**Tom Servo** · October 21, 2013, 12:40 PM

It still has to get ratified by two thirds of the Senate. It's in the Constitution.

Valornor · October 21, 2013, 01:18 PM

Yes formally it should be ratified by the senate for it to take effect but I remember hearing somewhere that there are treaties we honor that we're never ratified. Some loophole that basically says we will honor it until such time as we ratify it. So if it never gets formally brought before the senate it's never nullified, so we just keep honoring it...

Frankly I think this treaty has been blown out of proportion. I don't like it, and I think it's a step in the wrong direction but I don't think it's the end of the world as some people keep saying it is.

October 20, 2013, 06:42 AM	#28
Cnon Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2005 Posts: 107	Good news from Washington -- UN Arms Trade Treaty DOA in US Senate Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) released a bipartisan letter this week signed by 48 of their colleagues pledging to oppose the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which Secretary of State John Kerry signed on behalf of the United States in September. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...tcmp=obnetwork Cnon

October 21, 2013, 10:42 AM	#29
scpapa Member Join Date: December 23, 2007 Location: Central South Carolina Posts: 89	Just out of curiosity, could a future Sec of State recind the signature? That is "un-sign" the traty? Rick __________________ NRA Training Counselor NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor Member IALEFI, SCLEOA

October 21, 2013, 12:40 PM	#30
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	It still has to get ratified by two thirds of the Senate. It's in the Constitution. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

September 30, 2013, 05:19 PM	#26
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	I don't think they are trying to sneak this in between elections so no one notices. They wanted to do it now so they can point to their attempts when addressing anti-gun voters and say 'democrats did not pass any restrictions on second amendment rights" to pro gun voters who will cool after the senate fails to ratify. Just political pandering like the AWB that is introduced by one senator every year. I am sure the Brady campaign gives him a big hug even if no one co-sponsors it.

October 2, 2013, 09:05 PM	#27
ronl Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 2007 Posts: 1,100	I can see how the wording of the document could lead to national registration of personally owned weapons. Let's say, just for fun, that in the future too many weapons are getting across the border into Mexico illegally. (Sound familiar?) We are required by the treaty to investigate, disclose and terminate such illegal trade. Well, says our government, we can't know the true scope of the illicit trade unless we have a record of all firearms in the country. Only then can we truly see just what is happening. Granted the idea seems far fetched to the common man with common sense, but we are dealing with a government that has apparently abandoned logical thought processes in order to pander to special interest groups and their own twisted mode of thinking. Also, never forget that just because the treaty sits unadopted by our Senate at the present time, it can be ratified at any time in the future. May I also remind you, regardless of how ludicrous the idea sounds, past administrations and particularly the one now in power, have had no qualms whatsoever trampling on the Constitution and our rights in order to further their political goals.

October 21, 2013, 01:18 PM	#31
Valornor Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2010 Location: Orem, Utah Posts: 244	Yes formally it should be ratified by the senate for it to take effect but I remember hearing somewhere that there are treaties we honor that we're never ratified. Some loophole that basically says we will honor it until such time as we ratify it. So if it never gets formally brought before the senate it's never nullified, so we just keep honoring it... Frankly I think this treaty has been blown out of proportion. I don't like it, and I think it's a step in the wrong direction but I don't think it's the end of the world as some people keep saying it is.