 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Obama's U.N. strategy ????
Did U.N. remarks reveal Obama global gun control strategy?
At least one veteran Capitol Hill lawmaker is reportedly furious over a revealing comment contained in remarks delivered the other day to the United Nations by Laura E. Kennedy, this country’s permanent representative to the Conference on Disarmament.
Did U.N. remarks reveal Obama global gun control strategy? - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
This also popped up today on Orbusmax:
Global gun control law pushed by Clinton - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com
This has me very worried. My new problem will be deciding on what's my priority: More guns or more ammo for the guns I already have. Sigh...
Keep up the good work, Dave!
If anyone is surprised by this, they haven't been paying attention. But really, the chances of any international edict overriding the Constitution seems extremely remote to any but the tin foil hat set.
Waiting for the Administration's apologists to comment here...
One just did, see post #4 above!Originally Posted by BroncoFan
Is there language that is directly related to controlling gun ownership/subverting the 2A in the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials documents? If this is the same thing I looked into and read from about 5-6 years ago then there isn't anything in it that addresses gun ownership in the US. Seems like this comes up a couple times a year like it's a brand new thing.
Sounds like more politicking for the base, elect me or there will be more guns/rapes/underwater mortgages, global warming, pollution, high health care costs, dogs and cats living together...
He won't push the issue hard because it would remind voters that he's been the largest illegal arms trafficker in the US. Plus with his low poll numbers he's just about a lame duck already, enough of his party would vote against it. Not much chance of the economy turning around next year so what he's hoping for is to get lucky in his opponent. The worry is that somehow he does get re-elected and with politics behind him he's free to backdoor stuff like this in. Vote like your freedoms depend on it.
YES there is. I don't want to have to get a license to reload, or make modifications to my guns.
If I want to replace the bottom metal on my Remmy to accept a detachable mag, I don't want to have to register that modification with the dotgov,...
Do you?
I haven't built an AR yet, but would like to eventually, and wouldn't like to be forced to buy a license, and be registered with the dotgov to do so.
Would you?
I don't want my local shop to have to register every transaction for brass, bullets, powder, primers and/or equipment.
Too many dealers would just quit before they jump through the regulatory and registration hassles this nightmare creates.
Why is it you lefties scream bloody murder when a conservative admin asks for more intervention in your lives, but seem to think it's okay for your guy to do it?
Don't you realize that once you give the dotgov the power, it will be wielded by ALL admins that follow?
Is the patriot act better now because there is a lefty admin in power at the moment?
And will it go back to being "bad" if a conservative gets elected next time?
Or does it just suck because it is intrusive and unconstitutional, regardless of which political faction holds the reins?
Maybe a reading comprehension class would help you out. How any sentient individual could construe my comment as being supportive of the current administration is beyond me. I will break it down into small words for you: This is one more lame attempt by a lame band of idiots to curb our rights. Nothing passed in the UN, (United Nations, Google it if you don't understand the term), will ever override the US Constitution. Feel free to apologize.
Kevatc, you asked the question and a response has been given. Please now address the answer.
" The right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law."
- Martin Luther King
Not true. An international treaty ratified by congress gains constitutional power. That is how the treaty clause has been understood anyway. The interesting (or scary) legal dilemma would be if the treaty was circumventing something within the constitution. To resolve that, the case would have to go the Supreme Court. Does anyone here have the full faith that the Supreme Court would render a proper decision?
(keep in mind that not that long ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has the right under eminent domain to take away private property and give it to another private entity (real estate developer) if that will generate more tax revenue.
Here's the document in question: INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS
If you don't read the word illicit then yes, it sounds like the treaty would drastically infringe on our 2A. However, the term illicit is used extensively.
Most importantly is the following:
Article III Sovereignty
1. States Parties shall carry out the obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of states and that of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states.
2. A State Party shall not undertake in the territory of another State Party the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions which are exclusively reserved to the authorities of that other State Party by its domestic law.
If you read this entire document and overlook (intentionally or otherwise) that it is about illicit arms trafficking and manufacture then I can see why the "sky is falling". Further, if you choose to ignore the quoted part above then it would appear that all is lost. Remember this treaty has been looking for traction since 1997 and hasn't received any epecially in the US. IMO, this particular topic is brought up on a regular basis on all the gun forums magazines and other media outlets in order to keep the gun community in a constant state of anxiety. If the current administration is choosing this as something to pursue despite all the other much more important and pressing issues then not only do they deserve to lose but they unequivocally should lose.
That's one more reason we HAVE to make Nobama a one term president. **** we can even impeach him ... They impeached Clinton for getting a blow job from a secretary but they don;t impeach Obama for running us into the ground.
RON PAUL for President 2012 ... Hopefully everybody will vote for him ...
So who defines illicit? For the purposes of this treaty, others (than U.S. legislators) do.
Per Merriam-Webster:
il·lic·it
adj \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈli-sət\
Definition of ILLICIT
: not permitted : unlawful
— il·lic·it·ly adverb
Try this:<SNIP>ARTICLE I
Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply:
1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:
a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or
b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or
c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.<SNIP>ARTICLE VI
Marking of Firearms
1. For the purposes of identification and tracing of the firearms referred to in Article I.3.a, States Parties shall:
a. require, at the time of manufacture, appropriate markings of the name of manufacturer, place of manufacture, and serial number;Currently, the U.S. has no provisions within the framework of the constitution to allow this infringement of the 2ND Amendment.6. "Other related materials": any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.
To allow or support the ratification of this treaty is A DIRECT ATTEMPT TO INFRINGE on my rights as a gun owner, hobbyist gunsmith, reloader, and citizen of the U.S.
But since it doesn't directly say I can't have a gun, it could possibly be construed as permissible in legalese.
To think otherwise is simply political naivete.
Now I am certain that if this nightmare were ratified, that we, through the NRA, ILA, NSSF etc. could/would fight these infringements in court, and most likely win, depending on whose appointments are on the bench.
I will guaran-damned-tee you that with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg on the SCOTUS bench, it would be a close call.
And why should we have to?
After all, the biggest and worst case of illicit gun trafficking perpetrated since gun laws became the norm, was and is being perpetrated by those in THIS administration.
This admin, by advocating for ratification of CIFTA has proven once again how out of touch it is with the citizens of the U.S. and the very documents that this country was founded on.
Furthermore, anyone that believes this might even be a good idea in some instances, need to think for a minute about the excesses and oversteps the BATFE has perpetrated in the past.
They would naturally be the agency involved in the administration and enforcement of the laws needed to comply with this treaty.
Do you really want them to have that much more power?
That much more reason to investigate you?
Do you really want that many more forms to fill out, or licenses to get/maintain?
I recently revisited the communist goals list put to congress in 1963. I'd say that this effort falls in line with goals three and eleven just fine.
Communist Agenda List
Better question to ask is - don't the countries involved in this treaty have laws against international weapons trade without government regulation and approval?
My bad ... I corrected my post.Uhhh, I think you misinterpreted what exactly happen with Miss Lewinski there bud.
Along the same lines, the ruling class in the US subscribe to the Weberian notion that violence is the sole domain of the state, therefore one can infer that they also believe private (i.e. non-state) ownership of firearms (the most effective tools of violence) to be illicit and illegal. Hence the "sporting purpose" clause in GCA68 (which was copied directly from Nazi legislation, but I digress).
DC vs Heller failed to address "sporting purpose" which is why the OP's treaty is still a direct threat to 2A absolutists. The US government still has unilateral power to simply define guns out of the legal market (e.g. handguns have no sporting purpose), so with a cooperating US legislature that treaty can pass and not violate US "law".
The sporting purpose clause is the foot in the door to all gun control efforts, as long as it exists 2A is in grave danger.
As Jamie6.5 noted, it's all in what the meaning of "is" is and who defines the terminology.
Posting Permissions
9Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks