JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I've posted or linked to a Supreme Court decision about this three times in the last week...

Found it.

When the two relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both...

So, it is not hard to imagine that such a UN treaty could be signed and put into law and co-exist right along side the 2nd amendment, which the case you sited above shows the courts will endeavor to do.

There obviously would be no more "contradiction" in the two (US Constitution/UN treaty) than there is a "contradiction" in any gun control law currently.

Thanks for the information and your patience.
 
LOL. Let's recap.


Please tell me about these "conspiracies" that have "become the norm". Outside of the ones between the executive branch and military contractors. Or oil companies.

I'm not going to dignify your ad-hominem attack with a response.

This was answered by Jamie6.5

If you think bringing a vote to the floor of The House and/or Senate in the middle of the night (as has been done multiple times in this congress) isn't underhanded and/or conspiratorial you are delusional.
They didn't want the public to witness their acts. They did what they could to hide them from voters. This conduct also serves to silence dissenting opinions, as most voters can't stay up to watch C-SPAN etc. to witness the proceedings and call their reps. Any message left on the Rep's answering machine isn't heard until after the fact.

You followed up with

GWB started it, BHO is gladly continuing it. I blame both history and Obama's current failure as a leader.

You asked a specific question that Jamie6.5 answered with one example of many possible answers. The first thing in your follow up sentence was "GWB started it"! LOL.

You are quite obviously a very intelligent guy and pretty well educated. A future lawyer. I would point out that the people who have been running this country into the ground for many years are also very well educated and very intelligent. It might pay to listen to some of the "average guys" in spite of our limited intelligence. lol

 
Found it.



So, it is not hard to imagine that such a UN treaty could be signed and put into law and co-exist right along side the 2nd amendment, which the case you sited above shows the courts will endeavor to do.

There obviously would be no more "contradiction" in the two (US Constitution/UN treaty) than there is a "contradiction" in any gun control law currently.

Thanks for the information and your patience.

You're welcome! Thanks for your patience, and your serious questions.

I haven't been trying to have discussion isn't about whether or not a particular law contradicts the Second Amendment - there's a general agreement here that most gun control laws do. Unfortunately in our legal system, a law can only be considered to contradict the Constitution when the Supreme Court says it does. For that reason, I'm basing my arguments on what the law currently is, rather than what we might want it to be.

When I say that a treaty is like any other law, I'm using the word "law" to mean "federal statute." If a treaty says something that contradicts a previous statute, then whatever the treaty says is the law. If a statute says something that contradicts a previous treaty, then whatever the statute says is law.

Our escape valve in this situation is that it's much easier to pass a statute, or take case with important Constitutional implications to the Supreme Court, than it is ratify a treaty. Even if the President were to sign, and the Senate were to ratify a treaty with an egregious, unconstitutional provision, there are clear safety measures in our system of "checks and balances" that will (and you'll have to trust me on this part) eventually bring the law in line with the basic will of the American electorate.

At the end of the day, it's that last bit we really have to worry about: as long as we keep winning the battle for gun rights in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens, it's quite unlikely that those rights will be reduced. If we lose the battle, Congress could pass strict gun control laws (or ratify terrible treaties) and the courts would go along with it.

Point being, these things can't just sneak by through loopholes in the political system. It was set up pretty well to begin with, and it's now being watched over like a hawk by so many lobbyists and special interest groups that threats to special interests like ours will never go unnoticed or unopposed. Even extremely controversial measures like the health care bill, which keeps getting brought up in this context: the DC lawyers and lobbyists on every side of the debate know exactly what's in those 1,500 pages. There are tens of thousands of people wasting their intelligence in that business, and they're very good at what they do.

I keep coming around in circles to what I've been trying to say all along: Arms-control treaties don't pose any special threat - beyond the threats that already exist - to gun rights, and people ought to stop freaking out about them.


And I think I've exhausted what I have to say on this topic... Thanks for playing, everyone... :D
 
no, don't go-

based on future SCJ decisions, how would you GUESS Sotomayor or Kagan MIGHT decide on an issue like this? Just asking an opinion, as they might be around for a while.

Vigilence is most definitely the key, and to me personally, I would rather get 100 dup e-mails than miss one important one. Try to imagine something crazy like suddenly realizing that we are not only a member of some global bank entity, but the major contributor to it. Worse, billions of American dollars are going to bail out some other country because of their poor policy decisions. Worse, we are borrowing this money, likely from a country we are not generally on friendly terms with.
Not being vigilante enough, I never saw the headline "U.S. joins IMF" or all the great things it promised at the time. My bad. But I'm not a bit lonely.
Poeple not paying attention is the only reason a nation trillions in debt can be tricked into the above scenario.
I quit saying "aw, that'll never happen, not here, not the U.S." a long time ago. Even before Bush. Yeah, that long ago.

Your post is less reassuring to me than you may have intended - trust you that the checks and balances will bring the law in line with the basic will of the elecorate? This must be different than the will of the people- that's been thrown out the window.

DC lawyers and lobbyists are the only ones that know exactly what's in the HC bill! AAHHH!

I do agree gun control would be the big sticking point. I just don't want to wait until my back's against the wall.
Thanks to you too.
 
based on future SCJ decisions, how would you GUESS Sotomayor or Kagan MIGHT decide on an issue like this? Just asking an opinion, as they might be around for a while.

They will almost certainly vote against the RTKBA. With few exceptions, justices have always voted down political lines on political issues. But Roberts, Ailito, and Thomas will also be around for quite a while. It's hard for a president to make a huge impact on the Court, even in two terms. And most justices take the concept of 'stare decisis,' or following precedent, pretty seriously: either new justice would be more likely to vote against gun rights on a novel question (such as a suit claiming a right to carry openly) than to try to overturn Heller or McDonald (assuming the latter comes out the right way).

Your post is less reassuring to me than you may have intended - trust you that the checks and balances will bring the law in line with the basic will of the elecorate? This must be different than the will of the people- that's been thrown out the window.

I wasn't trying to reassure you, just state the truth as I see it. There clearly are serious threats out there. I just think they're different than some of the ones being trumpeted as of late.

The will of the electorate is the will of the people who vote. Our system is not designed to take account of nonvoters' opinions. There's also (obviously) a lot of influence from powerful organizations and special interest groups... But I'm not interested in discussing the web of influences between voters, the government, and special interests. I'm a lot more interested in law than politics, and won't usually discuss the latter except to the extent the two intersect.
 
True, they do take precedence seriously. And good to point out the will of the people who vote vs the will of the people. Apathy is dangerous. And, in my opinion, there are too many big players ready to globalize the U.S., and I don't see that as always being in our nations best interest. But your right, it's easy to get off topic. Thanks zachs
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top