JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Ya the supreme court worked out pretty well with the unafordable care act as constitutional under a new word Tax. Thier is always a way given a chance and I say why give them any chance or moving thier line in the sand closer.

Do you understand how the Supreme Court works? They don't say "Oh, a new treaty has been ratified, let's render an opinion on it even though no one asked us". Someone has to be affected by a law and bring a case to Federal court. If they don't like the outcome they might appeal to higher levels, all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court might decide to hear the case if some Constitutional question has been raised, but Reid v. Covert has already established that the Constitution is supreme above any treaty. Period.
 
Do you understand how Supreme Court works? They don't say "Oh, a new treaty has been ratified, let's render an opinion on it even though no one asked us". Someone who has to be affected by a law and bring a case to Federal court. If they don't like the outcome they might appeal to higher levels, all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court might decide to hear the case if some Constitutional question has been raised, but Reid v. Covert has already established that the Constitution is supreme above any treaty. Period.


Thanks for the obvious Lets just forget Lame Duck Lib Senate and then the when it gets to the SC where the rights of the individual was a place to be protected but no more and they say OK What do you do? Where do you go? Whats left COMPLAINING. Enjoy your future.
 
Now we're getting dissent from someone who hasn't read the treaty!

Since the treaty hasn't been finalized you haven't read it either. You're just parroting fear-mongering and hysteria from people trying to manipulate you. Don't fall for it. :)
 
Since the treaty hasn't been finalized you haven't read it either. You're just parroting fear-mongering and hysteria from people trying to manipulate you. Don't fall for it. :)
And you are just parroting the gun grabbers that want American gun owners to go take a nap and ignore the FACT that the U.N wants to do away with private gun ownership.
And that includes the US as well.

Is the statue in front of their building a Soviet RPG launcher tied in a knot?
An MP5?
An UZI? (I know, small knot!)

No, its a revolver. The iconic symbol of private, civilian gun ownership in the U.S. long before the AR became popular.
 
And you are just parroting the gun grabbers that want American gun owners to go take a nap and ignore the FACT that the U.N wants to do away with private gun ownership.
And that includes the US as well.

Is the statue in front of their building a Soviet RPG launcher tied in a knot?
An MP5?
An UZI? (I know, small knot!)

No, its a revolver. The iconic symbol of private, civilian gun ownership in the U.S. long before the AR became popular.

I don't doubt that there are many in the UN that would like to outlaw civilian gun ownership. So what? They have no power to do that in the US. What they "want" is irrelevant. The UN is a joke and powerless, except to some gun owners who are being whipped into a frenzy by cynical politicians and activists. To those gun owners the UN is some kind of all-powerful Evil Empire. Ha ha, the UN? :s0112:
 
You know, I prefer to not get drawn into these kinds of politically charged threads, but I can't help but be amazed that anyone could possibly defend a treaty like this. And on a gun forum no less......
 
You know, I prefer to not get drawn into these kinds of politically charged threads, but I can't help but be amazed that anyone could possibly defend a treaty like this. And on a gun forum no less......

That's right. There should be no limits on our ability to sell guns to war criminals.
 
You know, I prefer to not get drawn into these kinds of politically charged threads, but I can't help but be amazed that anyone could possibly defend a treaty like this. And on a gun forum no less......

Not defending it, just not getting all paranoid and hysterical over it 83d75513.gif because it is irrelevant to American gun owners.
 
You're wrong, and those who know anything about the Constitution aren't getting hysterical about this treaty. However, apparently there are some gun owners who are easily manipulated into paranoia by politicians and activists who are cynically using those gun owners for their own purposes.

We don't have to worry about the Roberts Supreme Court because the supremacy of the Constitution over treaties and executive agreements has been settled law for 55 years.



The Constitution, including the Second Amendment, can't be nullified by any treaty or executive agreement.

Representin'! :s0114:

yes but





the next prez get to replace 2 pro gun justices with 2 of his own because they are retiring. Obammy would pick 2 anti gun. period. That would make the court 6-3 in favor of the interpretation of the second amendment being that militias are not the people like you and me so you and me cant own guns only militias who ever they are.
 
Does Arms Trade Treaty signal time for U.N. to leave?

On the same day that Bellevue-based gun rights advocate Alan Gottlieb called on millions of gun owners to contact their senators in opposition to the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), Wayne LaPierre from the National Rifle Association pledged to fight the treaty if it threatens Second Amendment sovereignty.

<broken link removed>
 
yes but

the next prez get to replace 2 pro gun justices with 2 of his own because they are retiring. Obammy would pick 2 anti gun. period. That would make the court 6-3 in favor of the interpretation of the second amendment being that militias are not the people like you and me so you and me cant own guns only militias who ever they are.

  • The next Supreme Court justice to retire will be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an anti-gun liberal, who is old and in poor health. Replacing her with another liberal won't change the balance of the court. The Heller/McDonald Five are very unlikely to retire while Obama is president.
  • Even if the balance of the Supreme Court changed the Court doesn't wake up one morning and say "hey, let's overturn DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago for no reason". That's not the way the Court works. A case regarding the Second Amendment would have to work its way up to the Supreme Court for there to be a chance to render another judgement on the Second Amendment. Even then, the Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedents because of the principle of stare decisis. So your scenario of the Supreme Court suddenly deciding "that militias are not the people like you and me so you and me cant own guns only militias who ever they are" is extremely unlikely. Even if that unlikely event happened, it wouldn't change anything. There is no political will nationally for a total gun ban, neither the American people nor a majority of politicians want it, so nothing is going to happen at a Federal level. For gosh sakes, a member of Congress was shot in the head, and what new gun laws did Congress pass? *crickets*

    At the state level, most states - including Oregon and Washington - have a right to keep and bear arms in their Constitutions State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions. So statewide total gun bans are unlikely in most states.

    There is no city or state in this country where it is impossible to own most types of firearms. Even the worst of them, like NYC, Chicago, Washington, DC, California, and New Jersey, don't have total gun bans. :)


 
  • The next Supreme Court justice to retire will be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an anti-gun liberal, who is old and in poor health. Replacing her with another liberal won't change the balance of the court. The Heller/McDonald Five are very unlikely to retire while Obama is president.
  • Even if the balance of the Supreme Court changed the Court doesn't wake up one morning and say "hey, let's overturn DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago for no reason". That's not the way the Court works. A case regarding the Second Amendment would have to work its way up to the Supreme Court for there to be a chance to render another judgement on the Second Amendment. Even then, the Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedents because of the principle of stare decisis. So your scenario of the Supreme Court suddenly deciding "that militias are not the people like you and me so you and me cant own guns only militias who ever they are" is extremely unlikely. Even if that unlikely event happened, it wouldn't change anything. There is no political will nationally for a total gun ban, neither the American people nor a majority of politicians want it, so nothing is going to happen at a Federal level. For gosh sakes, a member of Congress was shot in the head, and what new gun laws did Congress pass? *crickets*

    At the state level, most states - including Oregon and Washington - have a right to keep and bear arms in their Constitutions State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions. So statewide total gun bans are unlikely in most states.

    There is no city or state in this country where it is impossible to own most types of firearms. Even the worst of them, like NYC, Chicago, Washington, DC, California, and New Jersey, don't have total gun bans. :)



Stop making too much sense :D
 

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