Renewed debate over UN Gun Ban

Want to discuss politics, religious affairs, legal items, this would be the place. Keep the discourse civil please.
User avatar
ChopperDoc
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 5778
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:14 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Renewed debate over UN Gun Ban

Post by ChopperDoc » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:41 am

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/ ... 7J20121107

(Reuters) - Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.
"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the United States - the world's biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers - reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.

'MONTHS AWAY' FROM DEAL?

Countries that abstained included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran. China, a major arms producer that has traditionally abstained, voted in favor.

Among the top six arms-exporting nations, Russia cast the only abstention. Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in support of the resolution.

The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.

The resolution said countries are "determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty."

Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."

Brian Wood of Amnesty International said: "After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights."

The treaty would require states to make respecting human rights a criterion for allowing arms exports.

Britain's U.N. mission said on its Twitter feed it hoped that the March negotiations would yield the final text of a treaty. Such a pact would then need to be ratified by the individual signatories before it could enter into force.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. interest group, strongly opposes the arms treaty and had endorsed Romney.

The United States has denied it sought to delay negotiations for political reasons, saying it had genuine problems with the draft as written.

(Editing by Xavier Briand)
"You rarely rise to the occasion, you usually just sink to your lowest level of training."

User avatar
ChopperDoc
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 5778
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:14 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Renewed debate over UN Gun Ban

Post by ChopperDoc » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:44 am

They say it will not effect our rights here, but I do nto see how that is possible. Perhaps they are only looking at the RIGHT to own a gun.

Something like this will effect folks who load their own ammo, it will effect the TYPES of weapons ("military style" weapon manufacturing and sales will have to be effected), and the list goes on and on with things i know I am not thinking of.

Remember, the SCOTUS has ruled that REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS can be applied to the 2nd Amendment by a governing body. Those are not defined.

Maybe they are about to be.
"You rarely rise to the occasion, you usually just sink to your lowest level of training."

User avatar
GeminiXD9
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 9385
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:08 pm
Location: Louisville
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Renewed debate over UN Gun Ban

Post by GeminiXD9 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:53 am

They way I took it is they are talkin bout the importation and exportation of arms, etc. so anyrhing made here in the USA will still be ok. Maybe that's just me being optimistic. I do agree with what u said about the scotus. It's a possibility they will try to screw us somehow
"That's how we do. We keep it light til it's time to get dark. Then we get pitch black."

Image

User avatar
ChopperDoc
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 5778
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:14 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Renewed debate over UN Gun Ban

Post by ChopperDoc » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:04 am

To ensure that 'illegal' guns/ammo (remember this will cover ammo too) do not get exported can you see any of the following:

1. restrictions or making it illegal to reload your own ammo, or at least in military calibers.
2. Banning private sales so tracking can be made.
3. By serial number inventories required to be provided to .GOV by citizens.

None of these "infringe" on your RIGHT to own a gun, but if the "World Government" wants to make it harder for criminals and terrorists to get their hands on small arms how far fetched are those ideas I listed for citizens in the country with the highest number of small arms in the world?
"You rarely rise to the occasion, you usually just sink to your lowest level of training."

pturner40215
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:35 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Renewed debate over UN Gun Ban

Post by pturner40215 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:53 pm

Reminded me of an essay or article and had to go find it. Im at work now but I'll look into it more when I get home to see how factual it actually is

"
Worried about the UN-Arms treaty? Well don't be. Even if the senate ratifies it, it still violates the 2nd amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

Reid v. Covert, October
"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,


"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."

Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

User avatar
ssracer
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 13771
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:24 pm
Location: KY
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 61 times
Contact:

Re: Renewed debate over UN Gun Ban

Post by ssracer » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:01 pm

and besides...blue hats are easy to spot....

User avatar
ChopperDoc
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 5778
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:14 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Renewed debate over UN Gun Ban

Post by ChopperDoc » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:37 pm

pturner40215 wrote:Reminded me of an essay or article and had to go find it. Im at work now but I'll look into it more when I get home to see how factual it actually is

"
Worried about the UN-Arms treaty? Well don't be. Even if the senate ratifies it, it still violates the 2nd amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

Reid v. Covert, October
....


Ahhhh... but you did not REALLY read my post. Lets TRY this again.

In Heller v DC and then again in McDonald v Chicago the SCOTUS upheld that We the People have the RIGHT to own guns BUT (and it is a BIG one) they stated that REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS may be applied by government. They did NOT say WHAT government body (local, State, Federal) and they did NOT define 'reasonable'.

Also, as we have seen them do, restricting the ammo you need to feed your gun does not seem to be drawing as much attention to bring it to the courts to fight for it under the 2A. I am sure they could if there was an outright ban (as they successfully did in California recently) but taxes on ammo, ID to buy it, etc, etc... those could fall under 'reasonable' unless successfully challenged.

How far fetched is it that the few items I listed above (nad copied below) could be (are rumored to be) in the UN Treaty and be passed on to us via BATFE rules and regulations without the need for a new law?
1. restrictions or making it illegal to reload your own ammo, or at least in military calibers.
2. Banning private sales so tracking can be made.
3. By serial number inventories required to be provided to .GOV by citizens.

I think highly likely, as these could easily be deemed "reasonable" restrictions on US Gun Owners to comply with an international treaty.

See, they can do this without violating the US Constitution.
"You rarely rise to the occasion, you usually just sink to your lowest level of training."

User avatar
kokopelli
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 3611
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:14 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 17 times

Re: Renewed debate over UN Gun Ban

Post by kokopelli » Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:57 pm

2 problems that I see.
1. the president has already set precedent of disregarding the Constitution completely with policies he has implemented. What makes you think that one part of it, the 2nd Amm. would hold any weight with him or stop him from another policy?
2. The UN Treaty that is being discussed also holds provisions for membership that requires the member country to provide a record of citizen owned small arms. What does that mean? Gun registration, plain and simple.

Return to “Legal/Politics/Religious”

×