UN Small Arms Treaty Coference

[Werewolf]

The NRA sent me something on this a month ago or so. It says in my letter that Obama could sign this treaty by executive order. What that means according to the NRA is that Obama doesn't need the approval of the house nor the senate to get this done.

Scare tactics.

The NRA is full of crap on this. The president cannot unilaterally aprove a treaty exectutive order or not.

 

[fredkrueger]

I know that if Obama gets elected again towards the end of his term 3 supreme court justices will be in their 80's. All Obama would have to do is put 3 more anti gun justices in their and they could do whatever they want to. They will have a majority. We had 2 landmark 2A victories that were decided by just one vote. And Justice Ginsburg has said that she wants to be able to reverse the decisions. That would be all the ammunition that she would need to be able to get that done.

 

[abajaj11]

If you argue with a guy almost daily about how the Pres is anti-gun, you must have an extensive list of things he's done since president to curtail our 2A rights.

Perhaps you could list them for us.

Fast & Furious.

 

[10Seconds]

The treaty is not meaningless, if it was ratified, it would have a HUGE impact on citizens and gun transfers. Remember how the government uses the Commerce clause to legislate? They have literally shut down people from growing certain crops on their own land for their own consumption because the fact that those people were not buying the food affected interstate commerce. So using such a broad definiting, pretty much any gun sale can have international effects.

Since a treaty is given priority over any other law in the country, it would completely change the landscape for gun owners here.

 

[redmax51]

As usual when this story pops up...go read the source document and not the news story. There is no "UN Small Arms Treaty" yet...these meetings are the initial meetings to even just start talking about it.

Even then, such a treaty is meaningless. It does not at all, in any way, supplane the US law of the land. It deals with international arms transfers, and not anything to do with purchasing, owning, bearing, or anything else related to personal use of firearms by American citizens in the United States.

And, no, there is no "supercommittee" or "executive order" that can make this treaty ever supplant the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Nobody furthers the cause of firearms and firearm owners rights in this country by repeating a bunch of inaccurate crap. "We" are just as guilty of idiotic scare tactics as the Brady bunch, VPC, and all the rest. Make yourself smart on what this treaty ACTUALLY might say, and what it ACTUALLY might impact....don't just repeat talking points posted on a blog or forwarded in an email.

There are legitimate reasons to question this treaty, but none of them have anything to do with potential compromises to our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms in this country.

^^This is correct!!