Gun control and the UN

[graybeard321]

Like many of you, I spend much time and money fighting gun control at the state level. I email my local representives so often I have their emails address's in my address. I donate money and time to support federal canidates that support my pro gun believes. I believe that the greatest threat to our right to keep and bears arms comes from outside our shores. The UN. For those of you who attended the 2007 NRA convention and listened to Mr Bolton understand what I am talking about. I recommend any body who is interested in keeping the right to bear arms go to NRA.org and click on archives and 2007 annual meeting and listen to Mr Boltons speech. With one click of the Pen our next President could sign agreement with the UN and we will lose our rights to keep small arms.

 

[packnrat]

we can not and never will loose our rights to own and keep any firearm.

the commies will just make laws to put us in jail for being human.

 

[brickeyee]

"With one click of the Pen our next President could sign agreement with the UN and we will lose our rights to keep small arms."

No treaty can override the US Constitution.

 

[Eightball]

No treaty can override the US Constitution.

I'm sure that is driving the antis completely insane.

I read somewhere that a former soviet spy said that the UN building is a haven for anti-US spies--and we're supposed to ally with that?

"Hello, everyone that hates the U.S. Did you have a nice trip? Here, let me offer you citizenship, and the right to stab us in the back--your doorway to entry is the UN, about 200 yards thataway. Enjoy your stay."

 

[Airman193SOS]

No treaty can override the US Constitution.

That is not entirely correct. From Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It remains to be seen how that will play out, because to the best of my knowledge there has never been an Article VI challenge before the courts. But since we are a group that believes that plain, unambiguous language is important, it doesn't get any less ambiguous than "...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

Keep that in the back of your mind.

 

[graybeard321]

No treaty can override the US Constitution.

According to our UN ambass. it can. Go listen to his speech.

 

[Samuel Adams]

The clause from Article VI of the Constitution posted earlier also states that the Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land".

If our elected "leaders" want to be UN lacky's we also have the following quote:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government." -- The Declaration of Independence.

 

[Airman193SOS]

No, it says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That's a bit of important verbiage that you overlooked.

Do I think that we should be bound in that regard by the United Nations? Of course not. Bear in mind that the United Nations does not generally intrude into the sovereignty of its nations, so it is extraordinarily unlikely that they would do anything that would effect the 2nd Amendment, paranoia notwithstanding. However, were they to do so, we would be bound by the UN Charter unless we withdrew from it.

 

[novaDAK]

'nuff said.

 

[Thefabulousfink]

Yes, the Gov can make treaties that violate the constitution....

however, if I understand my US Government class correctly, domestic laws would be required to enforce those treaties. Now the SCOTUS could rule either way on laws based on treaties; however, the American people have the right to override the agreements made by the Gov. We can either elect other leaders or use one of the other routes detailed in the writings of our founding fathers.

 

[Airman193SOS]

I'm not entirely sure why this hasn't sunk in, but I'll say it more plainly:

Treaty provisions do not violate the Constitution. They become the supreme law of the land and, according to Article VI, supersede all other pre-existing laws that are addressed by the treaty. There is no violation of the laws of the United States, because they are the laws of the United States upon ratification.

Think of treaties as repeals, much as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment. And therein lies the essential rub, and why if the UN were to interfere and get something enacted that were binding to the United States it would land squarely in the lap of the Supremes to decide.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

No treaty can override the US Constitution.

I'm sure that is driving the antis completely insane.

There's a lot of things about the US Constitution that drive the Leftists completely insane. All that freedom.

 

[bogie]

Project Mayhem needs to tend to a piece of bad art...

 

[the_doctor]

Did you read the LAST two words ie CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING from the quote of the amendment?

It is assumed that in the case of conflict that the constitution would take precedence.

So what do you think those two words mean?

 

[21H40]

UN Rights

It's been a while, but as I remember the UN's bill of rights:
employment, education, healthcare were included. The right to self defense is NOT included or inferred.

In fact the concept of self defense is probably the basic building block that divides many Americans from most of the world. If you can get an anti-gunner to admit that self defense is valid (you get to decide at some point that you don't have to run), then you can start to get them to accept SOME of the validity of the 2A.

 

[Airman193SOS]

Did you read the LAST two words ie CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING from the quote of the amendment?

It is assumed that in the case of conflict that the constitution would take precedence.

So what do you think those two words mean?

Yes, I did read them. In fact, I underlined them. What it says, explicitly, is that the treaty provisions override anything in the Constitution that would contradict it. Read the whole phrase, rather than cherry-picking.

Man, for a group that thinks that the 2nd Amendment is unambiguous, you sure look hard for ambiguity in something that is far more explicit.

 

[Shadow1198]

If there is anyone we should go to war against, it's the UN. Too bad they aren't a country we can easily just go carpet bomb the H E double hockey sticks out of.

I have seen various video clips on youtube of UN speakers specifically stating that their goal is to eliminate the civilian ownership of ALL firearms for ALL countries. They have basically done everything short of coming straight out and saying they will take over the world. F those people. They're not Americans and will never be as strong as us.

 

[plexreticle]

We should bomb the UN?

This is possibly the most ill conceived notion I've read on this board.

 

[Shadow1198]

It was merely a joke Plexreticle.

 

[RedLion]

If the U.N. controls guns as well as it controlled Rwanda or the Ivory Coast or Sierra Leone, I don't think we have too much to worry about.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

This may sound snarky, but it isn't: thanks everyone for bringing up treaties and how the US actually deals with them.

According to this: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Treaties

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.

The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.

Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval.

The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved.

The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.

The president may also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that are not subject to Senate approval.

Constitutional Provisions

Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances.

According to one scholar of the early Senate, "the Senate power which aroused the gravest and most widespread apprehension was that associated with the making of treaties." The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to check presidential power, to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, and to safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process.

It's actually a fairly lengthy history, so I won't quote it all here. Suffice it to say, there are safeguards put in place that would limit any international treaties signed by the US. Mainly, we need to continue putting hard pressure on our Congress members, voicing our displeasure at the UN in general and we need to withdraw from it completely.

 

[woodybrighton]

having had the misfortune to see the UN at work
I wouldn't sweat it.
UN committee for disarmament
delegate Mr Kalashnikov MR browning a certain MR cooper etc etc
the UN forces arrive to disarm America consist of 1000 officers above major
900 non combat troops from various 3rd world country's
100 British squaddies whose various CO's wanted rid of
day 1 officers in conference
non combat troops desert en mass to get better paid jobs
brits drink heavily

 

[legaleagle_45]

Yes, the Gov can make treaties that violate the constitution....

Incorrect, but with an explanation. The treaty power is just that, an express grant of power to the feds. To the extent that a treaty is a legit area of concern for foreign affairs, the treaty can "expand" the otherwise express powers of the constitution. I put quotation marks around expand, because this is not really the case... the treaty power IS an express power, SCOTUS has defined the scope of that power to extend to all areas of legitimate foreign relations.

However, the treaty power can NEVER be used to violate an express limitation on government contained in the Constitution. Who says? SCOTUS. A statute is also the supreme law of the land, but it must be constitutional, otherwise it is void. It must be of a nature to fit within the scope of the power granted to the government in the Constitution and it must not otherwise violate other terms of the constitution. Same thing with a treaty...

and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,

Treaties that violate the terms of the constitution are not "made with the Authority of the United States". The United States can never be given the authority to violate its fundamental charter. It is what legaleagles call "ultra vires".

Hope that clears up the confusion...

 

[george29]

Unfortunately, Mr. Bolton no longer holds that office and if a Dem gets in the White House (the most likely scenerio), the UN will eventually succeed in taking control of our laws and aboloshing the Constitution in favor of Hillary's Global Village. B. Hussein Obama will not be any better and McCain is not someone I trust with our Constitution, in fact I don't trust anyone aside from Ron Paul and it will be nothing short of a miracle if he lasts another two weeks.

 

[George S.]

I was always under the imression that a treaty involving this country and other nations (assuming for a moment that the UN is a "nation") must be ratified by Congress.

Can the President actually sign a treaty by himself and it simply becomes law? Somehow I don't believe that's correct.

The UN has outlived its usefullness. It has become a body that does nothing but talk, create committes to investigate things and respond to various crises after individual countries have acted.

Maybe the UN should be told to leave this country and go screw things up somewhere else.