Senator Kerry signs U.N. ARMS Treaty

[Safety First]

Does it take a simple Majority in the Senate to override the President if he signs it or a simple Majority? As for me I plan to contact every Senator not just the two that represent me in GA but every last one of them. The U.S. Senate is the only thing standing between enactment of the Treaty or its' defeat.

No matter what we have done in the past to protect our God given Rights as protected by the Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment, we will need to do even more now. I am as responsible as anyone for sitting on the fence and not being more active but that stops today.

We will need to be even more vocal and more active and Proactive . The struggle to keep the Bill of Rights relevant is heating up. We have to stop those who think the Constitution and Bill of Rights is no longer relevant. They have been deceived by those who want to squash the voice of the people.

I urge every American in this country who actually values your freedom ( and who does not?) to let this Treaty signing be a wake up call and to be vocal and not just say NO, but H--L NO. We now have to put our money and time where our mouth is and work to stop this before the loss of Freedom spreads more than it already has to the other 9 Rights in the Bill of Rights. Let your voices and anger be heard sending a very clear and loud message to those who would trample the Rights our Forefathers fought and died for.

Feel free to share your wisdom and ideas as how to overcome this latest assault on our God given Rights......................

 

[Sam1911]

I won't say that this is not something to be concerned about, but I would urge you to read some of the other threads we've had on the UN Treaty, and treaties in general.

Just because the president signs it doesn't make it law here in the US. The Senate has to approve it, which will not happen.

Here's Wikipedia's explanation of how the process works in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification

...The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. ...

 

[PabloJ]

Please explain in common sense manner how this treaty affects typical US gun owner who purchases their gun in USA through an FFL dealer. Thanks in advance.

 

[Sam1911]

One that the ILA has expressed before is:

... the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the 'end user' of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an 'end user' and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

The primary implications beyond the registration angle would be what restrictions could be applied to the export and international trade in what most of the world considers "military" weapons (or parts therof), but what most of us consider to be the primary arms worth owning as an armed citizen.

If your concern is merely with American-made "hunting" rifles and shotguns, this probably doesn't bother you at all -- they aren't after you, yet.

 

[dbp]

Good article here that may answer some basic questions on possible ramifications to USA gun owners.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/24/Sec-Kerry-Will-Sign-UN-Arms-Trade-Treaty

 

[Arkansas Paul]

It takes 2/3 to ratify. They don't even have a majority. I just Googled to see what my Senator, Democrat Mark Pryor thought about it and came across this article. It lists the senators opposed, which I'm proud to say both our AR senators are.

http://us-senators.com/2012/07/pryor-joins-50-senators-to-oppose-passage-of-un-arms-trade-treaty/

 

[RussellC]

We need to get out of the UN, turn the building into a parking garage and show the other members the door out. Sad times are these when other Countries are trying to tell us what to do with OUR Constitutional rights, and we have to consider whether or not our own representatives are listening to them.

Russellc

 

[Sam1911]

We need to get out of the UN, turn the building into a parking garage and show the other members the door out. Sad times are these when other Countries are trying to tell us what to do with OUR Constitutional rights, and we have to consider whether or not our own representatives are listening to them.

Ok, now to be fair, the treaty doesn't actually speak to our Constitutional rights. It has to do with international arms sales. The ramifications upon the Constitutional rights of US citizens would be pretty narrow, if any.

There are plenty of reasons (probably) to oppose this treaty, or not to approve of the UN in general, but this treaty itself isn't really aimed, in any but the most tangential way, at the rights of an American to keep and bear arms.

 

[MErl]

Is there any time limit on when this can be ratified or is it something that will become an anti-gun talking point forever?

 

[alsaqr]

Ok, now to be fair, the treaty doesn't actually speak to our Constitutional rights. It has to do with international arms sales. The ramifications upon the Constitutional rights of US citizens would be pretty narrow, if any.

Very true.

SCOTUS has ruled no treaty can supercede the US Constitution. From Reid vs Covert:

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 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 of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] 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. [n32] 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 the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

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 [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] 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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The point has already been made that treaties can override State constitutions and laws. 40 odd states have RKBA provisions protecting the citizen's or individual's rights and laws and court rulings protecting lawfully, traditional ownership and use of arms. Those could be at risk.

Problem I have with the Arms Treaty is mission creep: the Amnesty International website on the treaty shows military/police and hunting arms--sniper rifle v long range target rifle, combat shotgun v deerslug shotgun--and asks can you tell the difference? and urges they all be treated the same, as internationally controlled arms.

I believe both AI and NRA are enrolled with UN as NonGovernment Organisations (NGO) to argue their positions on this. I have no problem with stopping war lords from arming child soldiers, but I know what VPC would like to do.

 

[Safety First]

So, does anyone have an opinion as to whether 2/3 of the Senate would vote to Veto the law if the President were to sign it?
To answer some, my fear is that this Treaty if Ratified would then open the door to more and more infringement on the Second Amendment. I believe the extreme Left would use it as a foundation to build on to restrict law abiding citizens from exercising their 2A rights.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

So, does anyone have an opinion as to whether 2/3 of the Senate would vote to Veto the law if the President were to sign it?

That's not the way it works. This is not a law that the POTUS can simply sign. It has to be 2/3 of the Senate or it does not get ratified. Period.
ONLY after the Senate ratifies can the POTUS sign it.

 

[Safety First]

That's not the way it works. This is not a law that the POTUS can simply sign. It has to be 2/3 of the Senate or it does not get ratified. Period.
ONLY after the Senate ratifies can the POTUS sign it.

So, I had it backwards...first the Senate, then the prez.... After thinking about it, my guess is 2/3 of the Senate would not vote in favor of ratification....and I can only hope that is correct.....

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Click that link I posted above. They don't even have majority, much less 2/3. Fifty one have already said they're not signing it.

 

[beatledog7]

Technically, the Senate does not ratify international treaties; it provides its consent for the President to ratify, and by law it takes a 2/3 Senate vote.

That aside, what makes anyone believe that our current President will accept that w/o that consent he cannot ratify this treaty? He really wants this to become law, and has said so many times. I for one do not believe that falling short of 2/3 assures non-ratification.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Isn't it just silly that no one on the Supreme Court can be questioned about or offer an opinion on constitutionality of such a thing until after it is passed and is challenged?

 

[Sam1911]

That aside, what makes anyone believe that our current President will accept that w/o that consent he cannot ratify this treaty? He really wants this to become law, and has said so many times. I for one do not believe that falling short of 2/3 assures non-ratification.

But that would be a rather pointless thing to do. Ok, he signs it. Congress moves into impeachment mode for his clear violation of his office, and what happens to the edicts of the treaty? Nothing. Without it becoming US LAW -- which is a function of the legislature remember, not the executive -- there's nothing to enforce.

 

[jrdolall]

But that would be a rather pointless thing to do.

Normally I would be in agreement but this president could very well do it and have a legal team that can find some obscure clause somewhere in some archives that allows it to become law. Normal Constitutional checks and balances don't always apply to this guy.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, it would be odd if he now started pulling out the stops and "jumping the shark" as supreme dictator when he's sat impotently for almost an entire year without being able to launch the gun bans and confiscation schemes we were warned he could levy by Executive Order. He's hamstrung by the limits of his office, and he seems to realize it.

There's simply no way he'll try to make a counter-Constitutional ratification of this treaty without Senate approval. Just won't happen.

His fooling with it up to this point is just so much political theater -- drumming up energy in his foundering base and using it as an easy press "hit" against his opponents.

 

[beatledog7]

Then why have Sec'y Kerry sign it?

 

[alsaqr]

Isn't it just silly that no one on the Supreme Court can be questioned about or offer an opinion on constitutionality of such a thing until after it is passed and is challenged?

SCOTUS, in Reid vs Covert , ruled that treaties to not supercede the US Constitution:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html

The treaty contains this phrase:

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control
conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or
constitutional system

And this phrase:

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain
conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where
such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law:

Read the treaty here, click on E for English:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/documents/

 

[Sam1911]

Then why have Sec'y Kerry sign it?

Well, I answered that already:

His fooling with it up to this point is just so much political theater -- drumming up energy in his foundering base and using it as an easy press "hit" against his opponents.

Just so much pandering to his base. You think this could come up and he NOT have Kerry sign it? It's a foundational plank of his party. Doesn't mean there's a prayer it will ever be approved and ratified and he full well knows that. Besides, it seems that he's not very popular right now and there's all sorts of problems he really wishes folks wouldn't think and talk about. One sure way to draw attention off of his deficiencies is to do some grandstanding about a dead-end issue that his base laps right up like candy!

Just like he full well knows that they aren't getting federal gun control laws passed at this point, but that doesn't mean he's going to stop talking about them!

 

[Frank Ettin]

Isn't it just silly that no one on the Supreme Court can be questioned about or offer an opinion on constitutionality of such a thing until after it is passed and is challenged?

Nonetheless, the concept is well established and has a long history. It goes back to when the then Chief Justice Jay informed George Washington that under the Constitution the Court had no authority to render an advisory opinion. I found this to be an interesting article on the question.

 

[RedAlert]

OP, John Kerry, is no longer a Senator. He is the Secretary of State now and should be referred to as such.

Interesting bit of news though and I don't see any impact on the average US Citizen as a result.