UN Small Arms Treaty - Contact your legislators ASAP!!!

[ezkl2230]

I sent the following letters to my legislators in both the Michigan and US legislatures, just in case. I suggest that others do the same. Similar letters should be sent to UN Ambassador Susan Rice (fax - 212-415-4053, Opinion/Comment Line - 212-415-4062) and Sec. State Clinton (Phone: 202-663-1848, Fax: 202-663-3636). We need to absolutely flood their offices.

Senator/Congressman:

As you are no doubt aware, it appears that a vote on the UN Small Arms Treaty will take place by the end of this month. While it is my understanding that our envoy to the UN has insisted that the Second Amendment Rights of US citizens be honored and protected, there is tremendous pressure from anti-firearms forces around the world to override that protection and to include civilian firearms in the ban.

It is also my understanding that any such treaty would have to be ratified by Congress before it would be considered to be binding on the US, although I'm sure that some sort of "special circumstances" could be claimed to circumvent that.

As your constituent, I am asking you to memorialize our legislators in Congress NOT to support any treaty that does not FULLY PROTECT the Second Amendment rights contained in our Constitution. I am also asking that you begin developing legislation that would declare such a treaty null and void in [add the name of your state] in case Congress actually decides to ratify this treaty. There is no time to lose.

Sincerely,


Senator/Congressman:

As you are no doubt aware, it appears that a vote on the UN Small Arms Treaty will take place by the end of this month. While it is my understanding that our envoy to the UN has insisted that the Second Amendment Rights of US citizens be honored and protected, there is tremendous pressure from anti-firearms groups around the world to override that protection and to include civilian firearms in the ban as well.

It is also my understanding that any such treaty would have to be ratified by Congress before it would be considered to be binding on the US.

As your constituent, I am asking that you NOT support any treaty that does not FULLY PROTECT the Second Amendment rights contained in our Constitution, and that Congress memorialize UN Ambassador Rice and Secretary of State Clinton to vigorously defend those rights, as they are sworn to do, and to withhold their signatures from any treaty infringing those rights. The Constitution of the United States is the final legal authority in our country, not UN treaties.*

Sincerely,

 

[jimmyraythomason]

I have e-mailed both my senators and my congressman. They have always been on our side in matters of liberty and I have no doubt that they will stand firm against any loss of sovereignty or Constitutionally guaranteed rights and privigeles. Still,they now know how I feel about it.

 

[Billy Shears]

I am also asking that you begin developing legislation that would declare such a treaty null and void in [add the name of your state] in case Congress actually decides to ratify this treaty.

This is impossible, thanks to the supremacy clause of the constitution.

"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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Basically, if this thing gets ratified by the senate, then thanks to the supremacy clause, then for all practical intents and purposes, it becomes just as if it were written into the constitution itself, just like an amendment. A lawyer might see nuances, but in practical terms, it's like the treaty gets written into the constitution, and no act of congress, and certainly no act of any state legislature can ever override it. Nothing short of an another constitutional amendment, which more clearly delineates and broadens the right to bear arms would supersede it. The only other way to get out from under the treaty obligations would be get all the other signatories to release us from the terms (and good luck with that).

Basically, it will be an ominous, dark day if this treaty gets ratified. We will be in deep doo doo. Under the terms of the treaty, it would not be hard for the government to define a need to register all privately own weapons in order to better regulate sales, which might result in arms being sold across US borders, and then once registration is in place, gradually move toward declaring certain weapons banned. They might throw in a sop to the 2nd amendment by allowing certain classes are arms like they still do in Britain (see, you can still bear arms: you can still have .22s and non-repeating shotguns), but the vast majority of guns could conceivably be eventually banned. Granted, this is a worst case scenario, but the only thing that would be standing between us and an actively anti-administration like this one would be the Supreme Court (anybody feel like trusting the Roberts court after Obamacare?).

Wake up folks, and write your senators.

Also, vote for Romney. Even if you don't like him, consider the alternative. Several of the current justices are quite old, and the next president is likely to appoint at least one replacement, possibly as many as three. Obama would certainly tilt the court farther to the left. A more left leaning court would never have handed down the Heller decision that ruled DC's handgun ban unconstitutional.

 

[RX-178]

A ratified treaty does NOT become equivalent to a constitutional amendment under the Supremacy clause. It becomes equivalent to a LAW. In fact the supremacy clause CLEARY states that treaties are equal to STATUTES, and that no superior efficacy is given to one or the other.

The Constitution takes precedent over both Laws, AND Treaties, and just like a law may be declared unconstitutional, so can a treaty, even after being ratified.

 

[dcarch]

What sort of a threat level does this actually present? I keep getting conflicting reports, and so far I haven't heard anything really reliable. Basically, what are the best and worst case scenarios here? Thanks!

 

[RX-178]

Best case scenario? Hillary made the condition already that unless the Treaty is in general consensus (meaning ALL the nations involved agree on the terms), the USA will not even sign it. So at the end of the month, if any of the other nations say 'These terms are not acceptable to us, we will not be part of the treaty', the USA backs out as well, and the treaty is moot point. That's best case.

Worst case scenario, it gets signed, the Senate ratifies it and it becomes US Law. Then at the end of the inevitable supreme court case, they decide it is constitutional, and therefore becomes law of the land.

Honestly, the best case scenario is MANY times more likely than the worst case scenario. Doesn't mean I'm not worried, but I'm pretty confident that the 1994 AWB was worse than this will end up being.

 

[Robert]

This has been done to death. It has near a snow ball's chance in south Texas of going anywhere. Contacting you gov't is a great idea though. We still have a ton of work to do on some terrible US laws.

 

[hso]

Dead in committee as time ran out and the UN members could not resolve disagreements. U.S. objections opened the door for other countries to pose objections and it became apparent that these would not be resolved by the deadline.

It can come back, but it is unlikely to resurface within the next year.