AMERICAN's take note!

FellowTraveler

Explorer
Take note; the following is not a political issue.

There is a UNITED NATIONS weapons ban in the works via a treaty to which the U.S. Government may enter into, however, IMHO the treaty if signed would be an act of insurrection in that the treaty would be entered into to eliminate the constitutional barriers that have existed since the formation of the United States of America. If the "treaties clause" to the Constitution of the United States of America was meant to render the constitution void America would have fallen long ago, the "Bill of Rights" confirms this. Ref: "Insurrection Clause", Section 3, 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, see also, the 9th & 10th Amendments along with the "Bounty Clause" Sect 4, 14th Amend.

If perhaps you are not aware of the aforementioned you need to get up to speed because the rights of the private American citizens are about to cease and fall forever into a police state cabal according to STATE DEPARTMENT PUBLICATION 7277 titled;
Freedom from War, the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

Put in simple and easy to understand terms only government entities will be allowed to possess arms as a means to pacify all into submission.

So, now the question; Will you submit and give up your arms, or?:ylsmoke:
 

FellowTraveler

Explorer
This publication dates from 1961 and went nowhere at the time.

My guns are safe.

Don

Program is in stages w/final stage just around corner, there is current news about the Secretary of State pushing to enter into the treaty making it binding on the unsuspecting.
 

sfsmedic

Adventurer
This was shot down yet again on July 26th 2012. Good info but a couple days late.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/nra-stops-un-arms-trade-treaty.aspx

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

DaveInDenver

Middle Income Semi-Redneck
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause.

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.

Treaties do become de facto law under the Constitution and would override state and local laws potentially. But a treaty cannot counteract the Constitution itself. A treaty that conflicts with the 2nd Amendment would have to be unconstitutional because the order of importance starts with the Constitution (and Article VI refers the Constitution to itself, thus nothing can conflict with it as the supremest of the supreme) and by extension Amendments being the only legal modification to it. Treaties have the power of a Federal law but do not exempt the Federal government from Constitutional constraints.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

See Doe v. Braden and Reid v. Covert.

In Doe v. Braden the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution is superior to treaties, even though they left open the question whether a Federal court would be able to remove a treaty that is in violation. This is potential left up to the states to nullify.

Clearly the most decisive case is Reid v. Covert where the Court did decide that no treaty can override the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

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

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 War, would remain in effect. 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. 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.
 

FellowTraveler

Explorer
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause.

In Doe v. Braden the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution is superior to treaties, even though they left open the question whether a Federal court would be able to remove a treaty that is in violation. This is potential left up to the states to nullify.

Or for the people themselves to nullify.

An interesting thought I had brought up before is the UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION TREATY to which Leon Panetta and some generals claiming the U.S. MILITARY is beholding to the U.N. in matters of war making not the congress, so more concern as to whether or not insurrection has already taken hold.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp

In re Charge to Grand Jury, N.D. Ill. (1894), 62 F. 828 which defines insurrection and insurgents.
 

dwh

Tail-End Charlie
Guns?
What guns?
I've got no guns.
Wouldn't know how to use one if I had it.
I've heard about them though. Scary things.
Only properly trained military personnel (oops, forgot, someone erased that word and replaced it with a more PR friendly term), I mean, properly trained military 'human resources' should even think about having guns.
And, of course officer, staunch defenders of the public, such as yourself. <displaying sincerity mixed with appreciation on face>




[I've been rehearsing. When the KGB...I mean, the Department of Home of the Brave, Land of the Free Security (now go ahead...try to convince me that some PR spin doctor didn't think up that name...) shows up (with some blue helmeted U.N. Peacekeepers for backup), I've got my spiel ready to go.]
 

K2ZJ

Explorer
What a coincidence! I had my canoe turn over in Lake Superior, while bringing my entire collection out to Isle Royal to show a friend of mine.

Very, very deep water...............

What timing, I can't believe I lent you all my guns that morning! I wish I had the money to replace them.
 

cnynrat

Expedition Leader
The U.N. Committee charged with developing the draft of this treaty to be voted on by the General Assembly failed to reach agreement on a draft last week, so it appears this is dead for the time being. See the news report below:

Washington Post Arms Trade Treaty Article

As noted in the article the treaty may come up for reconsideration later this year, or perhaps next year. The U.S., China, and Russia all stated that they needed more time to consider the treaty, so that's what scuttled it this time around. Frankly, I predict it will come back, but I also think those countries that do major business in arms trade (see list above) will continue to have objections.

Some may observe that the current administration may be marking time until they have "more flexibility."

Given the recent rash of tragic boating accidents the government may be wise to develop training programs to increase boating safety. ;)
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
185,812
Messages
2,878,458
Members
225,352
Latest member
ritabooke
Top