U.S. signs U.N. Gun Ban Treaty

[dajowi]

John Kerry signed the treaty today in New York City.

The Democratic controlled Senate will pass it on to Obama for his signature.

 

[TXAZ]

All window dressing.

 

[vranasaurus]

I think you need to revisit how a treaty is ratified. It requires 2/3's vote of the Senate. There isn't a majority let alone 67 votes to ratify. Nothing is going to happen.

 

[thallub]

The Democratic controlled Senate will pass it on to Obama for his signature.

Ratification requires 67 votes. About 50 senators say they would vote against ratification. Ratified or unratified, it has no effect on our Second Amendment rights.

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

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/htm...4_0001_ZO.html


For what it's worth:

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:

Quote:
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/

 

[shortwave]

While I believe as TXAZ and others have posted that this is 'all window dressing' and will not go anywhere, it flat out shows where some of our political figures heads are at.

These are the kind of antics that happen during non-election times that voters need to remember come election time, know who generated and supports this stupidity and vote accordingly.

 

[HarrySchell]

The Administration is relying on state-level Democrats to do what they can to achieve the goals, explicit and implicit, of the Treaty.

Here in CA, they have sent a slew of trash to the Governor, much of which (if not all) I expect he will sign. NY has the SAFE Act, etc, etc.

Hopefully SCOTUS will grant cert on Woollard, to confirm the human right of self-defense involved therein and in 2A.

 

[Tom Servo]

Thallub is correct. I don't see it affecting domestic ownership.

The reason I don't care for the treaty is that it's a steaming pile of hypocrisy for us to ratify it. Outside the Soviet Union, we've historically been one of the biggest suppliers of arms to rogue states and organizations. Nicaragua? Liberia? Sudan? Mobutu Soko's regime in the DRC? The Mujahideen, I mean, Taliban? We armed them.

Then there are the 2,000 weapons smuggled to the Sinaloa cartel on this administration's watch. In no conceivable way do we occupy the moral high ground on this one.

 

[thallub]

The reason I don't care for the treaty is that it's a steaming pile of hypocrisy for us to ratify it. Outside the Soviet Union, we've historically been one of the biggest suppliers of arms to rogue states and organizations.

Exactly!!!

The US is currently shippings arms and ammo to rebel groups in Syria; never mind that some weapons will their way into the hands of allies of al Queda.

 

[Cheapshooter]

Ratification requires 67 votes. About 50 senators say they would vote against ratification. Ratified or unratified, it has no effect on our Second Amendment rights.

True It will not be ratified because in addition to pro 2nd A Republicans there are enough Dems worried about re-election to vote against It.

Also true that as written It would not affect our 2nd A rights.

However, It would be the proverbial foot in the door, or camel's nose that would eventually lead to a loss or serious reduction of our right to keep and bare arms.

 

[Tucker 1371]

I can't see this by itself bringing about any sort of gun confiscation, but I do most certainly see it making imported guns harder to obtain (as if imports weren't restricted enough already.)

 

[FrankenMauser]

Although it cannot affect gun ownership, it would be quite easy for anti-gun persons to argue that the rest of the treaty, governing small arms ammunition, is not superseded by the Constitution.

That would open the door to attacks on reloaders, reloading equipment, and everything associated with it...

 

[glh17]

I don't believe the treaty has a one in a million chance of being ratified. I just hope all the talk doesn't set off another ammo/gun frenzy.

 

[ofitg]

A little history on the SALT II agreement -

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda/treaties/salt2-1.htm

The completed SALT II agreement was signed by President Carter and General Secretary Brezhnev in Vienna on June 18, 1979. President Carter transmitted it to the Senate on June 22 for its advice and consent to ratification.

On January 3, 1980, however, President Carter requested the Senate majority leader to delay consideration of the Treaty on the Senate floor in view of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Although the Treaty remained unratified, each Party was individually bound under the terms of international law to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty, until it had made its intentions clear not to become a party to the Treaty.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Once it is signed, a treaty will have teeth even if the Senate never gets around to ratifying it. If there are not enough votes to ratify the treaty, it is possible that Harry Reid (or his successor) will prevent the Senate from ever voting on ratification.

 

[eldermike]

Politically impossible to ratify, a purely symbolic display, a wish for a world that currently doesn't exist, that describes the event. It might be more significant to gather at the beach before sunrise link hands and hum.

 

[JimDandy]

It may not affect the 2A, but it raised some fairly major 4A concerns for me. Article 12, Section 3. The "end user" list part.

 

[Spats McGee]

Good news:
I don't think it will pass the Senate at this time.

Bad news:
I don't now of any "expiration date" on treaties, so it could sit there for a long while, just waiting for the Senate to approve it.

Good news:
The treaty won't take effect until 50 countries have ratified it. See Article 22.

Bad news:
Six countries already have.

 

[kraigwy]

It's silly to say the least.

Regardless what we, the US will do, does anyone really expect countries like Iran and N. Korea to abide by the treaty.

Bad guys (countries) wont stop selling and using these weapons any more then street gangs will stop their illegal gun activities because of Chicago's gun laws.

What will happen, if passed, the treaty is going to cost a lot of money to implement. Guess who's gonna have to pay the biggest portion of that cost?

Any way, you wont get the Senate to ratify it so its a moot point.

 

[ofitg]

Now that Kerry has signed the treaty, it appears that international law requires us to honor the treaty, even while we're waiting for the Senate to ratify it.

See Article 18 in the 1969 Vienna Convention -

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf


So.... if Harry Reid doesn't have enough votes to ratify it, why would he even allow the Senate to vote on it?

Perhaps the next POTUS will formally announce that we are withdrawing from the treaty.....

 

[L2R]

Oh the irony

In broad strokes, this sounds parallel to what has been happening nationally.

The US gov'ts keep passing laws to stop violence and trafficking of guns. These laws negatively affect the good citizens while the criminals ignore them.

Now the UN is trying to do the same thing on a global level which puts the U.S. on the other end of the argument-where we are signing this treaty while sending arms at the very same time to Syria.

It will be interesting to see how the very same people who creatively try to kill the 2nd amendment will justify future actions when they feel the need supply another country with arms without a background check nor care where those weapons end up.
(ironically, this is a global version of the 'gun show' loophole they have twisted except it is a little worse , no background check, it is using tax dollars that came out of our paychecks and it's not even face to face).

Who knows, maybe they will create a playbook the NRA can use.

 

[brokenhand]

The ratification process

Senators have warned that the treaty has to be ratified by the Senate (probably because Obama has a history of violating the Constitution and ignoring requirements for Congressional authorization).


If Obama signs the treaty it still has to be ratified by the Senate. But its’ important to note that the Constitution doesn’t require 2/3 of the Senate to approve — only 2/3 of those PRESENT have to sign it. Will Harry Reid schedule a vote during a recess to get it ratified?