UN global gun control conference begins in New York

[mrjarrell]

Your local enforcers and sheriffs will be in the lead, then the national guard and active duty troops. They don't need foreign troops to get this done. There are plenty of people in this country who will follow the orders of their superiors. They don't make the laws, they just have to carry them out. Let the courts sort it out.

There, I fixed that for me.

 

[flagtag]

There, I fixed that for me.

Yeah, but the local law enforcement also live "here" (wherever "here" is). They would have to deal with the citizens of their community every day if they pulled something like that. It wouldn't be pretty. There would be a lot of sleep lost and sore necks (looking over their sholders) NOT GOOD!

 

[RomanDad]

Any treaty must be approved by congress before it can be enacted. This is our only hope.

To be precise- 2/3rds of the Senate. 67 votes.

Getting 50 votes for such a treaty RIGHT NOW, in one of the most lopsided Democrat Senates in modern history, would be difficult. (never mind that the Senate Majority Leader, for all his faults, would never allow it to come to the floor).

The 60 needed to end Cloture would be IMPOSSIBLE.

I will wear a thong on MARS before the Senate has 67 votes for such a treaty.

 

[GIJEW]

Even IF the got the treaty passed, it would still be unconstitutional. It takes 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. How would they get around that?

To be precise- 2/3rds of the Senate. 67 votes.

Getting 50 votes for such a treaty RIGHT NOW, in one of the most lopsided Democrat Senates in modern history, would be difficult. (never mind that the Senate Majority Leader, for all his faults, would never allow it to come to the floor).

The 60 needed to end Cloture would be IMPOSSIBLE.

I will wear a thong on MARS before the Senate has 67 votes for such a treaty.

 

[mrjarrell]

Even IF the got the treaty passed, it would still be unconstitutional. It takes 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. How would they get around that?

It wouldn't be an Amendment, it would be a treaty, which has the force of law. Article 6 covers that and the states don't get a say.

“ All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. 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.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

[RomanDad]

It wouldn't be an Amendment, it would be a treaty, which has the force of law. Article 6 covers that and the states don't get a say.

A properly ratified treaty has the force of law... But it doesn't supersede the Constitution. To amend it takes 2/3rds of BOTH houses of congress and 3/5ths of the state legislatures. Ill be sunbathing on Mars in a thong with Cameron Diaz before that one happens.

Bottom line is, if there were the 67 votes in the senate to ratify this treaty, they would have renewed the 1994 assault weapon ban 18 months ago when the administration floated it. That had MUCH broader support and only required the 60 votes to end a filibuster to pass. They couldn't even find 50 votes.

 

[FordMan79]

I often wonder how many troops it would actually take? (yes, I know...all break out the copies of Red Dawn!)

Also...would the various nations of the UN really have the stomach for a guerrilla style war that would sure take place on a large scale? The US is a big country after all...strategically defending the supply routes and holding ground would be difficult enough...

You are assuming that police/military personnel would actually comply with that order. I think you would find most of them are private gun owners themselves and would not do it.

 

[mrjarrell]

A properly ratified treaty has the force of law... But it doesn't supersede the Constitution. To amend it takes 2/3rds of BOTH houses of congress and 3/5ths of the state legislatures. Ill be sunbathing on Mars in a thong with Cameron Diaz before that one happens.

Bottom line is, if there were the 67 votes in the senate to ratify this treaty, they would have renewed the 1994 assault weapon ban 18 months ago when the administration floated it. That had MUCH broader support and only required the 60 votes to end a filibuster to pass. They couldn't even find 50 votes.

Ratified treaties have the force of law, Constitution notwithstanding. That's IN the Constitution, as I posted it. There's no amending necessary. The SCOTUS would be hard pressed to decide the case that would likely arise and that would be the only saving grace in the issue.

 

[mrjarrell]

You are assuming that police/military personnel would actually comply with that order. I think you would find most of them are private gun owners themselves and would not do it.

Police at all levels routinely ignore legalities in the pursuit of their agendas. Look at the drug war and the DEA. They get local police aid all the time when they decide to raid legal medical marijuana clinics and pain management clinics in locales where they are legal. Don't count on any false sense of security that a few gun owner cops might afford you. I've yet to see any of our resident cops say they'd refuse to do it (altho I think at least one of them wouldn't).

 

[printcraft]

At the very least surplus ammo and weapons are going to dry up.

Ammo pricing will go ballistic. (see what I did there?)

 

[Lex Concord]

A properly ratified treaty has the force of law... But it doesn't supersede the Constitution. To amend it takes 2/3rds of BOTH houses of congress and 3/5ths of the state legislatures. Ill be sunbathing on Mars in a thong with Cameron Diaz before that one happens.

Won't need much sunscreen on Mars, but you may want to call Cameron, because you're wrong.

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.

Translation: Treaties made by the federal government are supreme Law of the Land, no matter whether it is in contradiction to any thing in the Constitution or any state law.

Edit: Sorry, not piling on, I just didn't realize mrjarrel had already responded.

 

[Bounty Hunter]

My "Tinfoil" hat may be a little tight,but I keep hearing there are "foreign" troops already on our soil to help enforce this, or whatever else comes up, because they know most of ours will not, and rightfully so.
I do not drink much of that kool aid, but it makes you wonder.
If that is the case then all hell will be breaking loose I am sure, because foreign troops will not have to wonder-Is this happening to my family somewhere?
Not sure what to think of all that.

 

[CB45]

gun control

Gun control is hitting the target right? I hope this is a sniping school and not some socialistic munbo jumbo meeting on how to rid the world of guns...

 

[gunowner930]

My "Tinfoil" hat may be a little tight,but I keep hearing there are "foreign" troops already on our soil to help enforce this, or whatever else comes up, because they know most of ours will not, and rightfully so.
I do not drink much of that kool aid, but it makes you wonder.
If that is the case then all hell will be breaking loose I am sure, because foreign troops will not have to wonder-Is this happening to my family somewhere?
Not sure what to think of all that.

There are foreign troops on our soil. We routinely host military exercises, Some European air forces train in the southwest because of weather and space, Others come for training. I have doubts foreign troops are at secret bases training to confiscate guns. If gun confiscation happens, it will be probably done by local LEO. They know some people would fight back, but most be quicker to shoot a foreign soldier than their local sheriff.

 

[flagtag]

There are foreign troops on our soil. We routinely host military exercises, Some European air forces train in the southwest because of weather and space, Others come for training. I have doubts foreign troops are at secret bases training to confiscate guns. If gun confiscation happens, it will be probably done by local LEO. They know some people would fight back, but most be quicker to shoot a foreign soldier than their local sheriff.

On the other hand, the local sheriff would have to live with those that they violated. (Or at least tried to violate) They wouldn't be "leaving the scene", so to speak.

 

[Bounty Hunter]

Good points. I have a buddy who swears this will happen, and is in the works. His tin foil hat fits pretty tight. It is hard not to listen to what he says, but sometimes it makes sense.

 

[RomanDad]

Ratified treaties have the force of law, Constitution notwithstanding. That's IN the Constitution, as I posted it. There's no amending necessary. The SCOTUS would be hard pressed to decide the case that would likely arise and that would be the only saving grace in the issue.

If you are arguing that Treaties have the effect of amending the Constitution, that is absolutely incorrect as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land, and treaties which run contrary to it are null and void.

In fact... Treaties are subordinate not just to the Constitution, but to Federal Laws enacted AFTER the treaty as well. They are in some effect third on the food chain of Supremacy.

Reid v. Covert 354 US 1.

 

[jeremy]

My "Tinfoil" hat may be a little tight,but I keep hearing there are "foreign" troops already on our soil to help enforce this, or whatever else comes up, because they know most of ours will not, and rightfully so.
I do not drink much of that kool aid, but it makes you wonder.
If that is the case then all hell will be breaking loose I am sure, because foreign troops will not have to wonder-Is this happening to my family somewhere?
Not sure what to think of all that.

It would litterally take the combined effort of the World to invade the US. Just for the Man Power alone...
Let alone to try and Garrison the Country also...
A couple 10 thousand Foriegn Soldiers here training will not make a dent in hte amount needed.

There are foreign troops on our soil. We routinely host military exercises, Some European air forces train in the southwest because of weather and space, Others come for training. I have doubts foreign troops are at secret bases training to confiscate guns. If gun confiscation happens, it will be probably done by local LEO. They know some people would fight back, but most be quicker to shoot a foreign soldier than their local sheriff.

Exactly!

 

[RomanDad]

Won't need much sunscreen on Mars, but you may want to call Cameron, because you're wrong.

Translation: Treaties made by the federal government are supreme Law of the Land, no matter whether it is in contradiction to any thing in the Constitution or any state law.

You'll notice there is no comma after the word "Constitution" in the phrase "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

That phrase is a single clause (part of the longer clause that begins by limiting the power of STATE Judges) referring to the laws of the STATES, THEIR Constitutions and subordinate codes. This is the "SUPREMACY Clause", the clause that says the Laws of the United States are Superior to the Laws of the States when they conflict..


Reid v. Covert (1957)

"[The United States Supreme Court] has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty..."


Reid v. 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.

Cameron is safe... This time...

 

[gunman]

Reid v. Covert (1957) a lot has changed since than "gun control" as a whole would have been laughed at mall & school shootings didn't happen every week. i'm not saying the un will storm the us and take guns.. but i don't think it would be wise at all to trust our government let alone another to protect our rights. take for instance their unwillingness to secure the border. confiscation of firearms, hiring PMC's etc during katrina, detention of ALL persons with japanese descendants in hawaii during ww2 and im sure there are a ridiculous amount of other incidents that give good cause to distrust the government or hold them to any "law" or "decision" they have come up with... afterall they propose the laws, put it into law, remove laws and enforce them, they count your votes, control what the media says etc so who's to say they're trustworthy to any extent. as far as im concerned just like electricity takes the path of least resistance politicians will take the path to more money and/or more power. after all if they didn't lobbyists wouldn't even exist