Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


My query was not directed your way.

Regards...KK

reply to post by Vault-D


Read Article VI of the constitution! In this link read the part under 'Supremacy'.
That part of the constitution means that any treaty that the idiots in DC pass and the president signs is the 'LAW OF THE LAND" and it subverts the constitution. That's what's scary about this and other treaties being proposed by this Obama government!

en.wikipedia.org...

Zindo

Folks, lets please stay on topic and not focus on discussing each other.

Thank you.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Vault-D

 

Read Article VI of the constitution! In this link read the part under 'Supremacy'.

I understood the Supremacy Clause to mean that both treaties and the Constitution are considered the 'law of the land' but not that treaties can therefor subvert the Constitution. It was more a way to keep state governments from over-riding federal laws/treaties. As you know, there are Constitutional provisions for how to change the Constitution, and these don't allow the changes to be done by treaty.

So my argument is that even if CIFTA becomes the "law of the land" by way of being a ratified treaty, it still doesn't trump the Constitution. I suppose in that case it becomes a matter of judicial interpretation on whether or not gun control (of whatever form) from a treaty violates the Second Amendment.

reply to post by Vault-D


Then you understand that article wrongly! Treaties are the rule of law under all circumstances once passed and signed by the president. The section that says 'All state and federal laws 'Not withstanding' means that those laws and the language of the constitution is superseded by the treaty! This has been adjudicated by SCOTUS in the past. Also, there is almost no way once a treaty is signed that it can be rescinded! It actually takes a declaration of war on specific countries that are respondents to the treaty to make it null and void!
Zindo

ok i BELIVE that to take out some high percents of illegal gun actions is to even out some laws for example i live in illinois so to own a gun i need a foid card (firearms owners idenification)
1.so if a person from wisconsin comes to illinois all they have to do is show there drivers license fill put the form and have the money they can get it now

2 if someone from illnois go to wisconsin or almost anywhere in the U.S. for that matter i have to have a foid card drivers license and the money to buy it

3much less the regular dumb laws like not going to a certain town with out a ak47 but a seca gun shotting the same round of 7.62*39 thru that same town with out being unlawful www.gunlaws.com... so u can see some of the things i say here
im sorry for the spelling and if u dont beilive me on the example its true since i work at some gun places

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Same reference see this line:
"Reid v. Covert (1957) ruled that no branch of the United States Government can have powers conferred upon it by treaty that have not been conferred by the United States Constitution."
Treaties are a subordinate authority to the constitution. That being said over the years the supreme court has ruled consistently that the government may tax and license guns as much as it wants as long as it is not a total ban. So, if you tax a 100K per gun with a 3 year license process that might take longer, that is not a total ban. The court shut em down in the DC ban case on a direct assault on the 2nd amendment, but these are clever people and they have other ways to make it to there goals. How many people can afford the taxes? How many people can go though all the loops to licensing? In the end it is like cigarettes, high tax revenue, declining sales of tobacco products.

reply to post by john baker


You work for a gun shop and you don;t know about GCA-68? You can only purchase firearms in your state or border states and the border state purchases MUST be long guns only, no pistol or revolver sales in border states. I sure hope the ATF doesn't audit your sales because your in a heap o' trouble if you've been selling hand guns to others from out of state!

Zindo

reply to post by cliffjumper68


That's not what Article VI entails. Other than that one point, I agree on the principle of taxation. Still, it violates the infringement stated directly in the second amendment. Firearms are useless without proper projectiles and for them to attack that one facet is still an infringement. Article VI is what First nations have been taking our government to court about for years. They delay and play games but the fact remains, treaties are not to be ignored because they might violate the constitution. If they are passed by both houses and then signed, they supersede standing law! If a state signs a treaty it is null and void if it is afoul of the constitution but if the Federal Government ( both house and senate) decides to pass and the President signs it, its the law!

Zindo

[edit on 5/4/2009 by ZindoDoone]

reply to post by ZindoDoone


The Constitution is not "federal law", that is passed by congress and signed by the president. Constitutional law supersedes all federal and state laws including treaties.

The GCA of 1968 refers to prohibitive sales of firearms to certain people and through interstate commerce. I can not mail order a rifle. However, I can legally travel to a state and purchase a gun onsite (intrastate) as long as I obey the governing rules of that state as well as other gun control laws. Here is wiki about the law:
en.wikipedia.org...

Long guns yes, but not pistols and revolvers. You may purchase a gun and have it sent to your local gun shop and get it transferred that way but unless you are a FFL holder you can't buy a gun in another state and walk away unless its a long gun and its a state that borders your own.

Zindo

reply to post by cliffjumper68


A constitutional convention is required to change, subtract or add amendments to constitutional law. They in turn must be ratified by the states to take effect. One of the supreme courts primary duties is to determine the constitutionality of federal bills and treaties signed into law. What scares me is that making it very very very hard to obtain a gun is not banning ownership. Beware of clever people. I also agree that other nations have tried to place international law and treaties (mostly UN committees) above our constitutional law. That is a hanging point cited for not signing onto the international criminal court in the hague. It would have superseded US constitutional law. Take Israels recent beatings there as an example. It is also sad that some supreme court judges have shown sympathy to it, but until they amend the constitution to state such it is not so. With a one party government who is to say no though, so this may be a mute point. It would not be the first time a unconstitutional law was accepted or legislated from the bench.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You're being obtuse.

You make a post about one thing, point to another thing, and say "Aha! I told you so!"

This treaty has zilch to say about handloading.

The other laws you point to would, and I do oppose those actually.

But they are not the same thing.

reply to post by cyberpilot


Fact's are that I've never seen a violent crime. The chance that some one who picks a fight with me has a gun is almost zero.
I agree American society is very different you need guns to settle you're differences. We Europeans don't. I live in the Netherlands and its a fact that there is about ten times less crime here than in the US.
We can thank our "mostly" well trained police for that.
I'm Happy for you that you're happy with your guns. But I'm happy that i can walk trough the park at 3 am without being afraid to get robbed or stabbed.

But one thing is sure right now Americans probably need their guns and should have the right to keep them. After all it's the corrupts governments fault that there are so many criminals in the US and that the US police seems so damn incompetent.

(Edit : Damn i just replied to a really old reply sorry for that.)

[edit on 5-5-2009 by HEroX]

Originally posted by ZindoDoone

Then you understand that article wrongly! Treaties are the rule of law under all circumstances once passed and signed by the president. The section that says 'All state and federal laws 'Not withstanding' means that those laws and the language of the constitution is superseded by the treaty! This has been adjudicated by SCOTUS in the past. Also, there is almost no way once a treaty is signed that it can be rescinded! It actually takes a declaration of war on specific countries that are respondents to the treaty to make it null and void!
Zindo

Then for what reason did the frefathers dictate that under no circumstances are certain rights to be taken from the people?...

Why write all of these rights, if they can be taken by ratifying a treaty with other nations?....

And why oh why would the forefathers state clearly in the Constitution that WE THE PEOPLE can take over the government if it becomes dictatorial?....

[edit on 5-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by HEroX

Fact's are that I've never seen a violent crime. The chance that some one who picks a fight with me has a gun is almost zero.
.............

No, Europeans fight, and kill each other over soccer matches....

I guess that's the "civilized way to kill"?...

Not to mention all the violent riots you guys have been having for decades....



[edit on 5-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by HEroX



Oh and BTW, even thou your country may have low crime, it still has crime, and can you say the same thing for other European countries?...

In Britain since the 1996 gun ban crime has escalated exponentially, and crime with guns has risen at least 40% if not more... The same thing has happened in other countries where guns have been banned...


[edit on 5-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Oh, and BTW, some "truth" about crime in the Netherlands...

Fewer addicts stealing bikes as crime falls
Published: 26 February 2009 09:48 | Changed: 26 February 2009 10:54
By our news staff
Property crime in the Netherlands has been falling for years. There are fewer bicycle and car thefts, fewer burglaries, and fewer incidences of pickpocketing. The downward trend has been particularly marked since 2002.
Bicycle theft has fallen dramatically in the Netherlands.
Photo Maurice Boyer Prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende's government has set itself a target to reduce crime by 25 percent of 2002 figures by 2010, so law and order has featured high on its list of priorities. Nevertheless, the falling crime figures are not purely the result of government policy, according to the conclusions of a recent study commissioned by the Dutch police academys Police and Science research programme.

The results published Tuesday show that crime figures began falling in the Netherlands in the mid-1990s. However, there has been a similar downward trend in other European countries and in the United States. Given that these countries have not been implementing the same policy on law and order as the Netherlands, it seems unlikely that the reduction in crime is only the fruit of government policy

The government seems to have reaped the benefits of a downward trend, the researchers conclude, but at the same time policy on policing has also contributed to the falling figures.

Initiatives in three key areas have clearly taken effect, says researcher Ben Vollaard. Policing has been made stricter, criminals' chances of facing arrest and punishment have been increased, and frequent offenders have been targeted.

"Frequent offenders, often junkies, sometimes commit thirty offences a day. If they go to prison for two years, the number of offences in the area in which they work can drop considerably."The number of frequently offending drug addicts has also fallen since 1995. Addicts have a low life expectancy, and there are now relatively few new addicts.

www.nrc.nl

Thank you very much for spreading the truth...

I never did get the armed to the teeth thing. I like shooting guns, I go to a range here every few months. I don't have a problem with people owning certain guns. I think a few types of weapons we could do without.

I live in Vancouver, The "Gang Capital" or whatever in North America. There's been a lot of shootings(most targeted hits). I drive a bus through the worst parts of town with all the junkies, homeless, and such. I don't carry any weapons and have had troubles. I'm able to deal with them. Most often some strong suggestions to get off my bus and their gone. No need for violence at all.

This is my first post on ATS, I've been a visitor for a while, interested in various topics, but this particular one has prompted me to join and post.

Why do the American people need/want guns?

Simple question, look forward to the replies.