Originally posted by Maxatoria
given part of it says
Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;
it won't stop anyone buying an American made gun so it might actually improve the economy since it'll be easier to buy a made in america gun versus a foreign made item
Firearms Freedom Act passes; governor to sign it
March 04, 2010 12:00 am • JEREMY PELZER Casper Star-Tribune
CHEYENNE — Legislation asserting that firearms made, sold and kept only in Wyoming are exempt from all federal gun laws is set to become law after it easily cleared the Wyoming Legislature on Wednesday.
Supporters say the bill is mainly a symbolic shove against the federal government, and it remains to be seen whether the fight will carry over to the courts or even to Wyoming streets.
The Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act passed the state Senate without objection on Wednesday. Gov. Dave Freudenthal has indicated that he will sign the bill into law. Two other states, Tennessee and Montana, have enacted similar laws.
Wyoming’s Firearms Freedom Act, though, is harsher than those laws, as it states that any state or federal official who tries to enforce any federal gun law on a firearms made and sold in Wyoming could face a $2,000 fine and up to a year in prison.
While that might conjure up images of Wyoming sheriffs arresting U.S. marshals who try to enforce federal laws on Wyoming guns, state Rep. Allen Jaggi, R-Lyman, said the bill was mainly intended to be a symbolic assertion of Wyoming residents’ constitutional rights.
Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms: being diverted to the illicit market; be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children; become subject to corrupt practices; or adversely impact the development of the recipient State.
2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.
3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.
- 4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.
ARTICLE 12
ENFORCEMENT
Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.
Friday, July 13, 2012Treaty ratification loophole?
Don pointed out on our show today (July 13th) the specific language of the U.S. Constitution regarding the ratification of treaties. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 says:
He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
No quorum is specifically referenced in the key passage, no notice requiremetns. Just approval by two thirds of those present.
Might this open the door to some kind of lame duck, late night, recess maneuver to ratify something like the Arms Trade Treaty now being negotiated at the U.N.?
I'd like to know if any other treaties might have been ratified previously under such a maneuver? Even if it hasn't been done before, how might the current U.S. Supreme Court view such a move? Speculation on the answer may vary widely especially after the creative interpretation from the court that allowed the Obamacare individual mandate to stand.
Originally posted by stirling
heres the KICKER
Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.
In other words the goverment agrees to pass legislation which the UN demands to comply with the treaty.....!!!
The gun registry is only the beginning!
Time to stop this madness.....the UN is NOT the BOSS of ME!
Read more at Ammoland.com: www.ammoland.com...
In addition to treaties, presidents often sign executive agreements with the heads of other nations. Executive agreements are not officially treaties, so they do not require the consent of the Senate. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has ruled that executive agreements are part of the supreme law of the land, just like treaties.
If an executive agreement conflicts with state law, state law loses.
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 judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has ruled that executive agreements are part of the supreme law of the land, just like treaties.
