The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tt11758 on September 25, 2013, 10:54:22 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/)
Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a "significant step" in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.
"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong," he said. "This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes."
U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate.
He claimed the treaty raises "fundamental issues" concerning "individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."
The National Rifle Association blasted the plan, claiming it would impose an "invasive registration scheme" by requiring importing countries to give exporting countries information on "end users."
"The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "These are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American. The NRA will continue to fight this assault on our fundamental freedom."
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, also sent a letter to Kerry declaring the treaty "dead in the water," since a majority of senators has gone on record against the agreement.
"The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats," he wrote.
Kerry, who is in New York attending the U.N. General Assembly session, announced earlier this year that the administration planned to sign the treaty.
The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.
Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.
Over the summer, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to President Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.
The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.
What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don't, and how stringently it is implemented.
The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, has said it expects many of the world's top arms exporters -- including Britain, Germany and France -- to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year.
The coalition notes that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that "history will be made" when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed "to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death."
Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature -- and ratification -- will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders.
The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
Totally expected.
As long as there is no Democratic Super majority in the Senate it is DOA.
-
No more arms for Al Qaeda "freedom fighters"?
I guess now if Holder wants to send guns to Mexico, he has to clear it through channels first.
-
"One Senator Says It’s ‘Dead in the Water’ When It Reaches Senate"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-controversial-u-n-arms-treaty/
Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial United Nations arms treaty aimed at regulating the global arms trade — but some U.S. senators say their body won’t vote to ratify it.
Kerry Signs Controversial U.N. Arms Treaty
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks with attendees during a luncheon for delegates and heads of state at the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2013 in New York City. (Getty Images)
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Tuesday warning him not to sign the treaty, saying it will be “dead in the water” since most senators have gone on record against the treaty, according to Fox News.
The U.S. Constitution allows the president to negotiate treaties, but ultimate ratification requires Senate approval.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) also said the arms treaty raises “fundamental issues” regarding the “individual rights protected by the Senate Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Over the summer, 130 members of Congress also signed a letter to Obama expressing opposition to the treaty, according to Fox News.
The U.S. is the world’s largest arms dealer and its accession is seen as critical to the treaty’s success, although many of the world’s other top arms exporters and importers have not signed the document.
The treaty will require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not control the domestic use of weapons in any country. It prohibits the transfer of conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Follow Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) on Twitter
-
The Obama administration most resembles a chicken without a head.
-
Well, it does keep the "core supports" from being able to say "You didn't even try"
-
The Obama administration most resembles a chicken without a head.
I respectfully disagree.
A headless chicken is still good for something--like dinner.
The O'damna administration most resembles what that chicken leaves on the floor of the coop.
My 2-cents,
Crusader Rabbit
-
Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
Just another peice of evidence for hi trial for treason. ;)
-
When my brothers and I came back from fighting in SE Asia, Kerry was already spreading the vile lie that we burned villages, raped women, killed babies, and acted in a completely amoral way.
He said he'd been on clandestine Swift Boat ops into Cambodia.
He put in for two "band aid" Purple Hearts for nicks and scratches that no normal man would even complain about.
He pretended to throw his medals away in a very public way. (The medals he threw actually belonged to someone else.)
In each of these actions, he lied.
In doing so, he established himself as a duplicitous POS with a defective moral compass and no compunction about selling his cohorts down the river.
Nothing he has done or said since has changed those facts.
So, why would anyone now expect him to honor the US Constitution, his oath, or his duty?
Crusader Rabbit
-
I always suspected he threw his medals, but made the claim of them another soldier's when it became popular to honor soldiers again.
He was a piece of crap back then and all the years since have just turned him into aged crap.
Anyone every notice how he worked to parallel his life with John Kennedy?
He had the same initials, which might have been his parents plan..or he might have changed his name.
It worked to get assigned to a small combat boat in the war of his time and worked VERY hard to shed a few drops of blood to secure a Purple Heart or two.
Both Catholic and both Senators from Mass.
A lot of this was beyond his control, but he sure worked hard to fill in the blanks.
-
When my brothers and I came back from fighting in SE Asia, Kerry was already spreading the vile lie that we burned villages, raped women, killed babies, and acted in a completely amoral way.
He said he'd been on clandestine Swift Boat ops into Cambodia.
He put in for two "band aid" Purple Hearts for nicks and scratches that no normal man would even complain about.
He pretended to throw his medals away in a very public way. (The medals he threw actually belonged to someone else.)
In each of these actions, he lied.
In doing so, he established himself as a duplicitous POS with a defective moral compass and no compunction about selling his cohorts down the river.
Nothing he has done or said since has changed those facts.
So, why would anyone now expect him to honor the US Constitution, his oath, or his duty?
Crusader Rabbit
In other words he's a typical liberal Dem.
-
Kerry signing that is like me signing a million dollar check. Unless 2/3 of the Senate ratifies it (which will never happen), its just a photo op. Its not even worth worrying about. Even if the pro-2A lobby didn't care, which we do, the multi billion dollar Guns-R-Us lobby would squelch it.
-
FQ,
Kerry signing it is not like you signing a million dollar check. It is like one of us signing a $500 check and not having the money in the bank to back it.
His signature shows the support, wishes and dreams of our Executive Branch for this movement. They want it, they jumped on board, they committed, and the bank (Legislative Branch) says "sorry, but you don't have the funds to keep this. Send it back."
This is more than symbolism and rhetoric. This is a commitment and statement that the United States is in favor and supportive. It could also be one of the points where we show the world what the Boston Tea Party and Shot Heard Around The World looked like.
-
FQ,
Kerry signing it is not like you signing a million dollar check. It is like one of us signing a $500 check and not having the money in the bank to back it.
His signature shows the support, wishes and dreams of our Executive Branch for this movement. They want it, they jumped on board, they committed, and the bank (Legislative Branch) says "sorry, but you don't have the funds to keep this. Send it back."
This is more than symbolism and rhetoric. This is a commitment and statement that the United States is in favor and supportive. It could also be one of the points where we show the world what the Boston Tea Party and Shot Heard Around The World looked like.
In other words, as FQ said, it's nothing but a photo op.
Unless it has a chance of ratification, which it doesn't, it means nothing but that the Administration are anti gun.
That isn't exactly a news flash.
Besides, even if it did get ratified, it's only effective if you obey it .
I have no intention of aiding my own repression, if you do then you deserve it.
-
Hate to rain on your parade, but our country has historically, and has legal precedent, FOLLOWED international treaties we sign on to, regardless of ratification. It may not be backed up with law, but the "spirit and intent" of the ungratified treaty becomes de facto law/ratification without Senate approval.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/25/un-arms-treaty-will-be-menace-to-us-for-years-to-come/
Plus if they wanted to push the issue, the administration could get de facto approval without Senate consent by treating it as an "Executive Agreement." Not only does it not require consent of the Senate, they have already delegated the ability to do so to the Exec branch as it is considered a trade agreement.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
-
It isn't LEGAL without ratification.
-
It isn't LEGAL without ratification.
Not exactly true. The Senate doesn't actually make the treaty ratified, only advises and consents, to its ratification:
"The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).
...
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law. ...
...
Another factor has been the passage of legislation authorizing the executive branch to conclude international agreements in certain fields, such as foreign aid, agriculture, and trade. "
Read the Fox article carefully
-
Yes, but that's the point Jnevis. An executive agreement can limit what we import or export by executive order (assuming statutory authority is already there, like the Korean M1s or rule 922R), but it can't be used to cover domestic issues, like banning ARs without further statutory authority. Given that BO failed to get a simple majority in the Senate for mag bans or extended background checks in a Dem controlled Senate (which hopefully won't be for long) after New Town, I'm not worried about this being ratified. And while it might hurt us on imports (say a tightening of 922R)? No way in hell is any President going to cut into our Guns-R-Us folks selling overseas. That's like walking into a buzz saw.
-
Sounds like a bunch of lawyers are going to make a bunch of money.
Ol' Billy was right...
-
Nothing to worry about....................Yet. ::)
-
It's to early in the day for me to do this.
What exactly does the Constitution say ?
-
My issue with this action of signing is not the content itself. My issue is that it has been done without the support needed to ratify it.
Pres. BHO knows that he can not get this through, so why did he order Sec. Kerry to sign it? "You have to pass it to know what is in it!"
Inventory the ammunition, oil the guns, and hang on for the ride boys and girls.
-
OK, it's later, I've had more coffee and my brain is working .
http://constitutionus.com/
Article II
Section 2
2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Needs 66 votes and he doesn't have them.
-
Even though I know he doesn't have the votes and shouldn't be able to move this treaty any farther, I've seen this administration given lemons and somehow be able to make shit sandwiches from them for the rest of us to eat often enough to not be very comfortable with any reassurances.
-
OK, it's later, I've had more coffee and my brain is working .
http://constitutionus.com/
Article II
Section 2
2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Needs 66 votes and he doesn't have them.
Two items:
1. Pres. BHO has told the international community that he supports this above the Constitution of the United States;
2. Knowing that he does not have the votes, rather than working through the process as outlined in our Constitution he had Sec. Kerry sign it.
Two messages were sent in this event:
1. Pres. BHO told the world, including citizens of the United States, that he does not care about the Constitution of the United States;
2. That he does not care about the process.
When we have a President who openly thumbs his nose at our founding and governing documents, what makes you think he will ever follow them?
-
If you tolerate it, you deserve it.
Use 'em or lose 'em.
-
Two messages were sent in this event:
1. Pres. BHO told the world, including citizens of the United States, that he does not care about the Constitution of the United States;
2. That he does not care about the process.
When we have a President who openly thumbs his nose at our founding and governing documents, what makes you think he will ever follow them?
He "sent" those two messages long before he had Kerry sign this bull$h!t "treaty". Anyone from Chicago knew he was like this long before he ever entered Presidential politics. The man was a full blown communist when he was a kid. The problem is many people have to be hit over the head with something like this, before they realize the person in question is a flaming communist, who has zero business in ANY form of public service in this country. Now of course, it's too late. This country put electing a black as President above any and all common sense. A classic case of closing the barn door after the last horse runs off.
-
If you tolerate it, you deserve it.
Use 'em or lose 'em.
You had better stock up on API rounds if you're intention is to "use 'em".
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/30/us-police-obtaining-military-vehicles-to-aid-hunt-for-criminals/
-
I'm not sure if the federal government and Homeland Security are fully behind law enforcement gearing and armoring up the way they are, or if it is just run away S.W.A.T. mentality that we have seen within law enforcement over the past few decades.
I get along well with most of our local law enforcement, but I had a run in with a couple of hot shots a few months ago. The local Sheriff sat back and grinned as it happened, and the new Chief in that town was not sure why until later when the Sheriff explained. One officer informed the group that citizens (I hate being differentiated as a citizen when it comes from law enforcement, but that is another rant) must disclose they have a weapon when in the proximity of an "officer of the law." WRONG!!! And, I can quote statute ... Better yet, I asked him to quote statute, and he could not. The Sheriff corrected him and shook his head. The second was a female city officer on a testosterone high who claimed that while they can video and record us from and in their cars without due process, we can not video, record, or photograph anything they do without their permission. Another interesting moment as she entered my world, and shall we say entertaining for the Sheriff and Deputies who know me.
Mean while, back at the ranch, we have a run away law enforcement system, with a group of Wyatt Earps who think the sun rises and sets on them and them alone, and that they are god almighty.
-
Power and authority are very dangerous commodities when taken in large doses. Much like drugs and alcohol, it becomes a runaway train that usually hurts or damages innocent parties.