Kerrey Signs UN Small Arms Treaty

[tombogan03884]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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.

[MikeBjerum]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[jnevis]

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

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

It isn't LEGAL without ratification.

[jnevis]

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

[fightingquaker13]

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.

[kmitch200]

Sounds like a bunch of lawyers are going to make a bunch of money.

Ol' Billy was right...

[billt]

Nothing to worry about....................Yet.