Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: James]
#6527761
04/28/19 11:31 PM
04/28/19 11:31 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,706 Virginia
52Carl
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,706
Virginia
|
Foreign treaties are trumped (no pun intended) by Supreme Court decisions. The Court has held that the Second Amendment gives us an individual right to keep and bear arms. The federal courts would strike down any treaty provisions that violate the Second Amendment.
Jim
Thank you Jim. I could not have stated that point better myself. All the more reason to count our lucky stars that Hillary did not win and now have a 6-3 Supreme Court liberal advantage and snuff out the second amendment with the blessings of the UN. Drop the mic moment if there ever was one. (Now everyone else stand by for the classic change of subject moment, exactly like what a wife executes whenever she loses a debate.)
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: white17]
#6527771
04/28/19 11:49 PM
04/28/19 11:49 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 11,335 Maine, Aroostook
Posco
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 11,335
Maine, Aroostook
|
I wouldn't trust The Turtle to stand up to them. He has every step of the way, why wouldn't he continue? McConnell's legacy will be the courts. Packing it with conservatives, top to bottom. Buys us twenty years, maybe more.
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: James]
#6527879
04/29/19 08:34 AM
04/29/19 08:34 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,196 McGrath, AK
white17
"General (Mr.Sunshine) Washington"
|
"General (Mr.Sunshine) Washington"
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,196
McGrath, AK
|
Another thought: What if Congress doesn't pass a national carry law, and the next anti-gun administration and Congress enact a law that purports (because I don't know if it would be Constitutional) to ban all concealed carry and over-rule state laws to the contrary?
I think we'd be better off having a national carry law as a first line of defense. Yes, it could later be rescinded, but that is one extra step for the gun-grabbers to have to take.
Jim I would prefer to leave it as it is now with each state determining its own laws on CC. Another layer of bureaucracy is something we don't need. I refuse to travel and spend money where my permits are not honored. What would happen to states like NY , CA, MA who nearly refuse their residents permits.........if the federal government allowed MY permits to be valid in NYC but not someone who is a resident ? I think federal legislation would by necessity, have to void all state laws on CC
Mean As Nails
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: James]
#6527915
04/29/19 09:20 AM
04/29/19 09:20 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,947 east central WI
Dirty D
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,947
east central WI
|
Another thought: What if Congress doesn't pass a national carry law, and the next anti-gun administration and Congress enact a law that purports (because I don't know if it would be Constitutional) to ban all concealed carry and over-rule state laws to the contrary?
I think we'd be better off having a national carry law as a first line of defense. Yes, it could later be rescinded, but that is one extra step for the gun-grabbers to have to take.
Jim You can argue all you want about CC. The point is we have already lost our 2nd A rights. The intent of the 2nd A was to allow citizens to be armed as a defense to a tyrannical Gov't. The words "shall not be infringed" have already gone out the door. There are limits on types of arms, size of magazines, age restrictions, and host of other rules that "infringe" on my rights. Carrying a gun concealed is part of that right. The 2nd A makes no mention on how the arms are to be carried only that they the right shall not be infringed.
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: white marlin]
#6527927
04/29/19 09:32 AM
04/29/19 09:32 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,706 Ohio
Ronaround
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,706
Ohio
|
Every time I hear something like this, be it a SCOTUS Nomination or a strengthening of the 2nd. I have to think where we would be if Hitlery would have won. It's a very scary thought. INDEED! [what sux is: a lot of guys RIGHT HERE! voted for her]...and will vote for the democratic nominee, ALL of whom, say they want more gun control! And why are they on this forum then.? if anything needed two things to make one BETTER its guns and traps..Period! Must we drown every fur-bearer or crown it with a stick, to save the nation of gun violence?
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: Marty]
#6528097
04/29/19 02:30 PM
04/29/19 02:30 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 19,719 pa
hippie
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 19,719
pa
|
Bob Hope musta had alot of brothers.
Last edited by hippie; 04/29/19 02:30 PM.
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: white17]
#6528221
04/29/19 07:05 PM
04/29/19 07:05 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379 Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
James
"Minka"
|
"Minka"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
|
Another thought: What if Congress doesn't pass a national carry law, and the next anti-gun administration and Congress enact a law that purports (because I don't know if it would be Constitutional) to ban all concealed carry and over-rule state laws to the contrary?
I think we'd be better off having a national carry law as a first line of defense. Yes, it could later be rescinded, but that is one extra step for the gun-grabbers to have to take.
Jim I would prefer to leave it as it is now with each state determining its own laws on CC. Another layer of bureaucracy is something we don't need. I refuse to travel and spend money where my permits are not honored. What would happen to states like NY , CA, MA who nearly refuse their residents permits.........if the federal government allowed MY permits to be valid in NYC but not someone who is a resident ? I think federal legislation would by necessity, have to void all state laws on CC Yes, if we passed a national CC law, it would control over state law. It would presumably include a national CC licensure procedure. You would be able to go to CA with a concealed gun on a national permit, and Californians would be able to do it too. Jim
Forum Infidel since 2001
"And that troll bs is something triggered snowflakes say when they dont like what someone posts." - Boco
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: Marty]
#6528232
04/29/19 07:15 PM
04/29/19 07:15 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,942 williamsburg ks
danny clifton
"Grumpy Old Man"
|
"Grumpy Old Man"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,942
williamsburg ks
|
its time for the supremes to admit that making concealed carry a crime is an infringement and unconstitutionall
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: Marty]
#6528234
04/29/19 07:18 PM
04/29/19 07:18 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,942 williamsburg ks
danny clifton
"Grumpy Old Man"
|
"Grumpy Old Man"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,942
williamsburg ks
|
btw the definition of license is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. How can CC be illegal???????????????????????
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: Marty]
#6528277
04/29/19 08:46 PM
04/29/19 08:46 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379 Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
James
"Minka"
|
"Minka"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
|
We have the right to "keep" (possess) and "bear" (carry) arms, under the Second Amendment.
I think the Heller and MacDonald cases only dealt with the right to keep arms. Nothing about bear, if I recall right.
Imho, we do have a Constitutional right to carry, concealed or open. I don't know if the SC would agree.
Jim
Forum Infidel since 2001
"And that troll bs is something triggered snowflakes say when they dont like what someone posts." - Boco
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: James]
#6528305
04/29/19 09:40 PM
04/29/19 09:40 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 157 North central Ohio
RonH
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 157
North central Ohio
|
Every international treaty I've seen has a clause that preserves US sovereignty and says in effect that there is no higher law to the US than the Constitution.
So Trump's move strikes me as pointless political posturing. And detrimental to international relations.
I'd be open to posts showing how I'm wrong. If all you got is a personal attack, go elsewhere, or you'll probably get the thread deleted.
Jim If every international treaty has such a clause, what is the point of the USA being involved in any of them? If our law over rides it, there is no need or use for it. If other countries have similar clauses and they can also not follow the international treaty, then the un and the treaty seems to be political posturing. Most every politician postures sooner or later. Doing so in support of the USA is in my opinion a better example of leadership than posturing to make the USA look bad, or submissive.
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: Marty]
#6528320
04/29/19 09:50 PM
04/29/19 09:50 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379 Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
James
"Minka"
|
"Minka"
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
|
If there is no conflict between a treaty and US law, then the treaty can have the force of law, once ratified by the Senate.
Jim
Forum Infidel since 2001
"And that troll bs is something triggered snowflakes say when they dont like what someone posts." - Boco
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: Marty]
#6528472
04/30/19 07:08 AM
04/30/19 07:08 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,333 Hancock Co., Indiana
Kart29
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,333
Hancock Co., Indiana
|
Can an international treaty supercede state gun laws? I believe it can. That's a good enough reason to oppose the UN treaty on trade in arms.
Didn't the UN treaty on trade in arms also establish a gun registration? I'll bet courts would say this didn't violate the Constitution and therefore this element of the treaty would be binding on the US. The establishment of the gun registration would be justification enough to oppose the UN treaty.
What from Christ that soul can sever, Bound by everlasting bands? None shall take thee From the Strength of Israel's hands.
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: James]
#6528686
04/30/19 12:42 PM
04/30/19 12:42 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 19,719 pa
hippie
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 19,719
pa
|
Every international treaty I've seen has a clause that preserves US sovereignty and says in effect that there is no higher law to the US than the Constitution.
So Trump's move strikes me as pointless political posturing. And detrimental to international relations.
I'd be open to posts showing how I'm wrong. If all you got is a personal attack, go elsewhere, or you'll probably get the thread deleted.
Jim I'll not attack you, but tell you that you are very wrong. The points you make have nothing to do with this, other than the sovereignty part, which any treaty that restricts what we do invades our sovereignty. If you don't think this is like Clinton's ban that I mentioned and you must not have seen, what is the purpose of this treaty? I guess that requiring an end user registry for 20 years doesn't go against our laws? There's other points, but I have a feeling you already know them as a simple look at this on Wikipedia spells out enough without digging deeper.
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: Marty]
#6528688
04/30/19 12:44 PM
04/30/19 12:44 PM
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 28,978 potter co. p.a.
pcr2
"Twerker"
|
"Twerker"
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 28,978
potter co. p.a.
|
selective hearing at it's finest Hippie.
|
|
|
Re: No more UN arms trade treaty for USA.....
[Re: James]
#6529050
04/30/19 09:16 PM
04/30/19 09:16 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,196 McGrath, AK
white17
"General (Mr.Sunshine) Washington"
|
"General (Mr.Sunshine) Washington"
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,196
McGrath, AK
|
We have the right to "keep" (possess) and "bear" (carry) arms, under the Second Amendment.
I think the Heller and MacDonald cases only dealt with the right to keep arms. Nothing about bear, if I recall right.
Imho, we do have a Constitutional right to carry, concealed or open. I don't know if the SC would agree.
Jim Heller was specifically addressing "keep" but if I remember correctly, Scalia made derisive remarks, in the majority opinion....to the effect that ..surely the founders did not mean the people could "bear" arms solely in their homes...........which was the tack the minority was taking.....along with "bear" in the militia context. But critique my thinking here Jim. If Congress decides they have the authority to put into statute, CC and/or open carry...............1. where do they get that authority ? 2. Wouldn't it follow that the opposite is also true.....that they could prohibit CC/OC ? But how could that be true if 2A already secures that right beyond the reach of congress ? .....and 3. What would that say about the 10th amendment and federalism in general ?
Mean As Nails
|
|
|
|
|