UN Arms Trade Treaty

[Texas Sheepdawg]

On a positive note.....
http://www.dickmorris.com/votes-still-a ... =dmreports

[Jim in Houston]

In the Dick Morris article - http://www.dickmorris.com/votes-still-against-gun-control/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports - the following is stated:

"Since the treaty would have constitutionally protected status under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause the Second Amendment would afford no protection"

I don't believe the US can give up a Consititutional Right by treaty. The Supremacy Clause is not crystal clear on this subject, but can you envision First Amendment Freedoms (of speech, the press, assembly and religion) being nullified by a treaty. The same should apply to any of the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

I tend to agree with Col. Dan (http://mddall.com/sbss/1008.htm):

“It appears to be reasonably-well settled Constitutional law that treaties (whether those formally ratified by the Senate or executive agreements) cannot abrogate the individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

The leading case is Reid v. Covert, (1957) 354 US 1. Mrs. Covert, a civilian, was convicted without a jury by a military tribunal of murdering her serviceman husband in Great Britain. The authority of the tribunal was based on an agreement with the British government that provided the American military courts with exclusive jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed by American military personnel or their dependents. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black indicated that “no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." (354 US at p. 16) and that “This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty" (354 US at p. 17). The agreement with Great Britain could not abrogate Mrs. Covert’s right to trial by jury. Therefore, her non-jury conviction could not stand. Likewise, property of an American citizen in Austria could not be seized without compensation notwithstanding the authorization of an executive agreement. The Court of Claims indicated that “there can be no doubt that an executive agreement, not being a transaction which is even mentioned in the Constitution, can impair constitutional rights.” Seery v. United States (1955) 127 F.Supp 601, 606.

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual liberty protected by the Bill of Rights. District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008) 554 US 290.

Thus, while the validity of a treaty or executive agreement purporting to completely disarm law-abiding Americans in America has not been squarely tested, it seems unlikely that such a provision would survive constitutional scrutiny.”

[Jeepejeep]

I'd like to agree with that but after the Obamacare fiasco, I just can't feel comfortable with the SCOTUS any more.

[wildcatter]

The UN and Hillary are Voting on the ATT, "TODAY"! What do you want too bet, the Hillary/Ojamba "Junta", will be voting in Lock-Step, with the likes of, North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, and the other Evil ilk?

If you haven't been Praying, you'd better start! Only the Lord knows, whats coming next and it doesn't look good..

..t

[Texas Sheepdawg]

The UN and Hillary are Voting on the ATT, "TODAY"! What do you want too bet, the Hillary/Ojamba "Junta", will be voting in Lock-Step, with the likes of, North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, and the other Evil ilk?

If you haven't been Praying, you'd better start! Only the Lord knows, whats coming next and it doesn't look good..

..t

+10000000000 to WC and Jeep Jeep.
I Don't Trust in this current government or SCOTUS.
Yawl better light up the DC switchboard. I did.

[Texas Sheepdawg]

You've got to be kidding? You think that some stupid British guy telling me that the revised treaty is much better is going to hold any water on this side of the frikkin pond!?! Why don't you wake up and smell what's in your shovel, Fox News.
I thought you might be interested in this article: Senators Wary of Arms Treaty as Deadline Looms.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07 ... ms-treaty/

[Jim in Houston]

There are no "improvements" to the content or wording of this treaty that would make it acceptable, nor do I place any weight on the protestation that it only concerns itself with transfers of weapons across national boundaries. The record keeping and inspection requirements to implement these international transfer protocols are onerous, unnecessary, and an affront to law abiding American gun owners.

[Texas Sheepdawg]

Does this "language" make anyone feel better?

It would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers, and would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons that violate arms embargoes or facilitate acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime -- and if there is "a substantial risk" the treaty would prohibit the transfer.
The new draft makes clear that doesn't pertain only to arms exports but to all types of arms transfers, closing a loophole raised by campaigners.
The United States objected to any requirement to report on exports of ammunition and that remains out of the latest draft.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said that the new text would potentially allow states to exclude arms transfers that are not commercial sales, such as gifts, from review under the terms of the treaty and does not include a broad enough list of weapons to be covered.
He said it would also potentially allow states to exempt arms sales under previous defense cooperation agreements under the terms of the treaty. That could undermine another line of attack from opponents in the U.S. - that the treaty would prevent arms sales to allies like Israel and Taiwan.
"We urge the United States and other arms exporters and importers, including China, Russia, the U.K., and India, to work with other states, especially those most affected by violence fueled by illicit arms dealing, to provide the leadership and flexibility needed to reach a sound agreement by Friday's deadline," Kimball said.
With the conference scheduled to end on Friday, negotiators have been trying to come up with a text that satisfies advocates of a strong treaty with tough regulations and countries that appear to have little interest in a treaty including Syria, North Korea, Iran, Egypt and Algeria.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07 ... z21q9Jv75G

[Texas Sheepdawg]

The media outlets are strangely quiet. What's going on?

[commander faschisto]

GREAT NEWS JUST REPORTED: THE UN ATT AGREEMENT FELL APART TODAY AT THE UN...IT WAS NOT VOTED ON, AND IS "DEAD" FOR THE TIME BEING...WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AGAIN "AT A LATER DATE"...