If you like guns

[David Lee]

Originally Posted by art leong

But if it is not renounced or voted down we are required to follow it.
Vienna Convention.

Art that is not true, no international law or treatiy can trump the US Constitution, that court case I posted was directly on that point.

[Jim Wahl]

Did any of you see the whole thing? The New Orleans video or the radio interview with the Army soldier who helped confiscate guns in the middle of the night? Wake up. If the lowly N.O. mayor can make law what makes you think someone higher up can't do the same thing for the whole country? You don't think it can happen here? Ask the citizens of Australia. Wake up! Jim


.

[treessavoy]

Here's the link for the Department of State publication 7277:

www.dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

If the link doesn't work just google the top line.

In short the document is about nuclear disarmament and the drawing down of Armies and weapons, there is NO mention of civilian weapons, it's a classic example of picking out only the parts of sentences you want and out of text to inflame your believers.

As for the rest of the video my computer would take about 3 hours to download so I can only comment on the total misuse of the document listed above.

JimR

[Greg Reimer 7376]

Originally Posted by David Lee

Bill, how ever told you this has given you some false informatiion. The supreme court in 1954 in the case "Reid v. Covert" that the Bill of Rights and constitution cannot be abrogated by agreements with foreign powers.

Since when did the two most sacred documents on the face of the earth shy of the Bible mean a thing to these persons in charge now?

[art leong]

Originally Posted by David Lee

Art that is not true, no international law or treatiy can trump the US Constitution, that court case I posted was directly on that point.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...s/1_1_1969.pdf

Here is how it works.
Check out the Vienna Convention. We already are party to that. This was signed and ratified in 1969 after the 1954 court case.
If the treaty is signed, it goes to congress (senate) and the president for ratification.
It is in effect till congress votes it down (1/3 of the senate can vote it down). Or the president renounces it. There are over 50 senators that have already stated they will vote against it.
But. Have you heard of a pocket veto? It never gets to a full senate vote. It would then be in force till the senate voted on it or the president renounces it.
Those are the facts.
You say they can't do this or that. Do you remember reading about the Japanese interment camps. These people were American citizens not foreign nationals.

[goinbroke2]

[Removed]

[art leong]

Goin broke pm sent.

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by art leong

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...s/1_1_1969.pdf

Here is how it works.
Check out the Vienna Convention. We already are party to that. This was signed and ratified in 1969 after the 1954 court case.
If the treaty is signed, it goes to congress (senate) and the president for ratification.
It is in effect till congress votes it down (1/3 of the senate can vote it down). Or the president renounces it. There are over 50 senators that have already stated they will vote against it.
But. Have you heard of a pocket veto? It never gets to a full senate vote. It would then be in force till the senate voted on it or the president renounces it.
Those are the facts.
You say they can't do this or that. Do you remember reading about the Japanese interment camps. These people were American citizens not foreign nationals.

Let's put this in real simple terms: unless Congress uses a 2/3 majority , it will not become law. With regards to Congress trumping the 2nd Amendment.......they will never make it to their cars.

[art leong]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

Let's put this in real simple terms: unless Congress uses a 2/3 majority , it will not become law. With regards to Congress trumping the 2nd Amendment.......they will never make it to their cars.

Eddie you are wrong with regards to the law on this matter.
Congress has already ratified the treaty that states that when a treaty is signed it is binding till the senate tosses it or the president denounces it.
It all makes sense and should be easy. But if there is a pocket-veto. We have to follow the treaty until it is rejected.
There are already 58 senators that are voting against it.
So why even sign it?

[Eddies66]

The whole treaty is to prevent countries from selling guns to other countries that have gross violations of human rights. Regardless of what regulations other countries agree to, the treaty only becomes law in the U.S. if it gets a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

And last month, more than 50 senators signed on to a letter to Secretary of State Clinton saying that they will not vote for any treaty that restricts civilian arms.

The NRA is confident that the treaty will not be ratified in the U.S.

The U.N. can pass it if they want it," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told FoxNews.com. But for it to have domestic effect, it needs to pass us senate by a two-thirds vote -- and clearly that will not happen in this make up of the U.S. senate, regardless of what the administration does.