Posted: 4/16/2009 1:46:42 PM EDT
|
No more reloading or completing 80% receivers for you!
...take the necessary measures to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition... 1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials: a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing. ... 1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on matters such as: a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; ... http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-63.html This treaty is brought to you courtesy of DLoken and co. |
|
Quoted:
Does this even apply to the United States? 
It is a South Americna Treaty. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041602694.html?hpid=topnews |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A treaty cannot alter the fundamental protections of the Constitution. A very recent case just upheld this. It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid. You believe that? Seriously? THIS when was the last time our government said stop the constitution says this is a no no. THEY IGNORE IT ALL THE TIME. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A treaty cannot alter the fundamental protections of the Constitution. A very recent case just upheld this. It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid. You believe that? Seriously? Yes seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A treaty cannot alter the fundamental protections of the Constitution. A very recent case just upheld this. It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid. You believe that? Seriously? Yes seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert That's unfortunate. |
|
This was in the washington post towards the bottom of the artical linked above... For what it's worth
"U.S. gun-rights groups participated as observers in drafting the treaty, which experts say includes language stating that it does not impinge on the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment." Looking into who the gun-rights groups that "participated" as observers. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A treaty cannot alter the fundamental protections of the Constitution. A very recent case just upheld this. It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid. You believe that? Seriously? Yes seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert That's unfortunate. Uh, that case upheld the supremacy of the Constitution over treaty, which was exactly my point... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A treaty cannot alter the fundamental protections of the Constitution. A very recent case just upheld this. It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid. You believe that? Seriously? Yes seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert That's unfortunate. Uh, that case upheld the supremacy of the Constitution over treaty, which was exactly my point... "It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid." That's the part that you unfortunately believe. |
|
More bullshit here>http://www.progunleaders.org/DDTC/
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-to-back-internationsl-gun-control.html http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d17-Obama-using-treaties-with-foreign-powers-to-enact-domestic-gun-control http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d17-Senate-must-reject-InterAmerican-Arms-Treaty |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A treaty cannot alter the fundamental protections of the Constitution. A very recent case just upheld this. It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid. You believe that? Seriously? Yes seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert That's unfortunate. Uh, that case upheld the supremacy of the Constitution over treaty, which was exactly my point... "It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid." That's the part that you unfortunately believe. You don't think it will be challenged? Seems to pretty obviously (from what I've read) conflict with the holding in Heller. |
|
Quoted:
aint gonna happen Before the Obama regime usurped the Presidency, I would have said you were right. But this is a brave new world. Obama will use the UN, the facist Democratic Senate and HOR to do whatever he wants. We need to come to terms, very quickly, with the reality of our new situation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A treaty cannot alter the fundamental protections of the Constitution. A very recent case just upheld this. It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid. You believe that? Seriously? Yes seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert That's unfortunate. Uh, that case upheld the supremacy of the Constitution over treaty, which was exactly my point... "It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid." That's the part that you unfortunately believe. You don't think it will be challenged? Seems to pretty obviously (from what I've read) conflict with the holding in Heller. +1 Treaty may be supreme law of the land, just like federal statutes, but they still are subject to constitutional review, as 103 pointed out. This does raise questions, however, for those who read it...are there prohibitions on imports? Those might be legally binding, and the court will just read the treaty narrowly so as not to conflict with the constitution. Then the only hope would be for a country to bring complaint to the WTO under GATT or something. Here's hoping for a broad reading... |
tc2k11, or should I say "Turn Coat 2011" If there is nothing we can do, why don't you just take all your guns and ammo and turn them in? 
It will much easier for the new regime to enslave us if you make a good example for the rest of the sheeple. 
Try being a troll somewhere else. 
|
|
RECALLING that States Parties have their respective domestic laws and regulations in the areas of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and recognizing that this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character, and recognizing that States Parties will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention; Someone pointed this out yesterday. I think it's a very important part of this treaty. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Does this even apply to the United States? It is a South Americna Treaty. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041602694.html?hpid=topnews Obama said more than 90 percent of weapons seized by Mexican authorities have come from the United States. In the days leading up to the president's visit here, senior Obama administration officials said the government was focused on enforcing existing U.S. laws to stop arms smuggling, although Mexican officials had called for more help. Nice to see they are still feeding people this fucking lie 
|
|
Quoted:
RECALLING that States Parties have their respective domestic laws and regulations in the areas of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and recognizing that this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character, and recognizing that States Parties will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention;
Someone pointed this out yesterday. I think it's a very important part of this treaty. Maybee I'm missing something, but I saw that too, and It looks like double speak to me becaause after that it turns around and says "and recognizing that states parties will apply their respective laws and regs. in a manner consistant with this convention" meaning the treaty. 
|
|
Quoted:
tc2k11, or should I say "Turn Coat 2011" If there is nothing we can do, why don't you just take all your guns and ammo and turn them in?
It will much easier for the new regime to enslave us if you make a good example for the rest of the sheeple.
Try being a troll somewhere else.
Ummm... Don't be stupid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A treaty cannot alter the fundamental protections of the Constitution. A very recent case just upheld this. It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid. You believe that? Seriously? Yes seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert That's unfortunate. Uh, that case upheld the supremacy of the Constitution over treaty, which was exactly my point... "It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid." That's the part that you unfortunately believe. You don't think it will be challenged? Seems to pretty obviously (from what I've read) conflict with the holding in Heller. It might be challenged, but you're kidding yourself if you think the courts can be relied upon to knock it down. |
|
I hope i'm wrong but, I have a gut feeling Obama is saying he is not at this time going to go try for an AWB, hoping everyone cool off meanwhile, try to enact an AWB via international treaty. (then maybee we won't notice). Because by his own admission says it would be politically difficult to reinstate a ban right now. At least through normal means. Or maybee I just don't believe a God damn thing he says!
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
tc2k11, or should I say "Turn Coat 2011" If there is nothing we can do, why don't you just take all your guns and ammo and turn them in?
It will much easier for the new regime to enslave us if you make a good example for the rest of the sheeple.
Try being a troll somewhere else.
Ummm... Don't be stupid. Ummm... Not being stupid. Your trolling. It's evident in the pattern of your posts. Every time someone says anything to rebut you, you attack them and try to make them sound as if they didn't do all their homework and figure out all the angles like you have. You are another fucking libtard troll. Another one who will not put their home state in their user information. And I couldn't help but notice you are racking up 50 posts in a day. I'm sure you will soon be using the old "You've only got 170 posts, what do you know?" as yet another attack. And now you'll prove it with another attack at someone's "lack of intelligence" like these past ones: "Keep telling yourself that" "You're going to have to do a heck of a lot more than that" "You believe that? Seriously" "That's unfortunate" "That's the part that you unfortunately believe" "Don't be stupid" "It might be challenged, but kidding yourself if you think the courts can be relied upon to knock it down" Is this the most constructive thing you have to do is start a post and then sit back and wait for someone to attack? Then attack away you fucking TROLL 
That is all. No more of my time will be wasted on this post. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
tc2k11, or should I say "Turn Coat 2011" If there is nothing we can do, why don't you just take all your guns and ammo and turn them in?
It will much easier for the new regime to enslave us if you make a good example for the rest of the sheeple.
Try being a troll somewhere else.
Ummm... Don't be stupid. Ummm... Not being stupid. Your trolling. It's evident in the pattern of your posts. Every time someone says anything to rebut you, you attack them and try to make them sound as if they didn't do all their homework and figure out all the angles like you have. You are another fucking libtard troll. Another one who will not put their home state in their user information. And I couldn't help but notice you are racking up 50 posts in a day. I'm sure you will soon be using the old "You've only got 170 posts, what do you know?" as yet another attack. And now you'll prove it with another attack at someone's "lack of intelligence" like these past ones: "Keep telling yourself that" "You're going to have to do a heck of a lot more than that" "You believe that? Seriously" "That's unfortunate" "That's the part that you unfortunately believe" "Don't be stupid" "It might be challenged, but kidding yourself if you think the courts can be relied upon to knock it down" Is this the most constructive thing you have to do is start a post and then sit back and wait for someone to attack? Then attack away you fucking TROLL
That is all. No more of my time will be wasted on this post. Good. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A treaty cannot alter the fundamental protections of the Constitution. A very recent case just upheld this. It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid. You believe that? Seriously? Yes seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert That's unfortunate. Uh, that case upheld the supremacy of the Constitution over treaty, which was exactly my point... "It will be challenged (if ratified, which I sincerely doubt) and it will be declared invalid." That's the part that you unfortunately believe. You don't think it will be challenged? Seems to pretty obviously (from what I've read) conflict with the holding in Heller. It might be challenged, but you're kidding yourself if you think the courts can be relied upon to knock it down. Look, our courts are not populated by the most conservative people ever, but they aren't stupid. No Supreme Court is going to uphold a treaty that flies in the face of hands down the most well-known opinion in five years. It just isn't going to happen. Even someone like Justice Ginsburg (who held that the 2nd protects an individual right, but sadly thought DC's ban was a reasonable restriction) is not going to vote to give a treaty the ability to override the Constitution. Making decisions that allow that to happen creates precedent that can harm Marbury v. Madison (in terms of hampering the Court's ability to review statute and, by implication, treaty). No Court will ever give a holding that puts Marbury in jeopardy. |