TexasCHLforum.com

Right2Carry wrote:If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court has ruled several times that treaties cannot undermine the rights granted by the US Constitution. I don't have time to research it at the moment. No treaty can ever supersede the US Constitution.

Well, but that depends on what the administration whose Sec State signed it, and whose efforts guided it through the senate for ratification....what THAT administration thinks of the Constitution, doesn't it?

Obama has demonstrated time and again, going back to the beginnings of his first presidential campaign when he dismissively asserted that people like us "cling to our guns and our religion," that he cannot be trusted with protecting and defending the Constitution. ALL of it. He's a liar. A Cheat. A snake in the grass.........and according to Peggy Noonan, he is largely considered irrelevant in foreign affairs, even by our allies: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _uber_feed.

If this lying, cheating, buffoon is the ultimate arbiter of which part of the Constitution he will defend and protect, and if he thinks this treaty is a good idea, how long do you think that we will have to wait to hear him tell us why we have to live with more restrictions on our gun rights? I predict not long.

Is the man actually spoiling for a fight? This is the kind of action that instigates such.

Dragonfighter wrote:Is the man actually spoiling for a fight? This is the kind of action that instigates such.

Yes, he is. Problem is, there are millions of Americans that want to give him that fight. They are right, but it is going to get uglier before it gets better.

Greg Abbott has said he intends to sue if the Senate ratifies, which I support, but what worries me is that he is talking about "small arms" and the Second Amendment was written partly due to the British attempt to seize cannon.

Sending a letter to him later today.

jimlongley wrote:Greg Abbott has said he intends to sue if the Senate ratifies, which I support, but what worries me is that he is talking about "small arms" and the Second Amendment was written partly due to the British attempt to seize cannon.

Sending a letter to him later today.

I don't think Obama is going to push for ratification. I think he will quietly try to start enforcing this based on the info in the article TAM posted and the blog I linked. He will find some government lawyers willing to sell their soul to say that he doesn't need the Senate to ratify and will attempt to use this to override things like the FOPA and institute a national gun registry.

United Nations. This unregulated cartel of Criminals should be kicked out of the United States. This Treaty could destroy States Rights under the 10th Amendment concerning the 2nd Amendment, and strengthen the Federal Politicians Rule to regulate all firearms within a Sovereign States borders. The Commerce Clause doesn't pack enough punch so this a stretch. Washington DC is full of traitors and the States would be justified in abolishing that Criminal Gang of Plundering Thugs forever. However we see fit.

The State violates our Constitution at every turn and this vaguely written treaty will be misconstrued and grow upon us all as well.


http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/documents/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Article 5 UN Arms Treaty
2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.
Article 8 UN Arms Treaty
1. Each importing State Party shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, pursuant to its national laws, to the exporting State Party, to assist the exporting State Party in conducting its national export assessment under Article 7. Such measures may include end use or end user documentation.
Article 9
Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to regulate, where necessary and feasible, the transit or trans-shipment under its jurisdiction of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) through its territory in accordance with relevant international law.
Article 13
1. Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, in accordance with Article 22, provide an initial report to the Secretariat of measures undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, including national laws, national control lists and other regulations and administrative measures. Each State Party shall report to the Secretariat on any new measures undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be made available, and distributed to States Parties by the Secretariat.
Article 16
1. In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, model legislation, and effective practices for implementation. Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide such assistance, upon request.

I have heard or read somewhere, if the Senate does not act on it, it will be ratified by default. Dick Morris maybe? Anyone else have any inaught in this?

I believe this is what I was remembering.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XZeJpXLsVC ... ZeJpXLsVCI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not worried about it. They can sign, ratify and pledge all they want and it won’t matter to me. As a matter of fact I would like to see them pass a national gun registry and 95% of gun owners just not comply.

I wonder if this scenario ever crosses the “mind” of the Brady Bunch, and if so, what would be their response be to people not complying in mass.

I am still steaming about “fast and furious”. The government broke the law trying to “prove” that "most guns going to the cartels come from the U.S."

No one was held responsible. No one went to jail.

VoiceofReason wrote:I am not worried about it. They can sign, ratify and pledge all they want and it won’t matter to me. As a matter of fact I would like to see them pass a national gun registry

They did that in 1934 for certain guns. Adding semi-autos to the registry wouldn't change the fundamental nature of the law. It's just details at that point.

If you don't comply with registration, they just might kill you. They burned down a religious facility in Texas with children inside and shoot a woman in Idaho holding her baby in her arms, and millions of gun owners did nothing, so what support do you think you're going to get for violating federal gun laws?

gringo pistolero wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:I am not worried about it. They can sign, ratify and pledge all they want and it won’t matter to me. As a matter of fact I would like to see them pass a national gun registry

They did that in 1934 for certain guns. Adding semi-autos to the registry wouldn't change the fundamental nature of the law. It's just details at that point.

If you don't comply with registration, they just might kill you. They burned down a religious facility in Texas with children inside and shoot a woman in Idaho holding her baby in her arms, and millions of gun owners did nothing, so what support do you think you're going to get for violating federal gun laws?

The fact is that, in any such scenario, some people are going to have to die in order to motivate the remaining people to stand up and do something about it. The average person, who cares deeply about staying alive, will not do anything to put his own life at risk until the dangers of NOT doing something exceed the dangers of doing something. That's just human nature, and it goes for almost everybody, with the exception of a few people who have genuine sheepdog blood in their veins. But not everybody can be a sheepdog, not even every person who has a CHL and carries a gun. Two things that influence me personally: 1) the older I get, the less willing I am to get into a fight on someone else's behalf (unless they are related to me by blood); and 2) the older I get, the less I care about living a really long time if giving my life will have some kind of meaning.

"They" did burn down a religious community in Waco. I saw the other day, on a program about the British SAS, that the SAS actually consulted on that operation. That said, and this is according to surviving witnesses who were inside that building that day, it wasn't "JUST" a religious community. David Koresh was a bad man. He was a raper of little girls. And at least some of the adults, including the parents of some of those little girls, were complicit in his crimes. They were a vile cult, not just a religion. That doesn't justify the mass killing of all of the people who died there; and certainly Janet Reno will stand before the throne of Justice some day for her part in it, but the overall picture is a lot more complex that the simplistic description you gave it.

The big issue is that the anti crowd wants to get the Un to declare the Unites States a "rouge" nation
then the anti crowd will act like the United States is another North Korea and the only way to regain
respectability will be to ratify the treaty and pass laws to support it then the second amendment will
fly out the back door. I think the treaty is worse than most of us think

The Annoyed Man wrote: "They" did burn down a religious community in Waco. I saw the other day, on a program about the British SAS, that the SAS actually consulted on that operation. That said, and this is according to surviving witnesses who were inside that building that day, it wasn't "JUST" a religious community. David Koresh was a bad man. He was a raper of little girls. And at least some of the adults, including the parents of some of those little girls, were complicit in his crimes. They were a vile cult, not just a religion. That doesn't justify the mass killing of all of the people who died there; and certainly Janet Reno will stand before the throne of Justice some day for her part in it, but the overall picture is a lot more complex that the simplistic description you gave it.

So, they killed the children in order to save them?

VoiceofReason wrote:I wonder if this scenario ever crosses the “mind” of the Brady Bunch, and if so, what would be their response be to people not complying in mass.

Their ilk have already answered that question: round ups an executions. They have no problem with the death penalty when it is applied to those who oppose their ideology.