TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is a 9:14 video produced by the NRA, featuring commentator
Ginny Simone.

It is a scary blueprint of how the United Nations has been busy disarming
the world. I believe the statue of the revolver with the barrel twisted like
a pretzel is in front of the UN HQ in NYC.

The disarming of the people of the UK, Australia, and other nations and the
resulting violence against good people, should make all forum friends want to
sign up as NRA members if they have not done so already. The NRA is our voice
against being disarmed by unelected bureaucrats from anti-democratic nations.

The video shows many beautiful firearms confiscated and destroyed by the
truckload. That, my friends, is the protection of thousands of people destroyed
by liberals who have no idea what they are doing to democracy and self-defense.

Resistance is not futile. The 2nd Amendment will prevail if we defend it.
Any US politicians who do not support 2A should be voted out at the next election.

SIA

It's a little sensationalist...I don't think you have to worry about the UN "disarming" the US anytime soon.

And it points out one of the biggest fears I have, not that the 2nd ammendment will be repealed, but that some international tready will make it null and void.

PArrow wrote:And it points out one of the biggest fears I have, not that the 2nd ammendment will be repealed, but that some international tready will make it null and void.

That's a common misconception- that international treaty can be used to change our laws or rights..

That's the 'Dulles Doctrine' approach to treaties, and Dulles never backed up his assertions, even though every president since has claimed the authority.

See Reid v Covert

. . .no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. . . .

This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty.
This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

Treaty ratification is an act of congress, and no act of congress (alone) can override the constitution. Otherwise the SCOTUS could never rule a law unconstitutional.

see US Constitution, Article VI-

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[/quote]

Everyone gets stuck on the supreme Law of the Land part but overlook / don't quote the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding bit.

If Heller set a bar at not banning weapons 'in common use, for lawful purposes', and if McDonald, Heller II, or one of it's offspring accomplishes incorporation against the states, then no treaty that abrogates the rights protected by the second amendment (as interpreted by Heller, etc) could be held as constitutional.

AndyC wrote:That's very comforting to know, thank you

I do, however, know a liberal lawyer in another place who is very confident that there are ways to get civilian ownership of firearms made illegal here by treaty. Now, I'm no lawyer so I can't argue much with him about the legal side of things, but I have made the point to him that, for all I cared they could declare, for example, slavery quite legal again. That certainly doesn't mean I'm about to obey that law and suddenly consider myself a slave just because "it's legal" - same thing goes for my firearms rights.

Oh agreed, doesn't stop them from thinking that's the case, but anyone with access to westlaw can find a ton of cases to the contrary.

I hear the same schtick when it comes to climate change treaties, etc etc..

Ashlar wrote:[
That's a common misconception- that international treaty can be used to change our laws or rights..

.

If that be the case, then why can't I carry a pistol or rifle out in the open in 90% of the US?

PArrow wrote:If that be the case, then why can't I carry a pistol or rifle out in the open in 90% of the US?

I tell people who say "it can't happen here" to OC in DC or NYC and report back.

PArrow wrote:

Ashlar wrote:[
That's a common misconception- that international treaty can be used to change our laws or rights..

.

If that be the case, then why can't I carry a pistol or rifle out in the open in 90% of the US?

State law.. like in CA, in 1967 when Governor Reagan signed into law the Mulford Act.

Why, do you think there's some treaty we've signed that supercedes state & federal law?

Ashlar wrote:

PArrow wrote:

Ashlar wrote:[
That's a common misconception- that international treaty can be used to change our laws or rights..

.

If that be the case, then why can't I carry a pistol or rifle out in the open in 90% of the US?

State law.. like in CA, in 1967 when Governor Reagan signed into law the Mulford Act.

Why, do you think there's some treaty we've signed that supercedes state & federal law?

I don't think some tready has, I fear what some treaty will with the help of Obama and the current congress.

PArrow wrote:I don't think some tready has, I fear what some treaty will with the help of Obama and the current congress.

I guess I'm not getting your point, then. Do you think that a treaty is the reason that one can't open carry in 90% of the US? If not, why bring it up?

*scratches head*

Treaties have the force of acts of congress (since Congress has to ratify a treaty.) Congress can't pass an unconstitutional law (well, they can, but the courts will strike them down - hence the whole concept of judicial review as a balance of power between the legislative and judicial branch.)

Ashlar wrote:Treaties have the force of acts of congress (since Congress has to ratify a treaty.) Congress can't pass an unconstitutional law (well, they can, but the courts will strike them down - hence the whole concept of judicial review as a balance of power between the legislative and judicial branch.)

The meaning of "shall not be infringed" is crystal clear to anyone who deserved to graduate high school. Likewise "keep and bear" means the same thing as "possess and carry" in English.

I'll second the suggestion to carry a handgun openly in New York City and then post if you still think the goverment can't pass a law to violate our rights.

Or if you think it only applies to the Federal government, carry a handgun openly on the National Mall and then post about your experience and if you changed your mind. Please include pictures, like a wally walk.

Different subject entirely. What we consider infringement may not be what the courts consider infringement. And our opinion isn't the one that matters, much as that pains me.

Even the SCOTUS in Heller said: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

As I mentioned, it takes a case to challenge a law that we consider unconstitutional- that requires someone with standing (Dick Heller, e.g.) and a persuasive argument ('shall not be infringed' isn't persuasive, much as you'd think differently)- with those two elements, you have a path to get the judiciary to review the law.

The question as presented by the OP is about some nebulous fear of a treaty superseding the constitutional protections laid out in our founding documents and laws. That is poppycock.