UN Arms Treaty

[Bearman202]

According to SurvivalBlog, Obama will sign the UN Arms Treaty on June 6th. Does anyone know the ramifications of this thing?

[Patriotic Sheepdog]

Senate has to ratify by a two-thirds vote at some time. Then it's legal. It will be another step towards registration in the name of "it's better for the world". Another reason why 2014 elections will be very important.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Grand58742]

I'm reasonably certain I saw they were nowhere close to the two-thirds majority needed to ratify this treaty. Found the link to the "test vote" in the Senate:

In a non-binding Senate test vote, a 53-46 majority did reject ATT…and ratification would require two-thirds in favor. However, the president will predictably work to enforce key provisions through executive orders and “common-sense” regulations and restrictions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/09/double-barreled-threat-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-and-universal-background-checks/

A huge and utter fail. Obama can sign anything he wants, won't become law or implemented until the Senate gives him the go ahead.

Unless he decides to ignore the Constitution (yet again) and place the stipulations of the treaty in effect against the will of the People (yet again) and/or bribes the votes needed in Congress (yet again).

[Patriotic Sheepdog]

I'm reasonably certain I saw they were nowhere close to the two-thirds majority needed to ratify this treaty. Found the link to the "test vote" in the Senate:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/09/double-barreled-threat-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-and-universal-background-checks/

A huge and utter fail. Obama can sign anything he wants, won't become law or implemented until the Senate gives him the go ahead.

Unless he decides to ignore the Constitution (yet again) and place the stipulations of the treaty in effect against the will of the People (yet again) and/or bribes the votes needed in Congress (yet again).

That's why 2014 elections will be important. Once he signs, I'm not sure there is a time limit for the Senate to vote on it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[tarheelsman71]

I read somewhere (some talking hat somewhere) that if we "the USA" does not sign and ratify the treaty that we will have to leave the UN. How glorious would that be! They could leave our country with they diplomatic immunity, etc. and then we could save billions that we give to other countries. Would be great. Never happen though.

[Grand58742]

That's why 2014 elections will be important. Once he signs, I'm not sure there is a time limit for the Senate to vote on it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

There isn't. And I'm not exactly sure of the "how to" on nullifying that kind of thing once it is signed.

[Matt In Oklahoma]

Its crazy that we are even having this converstion

[jimmycthemd]

There isn't. And I'm not exactly sure of the "how to" on nullifying that kind of thing once it is signed.

Here's a link to the Sentates' web site explaination of the whole treaty process (in general, not the U.N. Treaty).

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...g/Treaties.htm

[Grand58742]

From what I understand from that link, if the Senate doesn't take action, the treaty is not enforced. Or by declining it cannot be enforced. The POTUS can sign anything he wants but it doesn't become enforceable until the Senate approves it.

At least that's what I took from the link.

[Patriotic Sheepdog]

I've said it all along, I think this prez is heading towards his next job...UN president! Many of the things he has done, and is doing is weakening America, just what the UN wants. Now he continues with the assault on the 2nd.

And MIO, I agree, it is a shame we are having this discussion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[xdpatriot]

I think it's just a matter of time before our politicians fall in line with this. They continue to fall in line in everything else. We're on borrowed time.

[rice paddy daddy]

Even if the US does not ratify the treaty, it will still have large ramifications for American gun owners.
The countries that currently ship low cost ammo and guns to this countries retail dealers may no longer be able to do so.
On the plus side, my Romanian, Russian, Chinese, and Italian guns will appreciate significantly in value.
You heard it here first - $600+ Mosin Nagants.

[Grand58742]

Even if the US does not ratify the treaty, it will still have large ramifications for American gun owners.
The countries that currently ship low cost ammo and guns to this countries retail dealers may no longer be able to do so.
On the plus side, my Romanian, Russian, Chinese, and Italian guns will appreciate significantly in value.
You heard it here first - $600+ Mosin Nagants.

If the countries that sign decide to implement it on that level. I read into it and the section on small arms is kind of hazy. And let's face it, America is a piggy bank for the companies that produce the Russian animal brands, Korean, Serbian, Czech and others ammo. Or pistols. Or long rifles, etc. Some more "progressive" countries will curtail shipments, but for places like Russia and Korea that generally let capitalism work?

Let's just hope that Russian, Israeli, Romanian, Korean, Brazilian, Polish, Czech, Serbian, German and other politicians aren't as stupid as some of ours are and are still motivated by greed and campaign contributions from those companies that depend on a steady flow of American dollars for their goods.

[rice paddy daddy]

I certainly hope so. Sellier & Bellot and privy Partisan make some fine ammo. I would buy S&B before American ammo any day.

[Matt In Oklahoma]

This administration seem to be he.. bent on giving up our gun rights in any way possible.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/?intcmp=HPBucket