Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   law abiding or staunch patriot (even to the point of criminal) (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/law-abiding-staunch-patriot-even-point-criminal-26915/)

lamuskrat 05-07-2010 10:10 PM

law abiding or staunch patriot (even to the point of criminal)
 
While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.



OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT

AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR


On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a

Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States


On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.


Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!

THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.

As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Here


Click on the link below for further acknowledgement…..

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters

bkt 05-07-2010 10:43 PM

There is legal precedent established that a treaty cannot nullify or overturn a portion of the Constitution.

Even if there were no challenge to such a treaty, I know no one who would comply.

Bigcountry02 05-07-2010 10:46 PM

Do have a current link, the one from reuters is 14 Oct 2009? Currently, NRA and GOA have no current information.

KalashnikovJosh 05-07-2010 11:06 PM

If you read the Supremacy Clause to the US Constitution -

Quote:

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.
You will see that the law must be 'made in pursuance of' the US Constitution,which is the Supreme Law first and foremost.Treaties must be made only in accordance with the authority granted the government.
The government is not granted the authority to violate the Second Amendment via treaties.
-AND-
Any law made that is not Constitutionally authorized is illegitimate.
But hey,when theyre making an argument along the lines of 'the supremacy clause says all federal law is supreme' to defend the Health Care Scam,little details like that seem to get 'lost in translation' from the plain English of the 1700's to the plain English of today.....funny how that happens.

In either case.

If they ever decide to outlaw guns,they can come and take them.I wont surrender them.
I'll not bow to tyrants;Even to the point of 'losing' my 'law abiding' status.

The Brits called our Founders 'criminals' too.I'll be in good company.

Dillinger 05-07-2010 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkt (Post 282148)
There is legal precedent established that a treaty cannot nullify or overturn a portion of the Constitution.

Even if there were no challenge to such a treaty, I know no one who would comply.

Unless bkt is worried, I am not worried. ;)

He is our Legal Eagle Expert around these parts. *thumbs up* & respect*

The man has FORGOTTEN more knowledge of the Constitution, Constitutional Law, Legal Precedent and all things pertaining to living under the Laws of The Land laid forth by our Forefathers than most here will EVER know.

This story has been told before, and the result has been the same. Nothing thus far.

Honestly folks, there are 4 more years at stake for The Great Messiah. If anyone thinks he is going to take a run at guns BEFORE the 2012 Election Results are in, you are sadly mistaken I am afraid.

JD

KalashnikovJosh 05-07-2010 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dillinger (Post 282167)

Honestly folks, there are 4 more years at stake for The Great Messiah. If anyone thinks he is going to take a run at guns BEFORE the 2012 Election Results are in, you are sadly mistaken I am afraid.

JD

I've heard this story before too.

I have a friend who thinks he wont need votes to stay 'in power' by 2012.

I dont know,but I'll not put anything past someone who had a picture of Mao on an ornament on his Christmas tree.

bkt 05-07-2010 11:19 PM

OK, I owe lamuskrat an apology. I just re-read what I wrote and it was terse and probably came across as rude. Sorry, bud, I didn't mean it that way.

When I first heard about this UN treaty that would do an end-run around 2A, I nearly filled my pants because the Constitution DOES say that treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land along with the rest of the Constitution. But after doing some digging, I found there are several instances where treaties were proposed and even signed which contravened the Constitution and thus were nullified; states themselves do not have to abide by such a treaty.

That said, let me clarify the second thing I said. I know of no currently-law-abiding firearm owners who would choose to remain law-abiding over choosing to remain firearm owners. Longstanding, common-sense natural rights and the rights enumerated by our brilliant Founders trump the crap the brain-donors in government come up with.

skullcrusher 05-07-2010 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dillinger (Post 282167)
Unless bkt is worried, I am not worried. ;)

He is our Legal Eagle Expert around these parts. *thumbs up* & respect*

The man has FORGOTTEN more knowledge of the Constitution, Constitutional Law, Legal Precedent and all things pertaining to living under the Laws of The Land laid forth by our Forefathers than most here will EVER know.

This story has been told before, and the result has been the same. Nothing thus far.

Honestly folks, there are 4 more years at stake for The Great Messiah. If anyone thinks he is going to take a run at guns BEFORE the 2012 Election Results are in, you are sadly mistaken I am afraid.

JD

+1 JD.

Once bkt heads to the hills with his BOB, I do as well, especially when it comes to Constitutional stuff and all.

Please, I ask all members to double check the dates of proposed bills and treaties. Double check e-mails that attempt to get the masses riled for validity of information.

Don't do it for me, do it for your forum cred. ;)

KalashnikovJosh 05-07-2010 11:23 PM

BKT-I always thought the Supremacy Clause clarified the terms by which the federal government may enact law or write treaties.As long as they arent violating the Constitution,they are the supreme law.

Is that correct?

bkt 05-07-2010 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh (Post 282179)
BKT-I always thought the Supremacy Clause clarified the terms by which the federal government may enact law or write treaties.As long as they arent violating the Constitution,they are the supreme law.

Is that correct?

As I understand it and for the most part, yes. As long as they aren't violating some part of the Constitution, they're fine.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:37 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.