Thread: U.N.'s global gun ban treaty

Did NBC’s David Gregory violate DC gun law on Meet the Press?
By Doug Powers • December 23, 2012 06:59 PM

As Prof. William Jacobson noted, the answer to the question in the title appears to be “yes” — unless the magazine Gregory was holding on Meet the Press today while lecturing NRA president Wayne LaPierre was a prop: http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12...city-gun-clip/



From Warner Todd Huston at Big Journalism http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...Meet-The-Press by way of Doug Ross: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...aces-year.html

During the show, Gregory waved around a 30-round magazine for what he claimed is an AR-15 rifle. But since Meet the Press is taped in NBC’s Washington D.C. studios this is actually a violation of the city’s strict gun laws.

Washington D.C. specifically bans the very ammunition magazine that Gregory bandied about during his discussion.

DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 (my bold)

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

File that under “if they really want it they’ll get it” — whether it’s for protection, to commit crimes, or for a lib media talking head to unwittingly undercut his own argument on national television. Better put Biden on it.

The penalty on the books is a maximum of a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail. Gregory should be more careful, because he doesn’t look to be the type of guy who could hack a year in the joint. He shouldn’t worry though — it’s not as if he works for Fox News or anything. If he did he might be getting perp walked by now.

There’s already a petition at the White House’s website calling for Gregory to be held to the law, but he won’t be. Which leads to this: Maybe Gregory should look into why the laws on the books aren’t entirely enforced before calling for new ones. He appears to have experienced it firsthand. http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-pr...rticle/2516175

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=qMCspFX76tg


Twitchy has much more. http://twitchy.com/2012/12/23/lapdog...ber-bias-show/

Update: Keep in mind the fact that David Gregory mocked LaPierre’s idea for armed security in schools as you read this about where the Meet the Press host’s own kids go to school : http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ol_691057.html

The Gregory children go to school with the children of President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post. That school is the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121103579.html

According to a scan of the school’s online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/23...egory-gun-law/

comments

That would be poetic justice for Gregory to be nailed for violating a law that makes no sense at all.

Here in CA, if you any loaded magazine is found in your car, you are unlawfully carrying/transporting a loaded weapon. Even if there is no gun in the car. I wonder how many California gun owners know that?

That’s what makes these gun control laws so evil. They are intentionally designed to ensnare unwary law-abiding citizens into devious traps that make no sense.

,,

Hey David — Hows about your kids going to a Private School that does have High Security?/ I guess that does not count because you and your ilk are just too important to be counted as the chattering class right?

//

Add to the above the ignorance and irrelevance of his main thesis. Semi-auto assault riffles are designed for quick reloading for obvious reasons – and if your magazines are carried on an ammo belt you can easily eject your legal 10 round mag and reload in around 3 seconds. So your time required to pop off 30 rounds goes from about 13 seconds to 15. That oughta be more than enough time for swat to move in and neutralize the perp, no? Sheesh, what a bunch of fruit loops

..

Hypocrites like David Gregory attack the NRA, yet he likely has an NRA member for armed security.

..

Have enough money, Enough Connections, or enough power, and the law doesn’t apply. Funny how things never change.

..

What a jerk. He sends his kids to a school with armed guards and he has the gall to mock somebody who calls for the same for others.

UN votes to reopen talks on arms-trade treaty opposed by NRA
By Jonathan Easley - 12/25/12 11:11 AM ET

The United Nations General Assembly on Monday voted to reconsider an international treaty to regulate the global arms trade, a measure opposed by the nation’s largest gun-rights lobby. The move could intensify another high-profile fight between the administration, which backs the treaty, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) which says it will restrict the domestic sale of firearms.

The General Assembly set the final round of negotiations on the treaty for March 2013. While the results of the vote were not available, Reuters reported that diplomats said the U.S. voted in favor of the resolution. The arms-trade treaty stalled in July, with gun-control activists accusing the Obama administration of sandbagging support for the bill to avoid criticism from Republicans and pro-gun-rights Democrats ahead of the election.

The U.S. mission to the U.N. denied that the timing of the election had anything to do with the treaty’s talks being delayed.

At the time, 50 senators — including eight Democrats — signed on to a letter signaling their opposition to the treaty, saying they were worried it would affect the sale of civilian weapons within the United States. The Obama administration, which backs the treaty, has said its language would not affect domestic arms sales and would merely require the rest of the world to adopt America's already strong export controls. The treaty would have a hard time being ratified by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds vote, but if the president signs it, that would create some obligations under international law, such as agreeing to refrain from actions that would defeat the treaty's purpose and goals.

The U.N. vote comes as the NRA, which has lobbied hard against the treaty, finds itself at the center of the nation’s renewed debate over domestic gun-control measures in the wake of a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. on Dec. 14, which left 26 dead, including 20 children.

While President Obama has pressed Democrats to introduce legislation banning the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity clips, the NRA is maintaining its tough stance against further restrictions. The group sparked controversy on Friday by calling for a national program to place armed guards in the nation’s schools to prevent future violence.

In a press conference last Friday, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre said new limits on gun ownership would not prevent future massacres, instead urging more security officers in schools and calling for a focus on mental health and violence in entertainment.

Last July, the NRA warned the U.N. that the effort to craft international rules for weapons sales would go nowhere in Congress if it includes civilian arms. “I am here to announce NRA's strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens' right to self-defense,” LaPierre said at the time. “No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteed to us. The only way to address NRA's objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty. That is the only solution. On that, there will be no compromise.”

Proponents of the treaty say the NRA’s concerns are unfounded, and argue excluding civilian weapons would gut the effort to keep deadly arms out of the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes. Advocates say the treaty would bring much of the world in line with U.S. standards without affecting the rules that govern domestic sales. And they say gun enthusiasts are wrong to worry about their Second Amendment rights, since the Constitution trumps international law.

A final vote on the U.N. treaty is expected to take place in mid-2013.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affa...s-trade-treaty

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Did NBC’s David Gregory violate DC gun law on Meet the Press?
By Doug Powers • December 23, 2012 06:59 PM

As Prof. William Jacobson noted, the answer to the question in the title appears to be “yes” — unless the magazine Gregory was holding on Meet the Press today while lecturing NRA president Wayne LaPierre was a prop: http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12...city-gun-clip/



From Warner Todd Huston at Big Journalism http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...Meet-The-Press by way of Doug Ross: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...aces-year.html



File that under “if they really want it they’ll get it” — whether it’s for protection, to commit crimes, or for a lib media talking head to unwittingly undercut his own argument on national television. Better put Biden on it.

The penalty on the books is a maximum of a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail. Gregory should be more careful, because he doesn’t look to be the type of guy who could hack a year in the joint. He shouldn’t worry though — it’s not as if he works for Fox News or anything. If he did he might be getting perp walked by now.

There’s already a petition at the White House’s website calling for Gregory to be held to the law, but he won’t be. Which leads to this: Maybe Gregory should look into why the laws on the books aren’t entirely enforced before calling for new ones. He appears to have experienced it firsthand. http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-pr...rticle/2516175

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=qMCspFX76tg


Twitchy has much more. http://twitchy.com/2012/12/23/lapdog...ber-bias-show/

Update: Keep in mind the fact that David Gregory mocked LaPierre’s idea for armed security in schools as you read this about where the Meet the Press host’s own kids go to school : http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ol_691057.html




**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/23...egory-gun-law/

Police reportedly denied David Gregory permission to use high-capacity magazine on ‘Meet the Press’;
Update: Did ATF give Gregory the green light?

Posted at 12:13 pm on December 26, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

http://twitchy.com/2012/12/26/police...eet-the-press/

Whitney Eleanor Wild@WhitneyWReports


Update on incident involving @davidgregory: NBC asked MPD if they could use a high capacity magazine in the segment, they were told no.

26 Dec 12

Oh dear … the plot grows ever thicker. David Gregory, currently under investigation for brandishing a high-capacity magazine on “Meet the Press,” may be guilty of not only violating DC gun laws, but of doing so intentionally. http://twitchy.com/2012/12/23/david-...ity-magazines/ An email purportedly from the DC Metropolitan Police Department suggests that NBC inquired about using a high-capacity magazine for the “Meet the Press” segment and that the request was denied.


Officer Aziz Alali of the MPD Public Information Office further confirmed the authenticity of the e-mail, and gave me this statement by telephone:

“NBC contacted the Metropolitan Police Department inquiring if they could utilize a high acapcity [sic] magazine for thie [sic] segment. NBC was informed that that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied. This matter is currently being investigate [sic] and I cannot get into any further specifics on this investigation.”

As Twitchy reported, a conservative lawyer has volunteered to defend Gregory on Second Amendment grounds. http://twitchy.com/2012/12/25/twitte...dment-grounds/ Sounds like Gregory might be wise to take him up on that offer.


According to TMZ, an official from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives told “Meet the Press” staff that Gregory could display the magazine on TV, provided that it was empty. The ATF official had reportedly been given the go-ahead by a DC police official. This, of course, contradicts the DC police’s statement that permission to display the magazine had been denied.

In any event, it sounds like rather than adhering to legal guidelines, NBC chose instead to go with the answer that best suited their propaganda mission. Evidently, in journo-tools’ minds, the law really doesn’t apply to them. http://twitchy.com/2012/12/26/howard...trol-too-much/

Dylan Byers@DylanByers


D.C. police spox: ""I don't know where [@TMZ] got their information. I can't confirm what they said." politi.co/WSjWpp

26 Dec 12

http://twitchy.com/2012/12/26/police...eet-the-press/

March 18, 2013 by Dean Garrison

The UN Small Arms Treaty Talks Are Getting Serious – Where’s The Outrage?

From March 18-28 the United Nations will again meet with an updated draft to try to finalize passage of its Small Arms Treaty. However it doesn’t seem to be a story, despite being less than 24 hours away. Conservative blogs and sites are as guilty as the Mainstream Media. Almost no one is speaking out against a Treaty that has the ability to change America, and the world as we know it, forever. To give credit where credit is due I will say that the NRA has not dropped this fight. It just seems that most everyone else views it as a non-story. As of this morning I found six total sources reporting the story within the last two days. I consider that unacceptable. Here is a quote from NRA opposes U.N. arms treaty, which was published earlier today in The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...cb4_story.html

“The NRA is among the treaty’s most vocal opponents and a founder of the World Forum on Shooting Activities, an international coalition of gun rights activists and gun manufacturers who plan to speak against the treaty.

‘What we really object to is the inclusion of civilian firearms within the scope of the ATT,’ said Tom Mason, the group’s executive secretary and a lawyer who has represented the NRA at U.N. meetings for nearly two decades. ‘This is a treaty that really needs to address the transfer of large numbers of military weapons that leads to human rights abuses. We have submitted language that you can define what a civilian firearm is.’

The NRA also argues that the treaty could infringe on gun rights as understood in the United States and could force Americans onto an international registry.

I applaud the NRA for standing up for our rights as American Citizens. I’d like to share an important video testimony with you. It is only 6 minutes and will summarize the NRA stance very clearly and succinctly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=2OAUYDMqrA8

I can’t help but think that the media is under some unofficial White House gag order over The UN Small Arms Trade Treaty. Think about it. This story should be all over every American news website today. We understand how everyone wants the “scoop” in journalism. Why is it that a small and obscure blog called “The D.C. Clothesline” is one of only a handful of sources covering this? http://dcclothesline.com/2013/03/17/...tting-serious/

It’s all about agendas. The Obama Administration did not officially endorse this treaty until after the 2012 election. Obama was elected on November 6th, 2012 and on November 7th, 2012 he officially endorsed the treaty. How convenient is that? The administration blamed Hurricane Sandy for the timing of the matter, but they always have an excuse. An excuse is not an explanation. To wait until after the election to declare a stance on such an important issue is, at the very least, not providing the American people with transparency that they need to make good decisions. Do Republicans do it too? Oh yes, without a doubt. This is one reason I consider myself independent.

Previously the administration had objected to the treaty and its inclusion of “ammunition” as part of the agreement. Egypt and Syria carried the same objection. Very interesting indeed.

The Chinese and Russians also objected for different reasons.

But now it seems like no one is objecting and my sincere hope is that our Senate will hold their ground, because it will take 2/3 of them to ratify. As of last year we had a majority of the Senate objecting to this treaty, but we have to remember that the Obama Administration was also objecting. Now that “The King” has spoken, many of his subjects will begin to follow. And with a democratic majority in The Senate it will take only a handful of RINO Senators to insure the ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty.


The democrats currently have a 53-45 majority but in reality you could argue that it is 55-45. The two independents are generally left-leaning. If the democrats and independents vote in favor of the Obama Administration’s position then it would take only 12 Republican votes to ratify this. I am not saying that this is likely, but it could happen.


Let’s not forget what happened during Senator Rand Paul’s historic filibuster: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...graham-tantrum

“Wednesday night in Washington was a big one for the future of the Republican Party. At the Capitol building, Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, was filibustering the nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA. At the swanky Jefferson Hotel, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, was convening a dinner with President Barack Obama and 12 other Republican senators. These simultaneous events revealed while elephants are no closer to resolving their party-wide identity crisis, there is a way forward.”

OK, so what were they talking about at that dinner? You won’t get a straight answer, though I’m sure at least one or two Rand Paul barbs came out. But again, how many votes would need to come from Republicans to ratify? Potentially as few as 12. How many Republican Senators dined with the President while Rand Paul was fighting for America? Thirteen.


I think that part of the reason that more conservative blogs and sites are not running this story is simply because they think this has no chance to make it through the Senate. I would respectfully disagree.


I think we are in a fight and I think it is time to raise some major awareness on this issue. Whether you can share this on social media or bombard your Senators with emails…anything will help. We must raise awareness before it’s too late.


Is this another “backdoor” attempt to suspend conditions of the 2nd amendment? Or is it just another step in the process to systematically grind it away? It does not matter because accepting the terms of this agreement is a clear violation of our constitutionally protected rights.


The second amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms and those rights “shall not be infringed.” McCain and Graham may still be picking caviar from their teeth but they need to remember the words of our constitution, as do their RINO friends.


Mr. Obama is not our King.

The United Nations has no authority on American soil.

These are the facts. We are protected in this country by a Constitution which the current lawmakers seem determined to rip to shreds.

This will not happen on our watch. We are the American Patriots.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/th...#ixzz2Nzy7KwBQ

NRA vs UN: Arms Trade Treaty stirs frenzy in US gun lobby
Get short URL Published time: March 17, 2013 10:58

The National Rifle Association, America’s most powerful domestic lobby, is preparing for debate on the UN-sponsored Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that it fears could infringe upon Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms.

UN ministers are hoping to convince the 193-member states to better regulate the import and export of particular weapons – for example, the omnipresent AK-47 assault rifle – which they say could be used to commit human rights atrocities, as well as acts of terrorism.


The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) would apply to small arms, as well as tanks, artillery, warships, fighter aircraft and missiles.


The UN treaty carries a provision that suggests UN members “adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to regulate, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through its territory.”


These supranational efforts by the United Nations have been fiercely condemned by the NRA and other US civil groups, mostly on the right of the political spectrum, who fear a “global gun grab,” as well as the creation of an international database of gun owners.

“What we really object to is the inclusion of civilian firearms within the scope of the ATT,” said Tom Mason, an attorney who has represented the NRA at the UN for nearly two decades, the Washington Post reported. “This is a treaty that really needs to address the transfer of large numbers of military weapons that leads to human rights abuses. We have submitted language that you can define what a civilian firearm is.”

Human rights groups, however, insist these fears are misplaced.

Michelle A. Ringuette, chief of campaigns and programs at Amnesty International USA, said the opposition proved the “gun lobby’s creativity” in claiming that ‘civilian weapons’ differentiated from military weapons under the ATT.

“There is no such distinction,” she emphasized in her statement. “To try to create one would create a loophole that would render the treaty inoperative, as anyone could claim that he or she was in the business of trading ‘civilian weapons.’”

The NRA views the UN debate on ATT as the latest challenge to gun rights. Last week, the US Senate Judiciary Committee approved a measure to reinstate a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, since the law prohibiting the firearms expired in 2004. Although the legislation is unlikely to pass a Senate vote, it shows that public opinion on gun ownership may be turning.


Gun control has become a hot topic in the United States following a spate of horrific mass shootings carried out with semi-automatic weapons.


On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza went on a shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 20 children and six staff members. The incident ranks as the second-deadliest shooting in US history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre (32 dead; 17 wounded).


On July 20, 2012, another mass shooting, this one inside of a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, sent shockwaves of grief through the country. The gunman fired into the audience with various firearms, killing 12 people and injuring dozens. The sole suspect is James Eagan Holmes, who was arrested outside the cinema following the shooting spree.


Due to the increase in such incidents, the Obama administration is displaying a new resolve towards implementing gun control measures, saying it supports the UN initiative.

“The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” Secretary of State John Kerry said.

Negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty begin Monday at the UN headquarters in New York.


The NRA, which is a founder of the World Forum on Shooting Activities, an international alliance of gun owners and gun manufacturers, will also be in New York this week petitioning against the controversial treaty.

http://rt.com/usa/nra-un-ban-arms-trade-treaty-us-380/

“Undead” U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Lurches Forward Despite Second Failed Conference
Friday, March 29, 2013

On March 28, the “Final” Conference on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty came to a close without reaching its goal of consensus support for the treaty from the 193 nations in the body. Now, a group of nations led by Kenya, including the United States, has introduced a resolution to adopt the treaty to the UN General Assembly. A vote on the treaty is likely to take place in early April, with a meeting of the General Assembly having been scheduled for April 2. The goal of the states putting forth the resolution is for the treaty to be available for signing June 3. Passage of the treaty is expected, but a vote in the General Assembly has been described as a “weaker” method of adopting the treaty than the consensus adoption ATT backers had sought.


The final text of the treaty, issued March 27, does have a passing acknowledgement of individual gun rights in the preamble, which states, “Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.” However, the preamble has no force of law and there are still several troublesome aspects of the treaty’s text.

Among the most egregious provisions, are the sections urging recordkeeping of “end users.” Article 8 Section 1 implores importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including “end use or end user documentation.” Article 12 urges states to keep records of end users “for a minimum of ten years.” Regardless of any attempt to sell the treaty to the American people, data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a registry, which is unacceptable. But worse, the treaty could force that information into the hands of foreign governments, whose records on privacy may be even more questionable than that of the U.S.



Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/03/und...#ixzz2P4oLJBRW

April 2, 2013
“U.N. passes sweeping international arms regulation viewed by some as Second Amendment override”

Meh, so what? Just mentioning this singles you out as part of the black helicopter crowd.

I’m sure Obama — who likes to shoot him so clay pigeons! — isn’t going to be pressing the Senate to try to go along with a surrender of national sovereignty to a far-flung collection of international bureaucrats.

After all, he loves his country — and respects its sovereignty — just as much as we do. He merely disagrees on policy.

I know this, because assurances were made to me on these points by very thoughtful GOP realists. You know, the good kind of us.

Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2PKiAELFd

The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday signed off on a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade, brushing aside worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the American gun market.

The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it.American gun rights activists, though, insist the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. They do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

Critics of the treaty were heartened by the U.S. Senate’s resistance to ratifying the document, assuming President Obama sent it to the chamber for ratification. In its budget debate late last month, the Senate approved a non-binding amendment opposing the treaty offered by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, with eight Democrats joining all 45 Republicans backing the amendment.

Let’s not so quickly celebrate the eight Democrats who agreed with the Republican Senators that we shouldn’t be entering into treaties that threaten US sovereignty. Let’s concern ourselves that there were only eight, and think awhile on what exactly that portends.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that “we are pleased to join with the consensus” on the treaty, adding that before the White House gets to planning on how to get it through the Senate, it will first review and assess the language of the treaty itself.

Despite the Senate vote, numerous groups have pressured Mr. Obama to support the treaty, and Amnesty International hailed Tuesday’s vote.

“The voices of reason triumphed over skeptics, treaty opponents and dealers in death to establish a revolutionary treaty that constitutes a major step toward keeping assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons out of the hands of despots and warlords who use them to kill and maim civilians, recruit child soldiers and commit other serious abuses,” said Frank Jannuzi, deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA.

Right. Because arms dealers obey treaties to the letter, and despots who deal in genocide or slavery or “other serious abuses” are routinely rehabilitated by signed documents demanding that they not be who they are.

More public masturbation.

Keep a close watch on how the Obama Administration begins pressing this treaty. Eight Democrats is hardly a stunning display of resistance to an assault on our 2nd Amendment protections. And as Obama has shown with respect to his push to get state Democrats to do his “gun violence” work for him, he is not above applying all manner of pressures to make sure the treaty comes up for a ratification vote. Two-thirds of the Senate, howver, is a big obstacle, and Obama doesn’t like to be seen so evidently failing. So I hold out hope no vote will be forthcoming.

People have asked, what will be the spark that launches the next resistance movement?

I’d say that ratification of any such treaty is one early contender.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=48452

46 U.S. Senators Voted Against US Sovereignty

Posted on April 24 2013

Who in the world in their right mind would give away the United States of America and their sovereignty?

46 United States Senators! That is exactly what happened. With 46 Senators voting to enter into an agreement with the United Nations Small Arms Trade Treaty!

This treaty would have placed a GLOBAL BAN on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the United States. The treaty also had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammunition.

We must make sure these NON-patriots are voted out of office.

The statement of purpose from the bill read: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”

In short, these United States Senators—sworn to protect and abide by the United States Constitution—voted to let the United Nations take our guns!

These United States Senators violated their oath to the U. S. Constitution!

These Senators actually voted to give our Second Amendment Constitutional rights to the United Nations.

YES, 46 percent of United States Senators voted to turn over our rights to a One World Government, the United Nations!

In our books, that means they are absolutely TRAITORS!!

Hard to even conceive, we came within four votes of giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations! The vote was 53-46. Unimaginable!

When our United States Senators swear an oath to the United States Constitution, how in the world can they even contemplate giving away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power, even the United Nations!

No matter how they have voted in the past, or how much good they have done for America or especially for their home state, these “NON-PATRIOTS” have betrayed the United States of America and they MUST be voted out of office!

Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the United Nations:

Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin(D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy(D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

All were Democrats but 2; there were NO Republicans who voted to give away our Constitutional rights!!

These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose their re-election. We have been betrayed! 46 Senators Voted to Give our Second Amendment Constitutional Rights to the United Nations!

This is unimaginable!

Ask yourself: “How in the world could ANY elected official give away the sovereignty of the United States of America?”

Much less an elected United States Senator!

These Senators have literally BETRAYED not only our United States Constitution, but also YOU!

Let me repeat what they have done in a nutshell: They have voted to give our Second Amendment Constitutional Rights to the United Nations. These are bureaucrats who have absolutely NO interest in the United States! They have voted to give away our Constitutional right of gun ownership to a bureaucratic, mostly anti-American, governmental body, the United Nations!

http://www.conservative-daily.com/20...s-sovereignty/

Obama to Sign U.N. Firearms Treaty Rejected by Senate
Kit Daniels - Infowars.com May 31, 2013

President Barack Obama will soon sign an international arms trade treaty previously rejected by the United States Senate.

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) establishes regulations for international arms sales. Categories of firearms listed in the treaty includes tanks, artillery, and small arms such as handguns. The U.N. General Assembly passed the treaty on April 2nd with a vote of 153-4, with the United States voting in favor. Obama intends to sign the treaty on June 3rd.

On March 23rd, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment to prevent the U.S. from entering into the treaty. It passed by a vote of 53 to 46.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced another amendment to ensure “that the United States will not negotiate or support treaties that violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States.” This amendment passed in the Senate by a voice vote.

Signatories of the treaty are encouraged to keep records on the recipients of imported arms and to introduce domestic legislation to support the treaty’s requirements, according to the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.

Due to the Senate’s response to the treaty, Obama’s signature will be symbolic at best. According to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

http://www.infowars.com/obama-to-sig...ted-by-senate/

comments

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

Although it’s no secret that Obama views the U.S. Constitution as an impediment to his political agenda and that he basically hates everything this nation has ever stood for, he didn’t violate anything by signing that treaty. The reason is specifically because, as president of the United States, he has the power to make treaties. The one branch of our government that has the power to stop him is Congress. The Constitution clearly states that any “treaty” he makes is valid and binding “ONLY” on condition that 2/3 (Two Thirds) of the Senators present concur.

It seems very apparent from the amendments passed by Senators in both major parties “before” he has even signed the U.N. treaty have effectively deemed the document to be null and void. Therefore, the U.N. Small Arms treaty is unenforceable within the United States, her territories, or her protectorates. Whether he likes it or not, there isn’t a damned thing Obama can do to make the treaty a binding one because the U.S. Senate has already passed necessary amendments deciding that it will never be ratified.

We are a sovereign nation, and as such, our laws, our Constitution, and the unique American freedom and way of life they protect, are beyond contestation by foreign powers. Simply put, outsiders don’t get to decide what we Americans do in our own country.

The U.N Small Arms Treaty may be enforceable in regards to whatever dictatorship or foreign country that passes it or signs on to it, but it won’t be valid, or enforceable, in any way in the United States of America no matter how many times Obama signs it. No treaty any president signs will ever be valid until it has been ratified by the Senate, and they have already said no before he has picked up the pen…

...

The treaty has ALREADY been rejected by the Senate in a called vote, he KNOWS that the Senate, the House, and the American people, (by a demonstrably overwhelming majority, by the way), do not want nor agree with this treaty, (he could not get his idiotic gun control laws passed no matter how low he stooped in an effort to appeal emotionally to the drooling masses after his opportunistic Sandy Hook tragedy….even with mountains of bald faced lies and intentional misrepresentations tacked on for good measure), it has been shown again and again that the purpose and the SPECIFIC INTENT of this treaty as it is deliberately been phrased is to provide a source of DIRECT CONFLICT with the founding documents that this country has been based upon for the past 250+ years, (ever heard of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Mr. so called, “Constitutional Scholar”, Soetero?), yet this Communist Criminal who has hijacked the highest office of the Executive Branch of Government and has done nothing but committed one treasonous act after another in direct contradiction of his oath of office still plans to sign that filthy rag?

REALLY?

If this does not finally, once and for all, show every man, woman, and child what this man is all about, how evil he truly is, how LOW he is, and how criminal his intentions are, then nothing ever will.

..


I don’t always sign weapon trade treaties,

but when I do, I ignore the fact that I sent thousands of firearms to mexican drug cartels

President Obama Set to Sign UN Arms Treaty While Texas AG Threatens to Sue
Posted 06.01.13 by Greg Campbell, TPNN Contributor

President Obama is scheduled to sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on June 3rd. The ATT, which has, supposedly, been designed to regulate the traffic and possession of weapons between countries, has been highly criticized by gun rights organizations and other advocates of UN intervention into Second Amendment issues as the very nature of the treaty’s enforcement suggests that a registry would be necessary to enforce the provisions of the treaty as the treaty calls for a tracking of “end users” of the firearm.

Though the treaty’s supporters have claimed that the ATT does not violate our Constitutional principles, the treaty would afford the international community greater powers to regulate arms imports and exports, conceivably allowing for the barring of import or export of certain classes of firearms to and from the U.S. that “endanger women and children.”

With such broad restrictions on the import and export of firearms, the treaty affords the executive branch an opportunity to yield gun control decisions to the notably anti-gun United Nations. By offering the United Nations the right to regulate firearms that are “inappropriate” or that could conceivably “endanger women and children,” the treaty offers a blank check to the United Nations and plausible political cover for Democrats and moderate Republicans who can avoid the political fallout and claim, “Don’t blame us; it was the UN.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has declared that Texas will sue the federal government if the treaty is signed and ratified. In a letter to President Obama, Abbott wrote,

“As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document. Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology that could be used by those who seek to undermine our liberties to impose any number of restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.”

Though the president intends to sign the treaty, the possibility of it being enforced in America is still in serious jeopardy as the U.S. requires 67 members of the Senate to ratify the international treaty.

Anti-gun rights proponents in the Senate may have a tough time explaining their stance on the international gun control because the supporters of the treaty have largely claimed that the treaty does nothing to curb domestic gun ownership, but that it only affects importation and exportation of firearms between countries. If anti-gun rights senators want to ratify the treaty, they will be unable to tout their support for the treaty as a function of domestic gun control efforts.

Anticipating the treaty’s approval in the UN, the Senate, in February, voted on an approved an amendment to the budget that calls for a refusal to enter into the ATT.

Senator James Inhofe, the author of the amendment, called the treaty a “non-starter” shortly after its passage in the UN, casting a serious doubt over the possibility of the treaty being recognized by the United States. Inhofe stated,

“The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that passed in the General Assembly today would require the United States to implement gun-control legislation as required by the treaty, which could supersede the laws our elected officials have already put into place. It’s time the Obama administration recognizes it is already a non-starter, and Americans will not stand for internationalists limiting and infringing upon their Constitutional rights.”

Inhofe’s amendment passed 53-46 in the Senate, which could spell disaster for the ATT as 67 senators are needed to ratify the controversial treaty.

http://www.tpnn.com/president-obama-...eatens-to-sue/

comments

"... supporters of the treaty have largely claimed that the treaty does nothing to curb domestic gun ownership, but that it only affects importation and exportation of firearms between countries."

??? C'mon, anybody with a measurable IQ can see that this is just another step toward domestic disarmament. Would not this new law, however, make our anti-American assistance programs - supplying arms to the Brotherhood and to the cartels - illegal? We wouldn't want our POTUS to be caught doing anything illegal, would we? I mean if he ever became aware of what his puppets were doing.

...

Yeah...& if that, is that why there's a BIG push to arm combatants in Syria? How about the Brotherhood??? Oh, that's right, BO's above the law...all of 'em!

..

It's already illegal. It's also TREASON (per the Constitution) to Aid our enemy, and Obama is deep into doing that! I don't know why he's still walking free! And John McCain is doing it too. Read your Constitution. It's online for free. They have GIVEN the enemy ammunition, arms, aircraft...you name it. And these very people will use them AGAINST US! How low American has fallen!

−+

the segment of the treaty that has Obama salivating like a Pavlovian dog is the "a registry would be necessary to enforce the provisions of the treaty as the treaty calls for a tracking of “end users” of the firearm."

...



−+

"conceivably allowing for the barring of import or export of certain classes of firearms to and from the U.S. that “endanger women and children.”"

Are they that stupid? That's just about any gun, let alone any house utensil.

..

It does not seem to bother the administration to drone innocent women and children in their so called fight against terror with unlimited drone attacks.

...

Article II Section 2 Clause 2 states: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

This treaty was shot down by the majority of he Senate already. If Obama signs, the moment he signs the treaty, he is guilty of a high crime, and subject to impeachment. Despite his belief he is not a king or dictator. His actions are bound by the Constitution and we the people must not release him from his obligations!