Obama to Sign U.N. Firearms Treaty Rejected by Senate

[Red James Cash]

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.”

This article was posted: Friday, May 31, 2013 at 1:31 pm

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[vpnavy]

I sincerely hope all Obama's ObamaSheep are so proud of a President that is single handly making us a third rate country! Thank God for our Senate.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

O's signature want mean squat if Senate doesnt approve the treaty... It takes 2/3rd vote by Senate to pass.... They need 67 yes votes, means they will need 16 Rep to vote for it and all 51 Dem.....

The Constitution provides that 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" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.

The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).

Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21. A number of these, including the Treaty of Versailles, were rejected twice. Most often, the Senate has simply not voted on treaties that its leadership deemed not to have sufficient support within the Senate for approval, and in general these treaties have eventually been withdrawn. At least 85 treaties were eventually withdrawn because the Senate never took final action on them. Treaties may also remain in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for extended periods, since treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress. There have been instances in which treaties have lain dormant within the committee for years, even decades, without action being taken.

 

[vpnavy]

O's signature want mean squat if Senate doesnt approve the treaty... It takes 2/3rd vote by Senate to pass.... They need 67 yes votes, means they will need 16 Rep to vote for it and all 51 Dem...

What bother's me so much is we actually have an "elected" President that is turning back the clocks on everything that made our country great. It is as though he doesn't like the USA. What also scares the crap out of me is the percentage of the population that would vote him in for a third term (if it was allowed) regardless of what he has said and done! Such a shame...

 

[Red James Cash]

What bother's me so much is we actually have an "elected" President that is turning back the clocks on everything that made our country great. It is as though he doesn't like the USA. What also scares the crap out of me is the percentage of the population that would vote him in for a third term regardless of what he has said and done! Such a shame...

Obozo isnt running anything,he's just the puppet.

 

[vpnavy]

Obozo isnt running anything,he's just the puppet.

Puppet or no puppet - it still scares the crap out of me what he has gotten away with...

 

[onfire]

We came four votes away from the United States Senate giving away our Constitutional rights to the United Nations.


​

In a 53-46 vote the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

​

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. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. , and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.

​

Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. .

Here are the 46 Senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

​

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)

​

This needs to go viral. These senators voted to let the U.N. take our gun rights away. They need to lose elections. We have been betrayed by 46 senators who voted to trash our 2nd Amendment constitutional rights.

.

​

 

[0121stockpicker]

You guys really buy NRA / big gun propaganda hook line and sinker. If love anyone to make a factual and logical argument on how this would at all impact the second. I'm sure you know more than the ABA You should be proud that the likes of North Korea, china, Iran, Syria etc also rejected along with the US. We are in real good company.


The United Nations kicked off the first of nine days of final debate today in New York on the Arms Trade Treaty, an international pact seeking to regulate the $70 billion market in conventional weapons. Due to the unsupported belief that its largely unenforceable regulations would violate Americans' Second Amendment rights, the treaty has once again found itself in the sights of gun-rights groups, including the National Rifle Association.

In reality, the Arms Trade Treaty, first discussed in 2006 and rejected by the Bush administration, is aimed at halting the cross-border flow of weapons into the hands of terrorists and soldiers in war-torn nations. That market is mostly unregulated now, and weapons advertised at international arms bazaars like the one in Abu Dhabi in February commonly find their way to conflict zones abroad. The treaty would take aim at weapons including tanks and missile launchers but also "small arms," which the NRA claims could lead to a domestic crackdown on civilian-model AK-47s and other assault weapons.

The notion that the treaty would attack gun-owners' constitutional rights ties into a popular right-wing conspiracy theory, embraced by the likes of Rand Paul, that it would lead to "full-scale gun CONFISCATION" and place lawful gun owners in an Orwellian international database. However, as the Washington Post reported, the treaty "lacks real enforcement mechanisms, but activists said it could be used to name and shame arms exporters who violate its terms."

In 2011 and 2012, the NRA joined Larry Pratt's conspiratorial Gun Owners of America in lobbying for a House resolution that would "express the sense of the Congress that the United States should not adopt any treaty that poses a threat to national sovereignty or abridges any rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, such as the right to keep and bear arms." The bill died in committee. But pressure from the gun lobby led the Obama administration to abandon talks last July on a draft of the Arms Trade Treaty. Major players in the global arms trade including China and Russia also objected to the draft's language.

In February, the American Bar Association's Center for Human Rights concluded that the Arms Trade Treaty "would not require new domestic regulations of firearms" nor compromise the Second Amendment (PDF). In a statement last Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry said the administration "will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution."

But such reassurances are unlikely to convince the NRA and its allies.

 

[vpnavy]

Thank you 0121stockpicker for you comments. That is the great thing about America - EVERYONE has the right to interpret and make conclusions based on what they believe is the truth. It is obvious that you have one interpretation and other's have another - so be it.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

My eyes must be playing tricks on me, seems all I am seeing is D's after all the names voting to give our rights away....

Great to see enough of the senators could see through all the smoke being blown by left and do the right thing for our Country......



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

My eyes must be playing tricks on me, seems all I am seeing is D's after all the names voting to give our rights away....

Great to see enough of the senators could see through all the smoke being blown by left and do the right thing for our Country......

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Tell us how this has anything to do with domestic gun rights?? NRA is against it because big gun wants to e pert weapons to whoever they want. It's about $$$ not rights people. You got used.

 

[Red James Cash]

Thank you 0121stockpicker for you comments

It would be all well and good vpnavy if those were pickers words,which theyre NOT lol.

NRA Targets UN Arms Trade Treaty, Again | Mother Jones

 

[onfire]

So what your saying Stocky All those $$$ the Dem's raise for their reelection are for our rights?/ We've been being used since 2008 were have you been?

 

[0121stockpicker]

So what your saying Stocky All those $$$ the Dem's raise for their reelection are for our rights?/ We've been being used since 2008 were have you been?

No idea what you are talking about. What does this have to do with the UN att? Politicians and money - no I'm a big fan of campaign finance reform. Again I'm not sure what this has to do with the treaty.

 

[onfire]

No idea what you are talking about. What does this have to do with the UN att? Politicians and money - no I'm a big fan of campaign finance reform. Again I'm not sure what this has to do with the treaty.

Your comment about it's all about the $$$ Who cares what the NRA does or how they get their$$ I like em.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Your comment about it's all about the $$$ Who cares what the NRA does or how they get their$$ I like em.

And that is their job to get you to "like them" and think they are in your corner. Much like a political party right. But this is a prime example of the NRA pushing its agenda for big gun (unrestricted / regulated arms exports) by lying to its member base by telling them that the treaty would impact domestic gun rights. This is an out and outright lie with the only purpose to whip up voter frenzy and scare congress into voting against it. Believe me the sheep always like the Shepard until they are led to the slaughter. You are useful sheep to the NRA as it helps to increase their clout much more than if they were simply a big gun lobbying group. Just my opinion. Best.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Stock, get off the attack on NRA....

 

[0121stockpicker]

Stock, get off the attack on NRA....

A poster asked me to explain. Not attacking just stating fact. One can't discuss the treaty without discussing the NRA's opposition to the treaty. My apologies.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

"As reported last week, the U.S. Senate voted 53-46 to explicitly block participation in the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty (or ATT). Senator Patrick Leahy (D., VT) introduced an amendment to the Senate foreign policy package that stated explicitly that treaties do not trump the U.S. Constitution. It passed by voice vote. The Senate’s position was upheld in the Supreme Court case Reid v. Covert (1957).
With Senate elections coming up in 2016 and vulnerable Democrat seats on the line, it is important that American voters remember which politicians voted to uphold their rights and which ones cast them aside in the interest of political expediency.

As Senator Rand Paul recently pointed out in his now infamous filibuster on the legality of drones, there is a big difference between a promise and a concrete set of specific regulations.

Breaking: UN Passes Arms Trade Treaty Blocked by U.S. Senate | Independent Journal Review

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

A poster asked me to explain. Not attacking just stating fact. One can't discuss the treaty without discussing the NRA's opposition to the treaty. My apologies.

Can't say I didn't warn you.............