More On HOW The UN Gun Treaty CAN and WILL Be Enforced If We Don’t UN-SIGN IT.
Here’s information CONFIRMING what I’ve been yelling from the rooftops about the UN Gun Grab. They CAN enforce it, and they WILL enforce it, whether we like it or not. It will NOT NEED SENATE RATIFICATION.
The ONLY way we’re going to get rid of this trash it if a future President, who will actually abide by the Oath they took, UN-SIGNS it. And everyone had best keep a close eye on the Clintons as they relentlessly attempt to relinquish our Veto Rights at the UN. With 152 member Nations AGAINST our Second Amendment, you had better believe they intend to disarm Americans. The Clintons sold us out a LONG TIME AGO in order to secure their UN Thrones.
I suggest all the so-called “Gun RIghts Activists” stop their nay-saying about this and do some homework of their own some time. I’m not going to listen to “This will never happen here! It has to be ratified by the Senate” BULLSHIT. To those so-called “gun rights activists” I know who’ve been telling me I’m wrong on this, you are not my Friends anymore unless you apologize to me, correct yourselves and start calling this what it is. Many of you have a MUCH larger audience than I and you should be helping with this instead of nay-saying it. You know who you are. Apologize or STAY AWAY FROM ME.
I’ve done plenty of analysis on this issue. I’ve read the IDDRS, which is one of the most frightening documents I’ve ever laid eyes on. I’ve read the 1968 Gun Ban, and I’m very well versed on how treaties are ratified and how they can be enforced without ratification. THIS WILL HAPPEN.
I know HOW they’re going to do it. EXACTLY HOW. The tracks were laid by them a LONG time ago and they’ve got a very detailed plan that leaves this Analytical Strategist in awe. For now, they’re just trying to do it the “easy” way. WHEN they decide it must happen and the time is ripe, Americans are in for one HELL of a fight, and one HELL of a nightmare. They WILL kill those of us who show signs of non-compliance. I suggest people wake up and start calling this what it is.
Here are some of my previous comments on this issue
Here’s more information:
UN Arms Treaty will be menace to US for years to come
Published September 25, 2013
Secretary of State John Kerry’s signature of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Wednesday was a serious error, one that will have far-reaching consequences for American foreign policy and American sovereignty. Those consequences will be even worse because the Senate, which has signaled many times that it is opposed to the treaty, will likely have no real opportunity to reject it.
It’s commonly said that the Senate has to provide its advice and consent to any treaty – commonly known as ratifying it – before it can take effect. That’s true, but there’s a loophole. Once the U.S. signs a treaty, we hold ourselves bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.”
In other words, we obey in practice treaties that the Senate has never ratified.
This rule is an old one, and it used to make some sense. It would be dishonorable to sign a treaty with another country, do all the things prohibited by the treaty, and then ratify it. But that was a different era.
Since the U.N. has already defined gun control as a human right, they will not have to work very hard to make it part of the treaty.
Today, treaties are not just about international conduct. They seek to regulate how we raise our children, how we treat the disabled, and how we manage our firearms market.
As a result, the old requirement not to violate the “object and purpose” of a signed treaty has become a way to evade the need for Senate ratification. And in the case of the Arms Trade Treaty, the problem is even worse. The administration will argue that it already has all the powers it needs to enforce the treaty.
In the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Arms Export Control Act, Congress gave the Executive Branch the power to control both the import and export of firearms – indeed, of weapons of all kinds. This power is virtually unfettered. All the president has to do is to assert that a particular firearm is not suitable for “sporting” purposes and, under the 1968 Act, he can ban its import.
We have recently seen an example of this with the executive actions banning the import of Korean War vintage M1 Garand rifles, which the White House justified as a gun control measure. And since many U.S. gun manufacturers rely on imported parts and components, or financing and insurance from abroad, the Treaty also gives other countries new opportunities to affect the U.S. firearms market.
But it is the Treaty’s vague norms that pose the biggest long-term problem. At the heart of the Treaty are terms like “international humanitarian law” and “international human rights law.” By committing itself to uphold these terms, the U.S. is binding itself to meet requirements that it does not define. That will affect not only our domestic firearms market but our foreign policy.
Over the coming years, the treaty’s proponents will seek to expand what those vague terms include. Since the U.N. has already defined gun control as a human right, they will not have to work very hard to make it part of the treaty. By signing the Treaty, the U.S. has tied itself to a conveyor belt: it is no longer in control of where it is going.
Opponents of the treaty are not powerless. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and other colleagues, along with Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.) in the House, have made it clear that Congress is deeply skeptical about the treaty.
They can continue to voice their opposition, including by calling for hearings. In the end, a U.S. president can ‘unsign’ the treaty.
All of those actions are wise responses to a serious error by the Obama administration, one that will be a menace for years to come.