Treaty threatens gun rights

  • Follow Letters

On July 27, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are scheduled to sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. This treaty is nothing more than a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to disarm the American people.

It is designed to take away the right of the American people to keep and bear arms as expressed in the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution – a right, I might add, that the U.S. Supreme Court has twice interpreted as an individual right.

What Operation Fast and Furious could not achieve, this treaty will. It suggests that the illicit arms trade is somehow the result of privately owned firearms getting into the hands of terrorists (remember the gun show loophole?). In reality, it is because of the very governments that support this treaty that arms have not just fallen into, but have directly been given to, various terrorist and criminal groups. Moms and pops didn’t send illegal arms to Mexico – Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Department sent them!

It is abundantly clear that Obama has complete and adamant disdain for the Constitution. If he can’t get anti-gun legislation passed in Congress, or use his executive power to regulate firearms out of existence through the federal bureaucracy, then he will go to the United Nations to do it! Even if the U.S. Senate fails to approve this ATT treaty, and the president only signs it, our rights still will be diminished.

If we are still citizens and not subjects, I encourage all who read this letter to contact their respective members of Congress to say “no” to the Arms Trade Treaty, and “yes” to our sovereignty as a free and independent nation. Do not wait until November to let your voice be heard. Act now! November may be too late.

John C. Huffman

Augusta

Comments (19) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Techfan
6462
Points
Techfan 07/20/12 - 03:40 am
5
9
Let me guess, NRA viral

Let me guess, NRA viral email? The treaty is for INTERNATIONAL arms sales, not for DOMESTIC arms sales. The treaty states in its preamble, "Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory." Also, the 1957 Supreme Court ruling in Reid v. Covert, ruled, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." Simply put, it can have no impact on gun sales in the US. Once again, the fear tactics of the right wing have no basis in reality.

myfather15
57307
Points
myfather15 07/20/12 - 05:21 am
12
3
I'm not saying the treaty

I'm not saying the treaty would ever be implemented over here. But it just shows which way the left wants to take us. They would love to see us obeying international law, more than our own. Why? Because that silly ol constitution was written by a bunch of gray haired men, waaaaay to long ago. It is outdated, didn't you know that?

In reality, if you sign the treaty there are very suppose to be strick guidelines. You must agree to an international registry of all firearms. The country that agrees to the treaty is suppose to confiscate all BANNED or unauthorized firearms which include all semi-automatic firearms. But who gets to decide what is "unauthorized"? The UN? Are you kidding me? Why do we still give this corrupt organization credibility? They deserve NOTHING, not even respect. But of course, our wonderful "Messiah" Obama, just loves them to death.

And Tech; Last time I checked, it was liberals who actually were telling people that republicans want old people to die and poor people to starve, talk about fear tactics!! We actually do live in reality. The reality is that we are being pushed towards more "UN" guidelines and away from US Constitution. We just report was it actually happening, the left claims things that are ludacris. Obama is ACTUALLY planning to sign this, that is a fact!! There is zero truth that the right wants to kill grandma!!

RoadkiII
6807
Points
RoadkiII 07/20/12 - 06:49 am
8
1
I own a Taurus brand pistol.

I own a Taurus brand pistol. Legal in every way. But it was made in Brazil. Just the first step in banning otherwise legal firearms. Open your eyes and ears people.

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 07/20/12 - 06:53 am
10
1
Who's fooling who?

Some happenings are smokescreens to future happenings.

Jake
34136
Points
Jake 07/20/12 - 08:59 am
2
9
More guns

We need more weapons, especially from other countries. It is good for our economy. Guns don't kill, people do. Take away my assault rifle and soon you will take away my bazooka. Gun ownership should be mandatory. Ammunition should be outlawed.

avidreader
3572
Points
avidreader 07/20/12 - 10:14 am
2
7
NRA Never Compromises!

All you die-hard NRA people never want to compromise. You misconstrue all intentions to simply curb the output of designated firearms. As Jake says, with perfect sarcasm, the NRA thinks that owning a bazooka and a garage full of automatic assault rifles is OK.

I dont' have a problem with a homeowner keeping a pistol on his bedstand or a hunting rifle hanging over his mantel, but machine guns and other no-purpose-but-to-slaughter weapons are just too much to fathom.

So, get off of your high horse about arms sales to foreigners and terrorists and do something to curb the manufacturing and importing process. Notice I said, CURB, not abolish. Most of the propoganda I read from the NRA is pure rubbish, composed by narrow-minded people. The NRA hates anyone who disagrees with their edicts.

OJP
7779
Points
OJP 07/20/12 - 10:42 am
2
5
Won't apply to us either way.

The Constitution already contains an explicit amendment process. A Treaty (which is made law by merely the President and 2/3 of the Senate) cannot amend the Constitution (which requires much more).

In other words, this treaty will not alter your rights pursuant to the 2nd Amendment.

shrimp for breakfast
5641
Points
shrimp for breakfast 07/20/12 - 01:11 pm
3
5
Another paranoid letter.

No one is going to take away our guns. We are Americans and we will not stand for it. It will never happen. Quit using scare tactics that do nothing but create confusion. Obama is not going to take your guns away. In fact no government entity stands a chance of removing our right to bear arms as provided by the Constitution. If they actually tried I believe that Americans would stand up to the government and threaten them with revolution. That's the greatest thing about private ownership of firearms. We will never give them up no matter what the government says.

myfather15
57307
Points
myfather15 07/20/12 - 02:06 pm
4
0
On one point your right

On one point your right Shrimp, we wouldn't stand for it. Not that left wing politicians would't DESIRE to do it, but they CAN'T. As a law enforcement officer, I've spoke with many of fellow officers. Many of them have stated if they were ever ordered to take firearms away from law abiding citizens, they would walk off the job. We wouldn't allow ourselves to be the enforcement arm of the federal government or especially the UN. I wouldn't do squat the UN tried to tell me to enforce. So again, it isn't that the politicians wouldn't LIKE to remove guns, they just knows in not practical in this Country. Yes, it would be revolution, there would be many officer lose their life trying to enforce those rules.

CobaltGeorge
177251
Points
CobaltGeorge 07/20/12 - 05:49 pm
2
1
avidreader

"but machine guns and other no-purpose-but-to-slaughter weapons are just too much to fathom."

Are they not considered Fire Arms? I really do enjoy firing my automatic guns. Haven't slaughtered anything yet except filled ether cans.

CobaltGeorge
177251
Points
CobaltGeorge 07/20/12 - 05:50 pm
1
1
Jake, Jake, Jake!!!

Jake, Jake, Jake!!!

Conservative Man
5578
Points
Conservative Man 07/20/12 - 06:09 pm
2
1
I could be wrong...

But as it was explained to me, a treaty signed by the US has the full force of law. Even usurping the Constitution unless repealed by Congress..And if no action is taken by the President after four years it's allowed to be enforced , similar to a pocket veto ......Any one?

m1str816
4
Points
m1str816 07/20/12 - 09:29 pm
2
0
UN Treaty can't touch USA Constituion

We are told at every turn that "treaties supersede the Constitution of The[se] States United" --- nugatory. Here is what Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...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 [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]"

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution declares: "We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1777 had proven so inadequate and imperfect in their ten year life that they were supplanted in 1787 by the Constitution "in Order to form a more perfect Union."

Whereas the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 is the Charter of These States United, disclosing and proclaiming its purpose and reason for being, the U.S. Constitution of September 17, 1787 is the ByLaws laid down by the States detailing the day-to-day operation assigned to the Union and setting it in motion. The States, the creators of the Union, gave no authority to the central government via the U.S. Constitution for a treaty to be consummated with a foreign nation (1) that would empower treaty functions that they did not allow the U.S. government to have, or (2) that would obligate this Union and its States to do something that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, or (3) that would transfer functions and activities assigned to the Union to any agency outside of the Union. That's elemental, prima facie, self-evident. So, at the outset, to even entertain the idea that treaties supersede the Constitution is specious.

By Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, the President is required to swear he will: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI, paragraph 3 requires all Federal and State officers to also swear:"...to support this [U.S.] Constitution..."

Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 declares: "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."

All civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":

Conservative Man
5578
Points
Conservative Man 07/20/12 - 10:22 pm
1
0
So..

So, if what you say is correct, (and I have no reason to believe otherwise,) the Constitution is the ultimate arbiter...period. That being said, do you realize the trepidation those of us with lesser understanding have, when faced with this issue? Question.What's the next step, if any? Should we contact our representatives in Congress to protest this treaty? Or should we trust that this will be a "toothless" piece of paper that will have no effect on our second amendment rights? Given the current administration, the latter seems to be folly....

myfather15
57307
Points
myfather15 07/20/12 - 11:11 pm
3
0
Thats what liberals want us

Thats what liberals want us to do, sit back and ignore it. Thats why they ALWAYS dismiss all this stuff as conspiracy theories and fear tactics. They are smart enough to realize that if WE THE PEOPLE, sit back and fall asleep at the wheel, when we do wake up, ITS TOO LATE!! Yes, the Consitution is the Supreme Law of the United States. There is no question about that. But we have ELECTED LEADERS today that believe it is outdated!! They believe they are smarter than those old gray haired men who wrote it WAY BACK THEN. You can dismiss what I'm saying as conspiracy, I don't personally care. But Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company would gladly rewrite the Constitution if they could. "Theres no way the forefathers could have imagined the technology world we live in today." Or "Theres no way they could have imagined the problems we would face during these times." or "Our forefathers never could have imagined semi-automatic firearms or fully automatic firearms so those don't apply to the constitution." Those are sayings that are used to dismiss the Constitution.

That is exactly what they are doing in moving us closer to UN regulations. Its baby steps. Yes, they want to take a big giant leap but it wouldn't work so they are taking baby steps and hoping no one notices. They will claim its part of the "Greater World Good" and we must obey international law. Watch and see!!!!

ADAMS
20
Points
ADAMS 07/21/12 - 06:39 am
0
1
This letter is perfect

This letter is perfect timely, now go watch the Batman movie and tell me who will you take side with the President of United States,or the college student who went on a shooting spree.

shrimp for breakfast
5641
Points
shrimp for breakfast 07/21/12 - 09:42 am
0
1
I agree

I agree with you whole heartedly My Father 15!

OJP
7779
Points
OJP 07/21/12 - 10:21 am
0
0
@Conservative Man

Treaties are law but not part of the Constitution. Just as a law passed by Congress is inferior to it, so are treaties.

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs