Here is the link:
The UN gun grabber
American gun owners might not feel besieged, but they should. This week, the Obama administration announced its support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. This international agreement poses real risks for freedom both in the United States and around the world by making it more difficult if not outright illegal for law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
Read About It:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/the-un-gun-grabber/
Read About It:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/the-un-gun-grabber/
Posted: 5/28/2010 9:42:04 AM
In my opinion, this makes the mid-term elections even more important since such a treaty cannot take effect without being ratified by the Senate. (Ratification requires a 2/3 majority voting for it.) The gun grabbers might would go for it, but this flies completely in the face of the US Supreme Court’s ruling that ownership of firearms is an individual American Right. Keep in mind that this treaty does not yet even exist and its final form remains unknown.
On the other hand, I tend to believe what is written on Snopes.com concerning this matter.
I would copy and paste the text but their site does not appear to allow this. In any event, they state, "...the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate", and cite the 1957 Supreme Court case concerning this: Reid v. Covert . Though this case involved a murder trial and not the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court's finding was:
"The Constitution supersedes all treaties ratified by the United States Senate."
For those wanting more documentation from other sources, here is what I could find that might assist:
354 U.S. 1 (more)
77 S. Ct. 1222; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1148; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 729
What is being said is that the only way around an Amendment which either alters or repeals it. Even if the treaty in question passes, it cannot be used to bypass the Bill of Rights...at least not legally.
In Reid v. Covert, the Supreme Court found that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."
Does this mean that we should just trust those politicians who would gut the Second Amendment? Sadly, the answer appears to be a resounding "NO", but it does appear that we may have less to fear than some are currently claiming. If and when the time comes, I would make my U.S. senator very aware of my support for the Second Amendment and that any anti-Second action on their part OR lack of action altogether would cost them your vote and as many as you could legally influence.
Best.
