This is how close we came to having the UN Gun Ban Treaty approved in the Senate.

[Dave N]

Sheesh...

 

[sweetnectar]

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd. I agree the treaty is dumb. I"m glad that one of my Senators didn't vote for it. I'm greatfull for people like Big Rack and Rhomas who are willing to yell fire at the smallest hint of smoke and I'm greatfull for people like Ben and Nemont that can stomac reading legal talk to fact check. So AT A BOY! for you all.

So here is my second ammendment question for you. I feel that the taxes I pay on the purchase of firearms and ammunition infringes on my second ammendment rights to the tune of the amount of the tax. I understand what that tax revenue is used for but is this tax legal when weighed to the constitution and why? or should one ammendment out weigh another?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Prove I'm wrong.

Wrong. Try again.

 

[BigRack]

Wrong. Try again.

I gave evidence to prove I am right.

So far you haven't disproved my evidence.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You gave opinion, not evidence.

Show your work.

 

[BigRack]

You gave opinion, not evidence.

Show your work.

Are you saying the UN's opinion of their treaty is false?

Show your work that says I am wrong.

I bet you will not post anything that disproves me.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This:

“The global trade in conventional weapons – from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns – remains poorly regulated. No set of internationally agreed standards exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use.

Many governments have voiced concern about the absence of globally agreed rules for all countries to guide their decisions on arms transfers. That is why they have started negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty.”

Clearly does not support your thesis which essentially is this:

Can you show us where is says it will not regulate a purchase of a hunting rifle from Japan?

Your claim is not upheld based on the evidence you have presented. Please use the actual treaty to back up your claims. It has been posted earlier in this thread. If you like, I can post it for you again.

 

[BigRack]

I'll dumb it down for you Ben.

I am saying there is not a provision in the treaty that says the UN does not have the ability to regulate the transfer of a hunting rifle from Japan to the US.

You are asking me to link to a provision that does not exist. lol.

Your logic failure is now noted in this thread.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the scope of the treaty. Anything outside of this scope would not be applicable to this treaty.

Article 2
Scope
1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following
categories:
(a) Battle tanks;
(b) Armoured combat vehicles;
(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d) Combat aircraft;
(e) Attack helicopters;
(f) Warships;
(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h) Small arms and light weapons.

While small arms could include such weapons as hunting rifles, etc in some definitions, the treaty clearly states in it's preamble that

Underlining the need to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional
arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use
and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts,

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial
interests of States in the international trade in conventional arms,

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control
conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or
constitutional system,

Acknowledging that peace and security, development and human rights are
pillars of the United Nations system and foundations for collective security and
recognizing that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked
and mutually reinforcing,

There now exists sufficient protection for the continued international firearms market as well as a clear indication that the Treaty cannot supersede our Constitution. Secondly, international treaties do not ever supersede our own Constitution. Reid V. Covert clearly established that back in 1957. Therefore, your assertion that the language is sufficiently vague enough to disallow the importation of firearms from other countries into the United States is unfounded based on the text of the treaty.

If I have missed something, please feel free to post it.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Edit: Ben is too fast, this is directed to BigRack.

Except a treaty is not going to be all encompassing except for that which it specifies it may NOT do. Rather, it will be the opposite and specify the abilities and powers that the treaty grants. Otherwise, there would language to the effect of something like "this treaty governs all transfers of small arms unless otherwise exempted."

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Secondly, international treaties do not ever supersede our own Constitution. Reid V. Covert clearly established that back in 1957.

You pretty well hit the nail on the head right here. In spite of the Chicken Littles of the internet, this is a non-issue.

 

[BigRack]

Here's the scope of the treaty. Anything outside of this scope would not be applicable to this treaty.



While small arms could include such weapons as hunting rifles, etc in some definitions, the treaty clearly states in it's preamble that



There now exists sufficient protection for the continued international firearms market as well as a clear indication that the Treaty cannot supersede our Constitution. Secondly, international treaties do not ever supersede our own Constitution. Reid V. Covert clearly established that back in 1957. Therefore, your assertion that the language is sufficiently vague enough to disallow the importation of firearms from other countries into the United States is unfounded based on the text of the treaty.

If I have missed something, please feel free to post it.

1. Regulating the transfer of small arms between Japan and the US is not in the US territory so your point #1 is incorrect.

2. I never sad the treaty superseded the US Constitution.

You proved that I was right when you said


"While small arms could include such weapons as hunting rifles, etc in some definitions". The UN gets to make the definitions because the treaty is vague.

You clearly also proved the UN can't do anything about gun regulation in the US which nobody said they could.

Thanks for proving me right.

 

[BigRack]

Edit: Ben is too fast, this is directed to BigRack.

Except a treaty is not going to be all encompassing except for that which it specifies it may NOT do. Rather, it will be the opposite and specify the abilities and powers that the treaty grants. Otherwise, there would language to the effect of something like "this treaty governs all transfers of small arms unless otherwise exempted."

The treaty grants the power of regulation of small arms.

The treaty can't regulate arms in the US, but can outside the US. For example, the transfer of a Howa from Japan to the US.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Again, from the Treaty:

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control
conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or
constitutional system,

This means international trade as it is practiced not by the UN, but by sovereigns abiding by their own legal or constitutional systems.

The treaty does not apply to the legal arms trade as I read it.

 

[BigRack]

Again, from the Treaty:



This means international trade as it is practiced not by the UN, but by sovereigns abiding by their own legal or constitutional systems.

The treaty does not apply to the legal arms trade as I read it.

The underlined says it all. Your reading of it is your opinion.

As to your first statement, the treaty is about restricting legal arms trades.

I'm not saying the UN would regulate the transfer of a Howa from Japan to the US, but the treaty leaves that option open.

I'm not a international law lawyer, but neither are you.

Don't come on here and call other peoples opinions wrong and chicken little based on your opinion, but I expect nothing less from a lefty.

 

[BigRack]

Again, from the Treaty:



This means international trade as it is practiced not by the UN, but by sovereigns abiding by their own legal or constitutional systems.

The treaty does not apply to the legal arms trade as I read it.

What does exclusively within its territory mean to you?

To most people, it means within the Country, not transfers between Countries, but feel free to enlighten us.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Question: When does the rifle hunting season start?

Answer: not soon enough!

 

[Ben Lamb]

It means each country retains the right to regulate how they deal with firearms, including the international trade thereof.

 

[BigRack]

It means each country retains the right to regulate how they deal with firearms, including the international trade thereof.

If that is true, what is the use of this treaty then?

 

[Ben Lamb]

If that is true, what is the use of this treaty than?

For people to get all worked up over nothing and rant on the internet.