UN Arms: US Delegation votes yes on the treaty

[infidel]

Here Are the 46 Senators Who Voted to Turn Your Gun Rights Over to UN

That's not what the treaty was about.

Are you supporting the treaty, the 46 Democratic senators, or relinquishment of constitutional rights? Maybe you want to be arrested by Interpol and be tried in the Hague. Think it can't happen? Think again.

[infidel]

One party thinks everyone is born equal, and that party respects the constitution. The other party will subvert the constitution, and make you "special". On top of that, you will have people that blindly support those 46 who do not want anyone to own a gun, unless you are special.

[NMRMN]

WHAT AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE UN GUN CONTROL TREATY

[LarryP]

Senate won't ratify it? Don't be so sure. It's 50/50 right now. By the time they vote, that could change.

[Heffay]

Senate won't ratify it? Don't be so sure. It's 50/50 right now. By the time they vote, that could change.

The Senate won't even come close to passing it. Not sure where you get 50/50 odds but I suspect you made that up.

[Hmac]

Senate won't ratify it? Don't be so sure. It's 50/50 right now. By the time they vote, that could change.

The Senate won't even come close to passing it. Not sure where you get 50/50 odds but I suspect you made that up.

53-46 against the treaty, according to the March 23 senate vote.

Anyway, the treaty doesn't have to be approved by THIS senate. The Foreign Relations Committee won't even send a treaty to the Senate floor for "advice and consent" unless they're sure it will be approved. Treaties don't have to be resubmitted year to year like legislation. They can sit before the Senate indefinitely. There are treaties from the Carter and Clinton administrations that are still before the senate waiting for a vote. And even if it does make it to the Senate floor, and even if it is approved, the House can still gum it up by refusing to vote funds for its implementation.

[Heffay]

Exactly. Zero chance. Rounding up.

[LarryP]

Didn't make anything up, look at the meaningless vote they had. And by the time they make deals etc they will have enough votes to pass it.

Senate won't ratify it? Don't be so sure. It's 50/50 right now. By the time they vote, that could change.

The Senate won't even come close to passing it. Not sure where you get 50/50 odds but I suspect you made that up.

[Hmac]

Exactly. Zero chance. Rounding up.

Zero chance now, in this Congress. Maybe in some future Congress that is even less 2A-friendly.

[Hmac]

Didn't make anything up, look at the meaningless vote they had. And by the time they make deals etc they will have enough votes to pass it.

Highly unlikely. And even if they did, the treaty text is quite clear that it's not affective of existing domestic law. Additionally, the Constitution is quite clear that the US can't engage in a treaty that contravenes the Constitution. Some organizations and websites, in their alarmist zeal, are touting a "registration" requirement, but no matter how I read the text of the treaty I have a hard time making that to be anything other than a requirment that any signatory country to the treaty must tract it's exports and imports, not their domestic production or sales.

I'm not in favor of the US engaging in this treaty, but I am also not buying into the alarmist hype from the NRA or on Alex Jones' website.

[yonse]

The Senate needs a 2/3rds majority to ratify the treaty, not a simple majority. I truly doubt that it will be ratified.

[Snakeman721]

This treaty controls import and export of arms. Potentially, you could see an importation ban on Beretta, Tarus, Saiga, Rossi, CZ, and a host of other fine and not so fine firearms. Also say goodbye to cheap Wolf, Tula, and spam can ammo. Even the PMC ammo I like could be affected. This is all quite possible IF the treaty is ratified.