US signs Int'l arms treaty

[LarryP]

We're screwed now, Kerry signed the arms treaty.
All they need now is a democratic senate to ratify it. Oh wait, they have that!

The anti's will be putting pressure on until the darn thing is ratified. whether it's a year or 5 years down the road. It will always be there.

[ex-LT]

All they need now is a democratic senate to ratify it.

Actually, they need a 2/3 majority. While there may be 1 or 2 Republican senators who would vote for it, they'll fall far short of the 12 necessary - and that's assuming all of the Democrat senators vote to ratify, which, as I understand it, isn't likely.

However, you are correct in stating that it will always be there.

[PHATSPEED7x]

I wonder if this is going to cause another panic buy?

[BigDog58]

If my old memory serves me (it often doesn't so correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that there is a clause in our constitution that states to the fact that our government cannot sign ANY treaty that would in any way violate the any portion of the constitution. This being the case, the 2A would prevent any treaty from affecting our 2A rights.

Any thoughts on this?

[Rip Van Winkle]

As Ex-Lt has already alluded to, the President can negotiate and sign any treaty he wants to, it doesn't become the law of the land unless it is ratified by a 2/3rds majority vote of the Senate.

[Thunder71]

So what good did it do that Kerry signed it?

[LarryFlew]

So what good did it do that Kerry signed it?

None other than another small nail in our coffin. NOTHING overrides our constitution UNLESS something eventually changes it like a Supreme court ruling or an actual change to it.

[Hmac]

I don't see where the ATT, even if it should be ratified by 50 member nations, ratified by the US Senate, and implemented in the foreseeable future, has any capacity to affect domestic firearms laws. I do see a lot of scaremongering by the NRA and other gun rights groups on the issue but I haven't seen them explain exactly HOW the ATT is going to "screw" us.

[Rip Van Winkle]

I don't see where the ATT, even if it should be ratified by 50 member nations, ratified by the US Senate, and implemented in the foreseeable future, has any capacity to affect domestic firearms laws. I do see a lot of scaremongering by the NRA and other gun rights groups on the issue but I haven't seen them explain exactly HOW the ATT is going to "screw" us.

The fear is that a country like Mexico could demand the US do something to stop the flow of illegal arms flowing across the US/Mexican border.

Any guesses on what the current administration would do to accomplish this?

[Hmac]

I don't see where the ATT, even if it should be ratified by 50 member nations, ratified by the US Senate, and implemented in the foreseeable future, has any capacity to affect domestic firearms laws. I do see a lot of scaremongering by the NRA and other gun rights groups on the issue but I haven't seen them explain exactly HOW the ATT is going to "screw" us.

The fear is that a country like Mexico could demand the US do something to stop the flow of illegal arms flowing across the US/Mexican border.

Any guesses on what the current administration would do to accomplish this?

No, I just don't see it. That's not "export" that's "smuggling". It's already illegal. The ATT doesn't give Obama any additional power to suborn constitutional rights to control smuggling.

Besides, it's unlikely that the ATT will even be ratified while Obama is in office.

[mrp]

I don't see where the ATT, even if it should be ratified by 50 member nations, ratified by the US Senate, and implemented in the foreseeable future, has any capacity to affect domestic firearms laws. I do see a lot of scaremongering by the NRA and other gun rights groups on the issue but I haven't seen them explain exactly HOW the ATT is going to "screw" us.

The fear is that a country like Mexico could demand the US do something to stop the flow of illegal arms flowing across the US/Mexican border.

Any guesses on what the current administration would do to accomplish this?

Shut down the ATF?

[Rip Van Winkle]

No, I just don't see it. That's not "export" that's "smuggling". It's already illegal. The ATT doesn't give Obama any additional power to suborn constitutional rights to control smuggling.

Besides, it's unlikely that the ATT will even be ratified while Obama is in office.

Not that I think it would make a difference, but it wouldn't be Obama's decision. It would be either the world court or UN who decides if it was "smuggling" or "exporting".

I agree that it won't be ratified by the current Senate. However Harry Reid probably won't bring it up for a vote and have it die. It will fester in legal limbo until a new President renounces it, a new Senate rejects it or worse case, a new Senate ratifies it.

[LePetomane]

To the globalists the US constitution is an obstacle to the implementation of their agenda and not the rule of law. I can see a 2/3 vote for it in the senate based on recent behavior by the GOP. McCain, Graham, the dems need 4 more votes. The United Nations hierarchy is made up of rogue nations led by dictators and thugs. Their greatest enemy is the US constitution and the freedoms it affords us.

[Snakeman721]

I don't see where the ATT, even if it should be ratified by 50 member nations, ratified by the US Senate, and implemented in the foreseeable future, has any capacity to affect domestic firearms laws. I do see a lot of scaremongering by the NRA and other gun rights groups on the issue but I haven't seen them explain exactly HOW the ATT is going to "screw" us.

True, but if WILL affect import of TONS of nice firearms like Springfield XDs, Beretta, some Glocks, etc...AND all that "cheap" commie ammo (and other ammo made outside the USA).

[EllisW]

Nothing will come of this, STOP FEARMONGERING! You are not helping the cause.