Any gun guys know about this?

[Perchoutofwater]

This is the first I've heard about this.

[H8tank]

Watch this:

[yo mama]

 

The president can enter into treaties, no?

[Perchoutofwater]

The president can enter into treaties, no?

 

Even when it may infringe on a right?

[yo mama]

Even when it may infringe on a right?

All the treaty does is define a bunch of terms, then the nations agree to go back and craft domestic laws designed at addressing the stuff defined in the treaty. Your recourse, if any, will be to protest the domestic laws drafted in response to the treaty ASSUMING they actually infringe upon a right.

 

Translation: you're jumping the "gun" at little here.

[Caveman_Nick]

All the treaty does is define a bunch of terms, then the nations agree to go back and craft domestic laws designed at addressing the stuff defined in the treaty. Your recourse, if any, will be to protest the domestic laws drafted in response to the treaty ASSUMING they actually infringe upon a right.

 

Translation: you're jumping the "gun" at little here.

 

No, he isn't jumping the gun at all.

 

This is a pretty big issue for people that pay attention. This has serious ramifications to people that reload and people tha tmight want to buy parts and assemble their own firearms, and possibly even for modification of firearms with aftermarket parts. It will necessitate the creation of a new licensing that people will need to deal with in order to participate in these activities OR the modification of current laws at local or federal levels to include these activities in current licensing structures.

 

It also has the potential to create a major headache with the issue of "marking", which AFAIK currently only deals with serializing and marking certain important specifications such as caliber.

 

This is bad mojo.

 

Also, the President, any president inaugurated (not specifically President Obama)[/b,] takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution. If a president were to sign a treaty that somehow invalidates or seriously hampers a section of the constitution, that's grounds for impeachment in my book.

[WaterMan]

Also, the President, any president inaugurated (not specifically President Obama), takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution. If a president were to sign a treaty that somehow invalidates or seriously hampers a section of the constitution, that's grounds for impeachment in my book.

 

Messing with the Constituition was all about lil Bush.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/185259/Bush-Admi...ution-Scorecard

[Caveman_Nick]

Messing with the Constituition was all about lil Bush.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/185259/Bush-Admi...ution-Scorecard

 

Looks like bad stuff. How does this absolve President Obama if he invalidates or inhibits part of the constitution with an international treaty? Or were you just trying to deflect because you had no other thing to contribute? Or were you agreeing?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Caveman_Nick

[yo mama]

No, he isn't jumping the gun at all.

 

This is a pretty big issue for people that pay attention. This has serious ramifications to people that reload and people tha tmight want to buy parts and assemble their own firearms, and possibly even for modification of firearms with aftermarket parts. It will necessitate the creation of a new licensing that people will need to deal with in order to participate in these activities OR the modification of current laws at local or federal levels to include these activities in current licensing structures.

 

It also has the potential to create a major headache with the issue of "marking", which AFAIK currently only deals with serializing and marking certain important specifications such as caliber.

 

This is bad mojo.

 

Also, the President, any president inaugurated (not specifically President Obama)[/b,] takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution. If a president were to sign a treaty that somehow invalidates or seriously hampers a section of the constitution, that's grounds for impeachment in my book.

You are being paranoid, Nick.

 

How is anyone supposed to take your views on the Constitution seriously when YOU don't respect the President's constitutional treaty power? THIS treaty doesn't violate the 2nd amendment or any other constitutional provision. It does NOT grant either Congress or the President to enact a law that would otherwise be unconstitutional but for being "authorized" by a treaty. Read the treaty carefully: it doesn't do anything but define some terms.

 

You know what this treaty is? It's our President paying lip service to Mexico without actually having to pick the kind of 2nd Amendment fight associated with federal legislation that is invited by the treaty's terms. Stop being crazy. If the President wanted to try and regulate people making their own ammo or what not, he most certainly doesn't need a treaty with Mexico to do so. The treaty is merely a political tool of international appeasement with Mexico. Give our President some credit for a little clever diplomacy.

 

If the Feds actually attempt to pass legislation in response to this treaty I'll be shocked, but I'll also protest along side you in favor of our 2nd Amendment rights. But until then you need to relax: the sky isn't falling.

Edited May 5, 2009 by yo mama

[Caveman_Nick]

You are being paranoid, Nick.

 

How is anyone supposed to take your views on the Constitution seriously when YOU don't respect the President's constitutional treaty power? THIS treaty doesn't violate the 2nd amendment or any other constitutional provision. It does NOT grant either Congress or the President to enact a law that would otherwise be unconstitutional but for being "authorized" by a treaty. Read the treaty carefully: it doesn't do anything but define some terms.

 

You know what this treaty is? It's our President paying lip service to Mexico without actually having to pick the kind of 2nd Amendment fight associated with federal legislation that is invited by the treaty's terms. Stop being crazy. If the President wanted to try and regulate people making their own ammo or what not, he most certainly doesn't need a treaty with Mexico to do so. The treaty is merely a political tool of international appeasement with Mexico. Give our President some credit for a little clever diplomacy.

 

If the Feds actually attempt to pass legislation in response to this treaty I'll be shocked, but I'll also protest along side you in favor of our 2nd Amendment rights. But until then you need to relax: the sky isn't falling.

 

I never said I didn't respect the President's constitutional power to sign treaties. I said that if a president signed a treaty that somehow invalidated or hampered some part of the constitution that I would find that to be grounds for impeachment. Constitutional power to sign a treaty does not trump the presidential oath to protect and defend that same constitution.

 

Past that, I do not agree with your interpretation. If the president signs a treaty, and it is ratified, it becomes defacto law. The application of the language in this treaty could very easily turn into the situation I pointed out above.

 

I generally respect your opinion on these matters as a lawyer, but on this particular issue I think you are not seeing the bigger picture and likely outcome.

[bpwallace49]

Nick, are you saying that a minor treaty with Mexico somehow trumps the Constitution?

 

Do you honestly think that this treaty will in some way nullify the Constitution because it "might" effect the extremely small % of gun owners that hand-load their ammo? ( I have been a hunter my whole life and never had the urge to hand load my shells)

 

I agree with yo mama, a small insignificant consession to Mexico that will amount to nothing . . .

 

Nothing to see here . . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

Nick, are you saying that a minor treaty with Mexico somehow trumps the Constitution?

 

Do you honestly think that this treaty will in some way nullify the Constitution because it "might" effect the extremely small % of gun owners that hand-load their ammo? ( I have been a hunter my whole life and never had the urge to hand load my shells)

 

I agree with yo mama, a small insignificant consession to Mexico that will amount to nothing . . .

 

Nothing to see here . . . .

 

So since it is a relatively small group, we don't care if their rights are trampled. BTW, reloading is no longer relatively small. I know 8 people that I know reload. I wouldn't be surprised if I know twice that many people that do, that I just don't know they do. I am seriously considering reloading, because of how ammunition has gotten lately. I don't know if you've bought any lately but it is up 82% since November. I was actually talking to my brother-in-law Saturday, about it him getting the equipment for shotgun shells and me getting equipment for pistols and rifles.

[Caveman_Nick]

Nick, are you saying that a minor treaty with Mexico somehow trumps the Constitution?

 

Do you honestly think that this treaty will in some way nullify the Constitution because it "might" effect the extremely small % of gun owners that hand-load their ammo? ( I have been a hunter my whole life and never had the urge to hand load my shells)

 

I agree with yo mama, a small insignificant consession to Mexico that will amount to nothing . . .

 

Nothing to see here . . . .

 

Sometimes I wonder what people are reading. Read again what I wrote, and notice the big IF that I included. If a president signed a treaty that somehow invalidated a section of the constitution, then I think that would be grounds for impeachment.

 

Let me quote it for you...

 

No, he isn't jumping the gun at all.

 

This is a pretty big issue for people that pay attention. This has serious ramifications to people that reload and people tha tmight want to buy parts and assemble their own firearms, and possibly even for modification of firearms with aftermarket parts. It will necessitate the creation of a new licensing that people will need to deal with in order to participate in these activities OR the modification of current laws at local or federal levels to include these activities in current licensing structures.

 

It also has the potential to create a major headache with the issue of "marking", which AFAIK currently only deals with serializing and marking certain important specifications such as caliber.

 

This is bad mojo.

 

Also, the President, any president inaugurated (not specifically President Obama) takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution. If a president were to sign a treaty that somehow invalidates or seriously hampers a section of the constitution, that's grounds for impeachment in my book.

 

I bolded the IF for you.

 

Notice that I talked about this treaty in one part, and then added as an aside how I would feel about a President signing a treaty that might invalidate the constitution.

 

I am not going to claim that this treaty would do that. The ramifications of this treaty remain to be seen. It has already been established that firearms licensing does not violate the constitution, by general precedent. If this treaty led to the necessity of new licensing boards, or the modification of existing laws, which by it's terms and the manner in which treaties are bound to our law, I think that would be a bad thing. A violation of the second amendment? I am not going to worry about that at this point, but again it's been established that licensing requirements are not an infringement.

[Caveman_Nick]

So since it is a relatively small group, we don't care if their rights are trampled. BTW, reloading is no longer relatively small. I know 8 people that I know reload. I wouldn't be surprised if I know twice that many people that do, that I just don't know they do. I am seriously considering reloading, because of how ammunition has gotten lately. I don't know if you've bought any lately but it is up 82% since November. I was actually talking to my brother-in-law Saturday, about it him getting the equipment for shotgun shells and me getting equipment for pistols and rifles.

 

Requiring licensing, so long as ther are no bars to getting the license other than a fee, is just another manner of taxing people. I don't know that we can go so far as saying that a right is being trampled.

[yo mama]

Perch and Nick: a treaty cannot trump Constitutional limitations on government power, most particularly, those articulated in the Bill of Rights. The treaty at issue does not conflict with the Constitution because it does not limit your right to bear arms. It defines some terms, and the treaty nations agree to go back home and consider legislation that address those defined terms. That's it. At worst, the treaty *threatens* to explore some legislation that *might* come in conflict with the Bill of Rights. If and when we get there, you know I'm on your side of the argument. But if my suspicion is correct, this treaty is little more than a politically correct gesture towards Mexico. Without further domestic legislation this treaty in no way impacts ownership of your guns and ammo.

Edited May 5, 2009 by yo mama

[westvirginia]

You are being paranoid, Nick.

 

How is anyone supposed to take your views on the Constitution seriously when YOU don't respect the President's constitutional treaty power? THIS treaty doesn't violate the 2nd amendment or any other constitutional provision. It does NOT grant either Congress or the President to enact a law that would otherwise be unconstitutional but for being "authorized" by a treaty. Read the treaty carefully: it doesn't do anything but define some terms.

 

You know what this treaty is? It's our President paying lip service to Mexico without actually having to pick the kind of 2nd Amendment fight associated with federal legislation that is invited by the treaty's terms. Stop being crazy. If the President wanted to try and regulate people making their own ammo or what not, he most certainly doesn't need a treaty with Mexico to do so. The treaty is merely a political tool of international appeasement with Mexico. Give our President some credit for a little clever diplomacy.

 

If the Feds actually attempt to pass legislation in response to this treaty I'll be shocked, but I'll also protest along side you in favor of our 2nd Amendment rights. But until then you need to relax: the sky isn't falling.

 

I thought treaties became law right along with the Constitution? Is that incorrect?

 

As to your argument, I can see it, but fedgov uses all sorts of inane legal items to win its battles. Take a look at how the class III process was completely shut down, in contravention to the second amendment. The Hughes amendment seemed to have failed by voice vote in congress, but Rangle declared it passed. Then they used this little deal to shut down the whole class III process, in obvious contravention to the 2nd Amendment. So if you want to trust them, you can, but

[westvirginia]

Perch and Nick: a treaty cannot trump Constitutional limitations on government power, most particularly, those articulated in the Bill of Rights. The treaty at issue does not conflict with the Constitution because it does not limit your right to bear arms. It defines some terms, and the treaty nations agree to go back home and consider legislation that address those defined terms. That's it. At worst, the treaty *threatens* to explore some legislation that *might* come in conflict with the Bill of Rights. If and when we get there, you know I'm on your side of the argument. But if my suspicion is correct, this treaty is little more than a politically correct gesture towards Mexico. Without further domestic legislation this treaty in no way impacts ownership of your guns and ammo.

 

OK, I've heard both arguments. Assuming you're correct, I feel (just the tiniest amount) better. Not much, but a little. Just for my own education - what do you base your opinion on (layman's terms please)?

[WaterMan]

Looks like bad stuff. How does this absolve President Obama if he invalidates or inhibits part of the constitution with an international treaty? Or were you just trying to deflect because you had no other thing to contribute? Or were you agreeing?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

I'm just showing that this is just small potatoes compared to what we have all ready seen since 2000. I'm sure the NRA and Fox News have some gun owners pretty scared right now.

 

And past attacks against the Constituition don't absolve any President from doing further attacks. It's not like the public is going to stop any President in the future from passing any law they want.

[yo mama]

I thought treaties became law right along with the Constitution? Is that incorrect?

 

As to your argument, I can see it, but fedgov uses all sorts of inane legal items to win its battles. Take a look at how the class III process was completely shut down, in contravention to the second amendment. The Hughes amendment seemed to have failed by voice vote in congress, but Rangle declared it passed. Then they used this little deal to shut down the whole class III process, in obvious contravention to the 2nd Amendment. So if you want to trust them, you can, but

Good discussion on the intersection of treaty power with other stuff

Yes, a treaty does become "law." But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and trumps any conflicting statute, regulation, treaty, case law, or other authority. Truth be told, no treaty has ever been held invalid by a court based on Constitutional grounds. I'd like to think that's because there's never been reason to make such a challenge.

 

Wait. You're supposed to be on my ignore list. Forget everything I said.

[westvirginia]

Good discussion on the intersection of treaty power with other stuff

Yes, a treaty does become "law." But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and trumps any conflicting statute, regulation, treaty, case law, or other authority. Truth be told, no treaty has ever been held invalid by a court based on Constitutional grounds. I'd like to think that's because there's never been reason to make such a challenge.

 

Wait. You're supposed to be on my ignore list. Forget everything I said.

 

I knew you really loved me... :smooch:

[bpwallace49]

So since it is a relatively small group, we don't care if their rights are trampled. BTW, reloading is no longer relatively small. I know 8 people that I know reload. I wouldn't be surprised if I know twice that many people that do, that I just don't know they do. I am seriously considering reloading, because of how ammunition has gotten lately. I don't know if you've bought any lately but it is up 82% since November. I was actually talking to my brother-in-law Saturday, about it him getting the equipment for shotgun shells and me getting equipment for pistols and rifles.

 

I come from a hunting family (granted we also bowhunt) and never got the urge to hand load my shells. None of my buddies hand load either, but the hunting seasons in WI are different than in Texas. Plus we do not have a "conceal and carry" law, so I dont pack heat every day.

 

Maybe the % has gone up lately, but I havent read about it in my hunting magazines, and my last NRA dinner was in December.

[bpwallace49]

Sometimes I wonder what people are reading. Read again what I wrote, and notice the big IF that I included. If a president signed a treaty that somehow invalidated a section of the constitution, then I think that would be grounds for impeachment.

 

Let me quote it for you...

 

 

 

I bolded the IF for you.

 

Notice that I talked about this treaty in one part, and then added as an aside how I would feel about a President signing a treaty that might invalidate the constitution.

 

I am not going to claim that this treaty would do that. The ramifications of this treaty remain to be seen. It has already been established that firearms licensing does not violate the constitution, by general precedent. If this treaty led to the necessity of new licensing boards, or the modification of existing laws, which by it's terms and the manner in which treaties are bound to our law, I think that would be a bad thing. A violation of the second amendment? I am not going to worry about that at this point, but again it's been established that licensing requirements are not an infringement.

 

Sorry Nick, missed the fine print. My apologies.

 

This brings up another interesting constitutional issue for me. If American citizens were illegally detained in Guantanamo without given a fair and speedy trial or due process of law, does that mean that President Bush should have been impeached?

[Caveman_Nick]

Sorry Nick, missed the fine print. My apologies.

 

This brings up another interesting constitutional issue for me. If American citizens were illegally detained in Guantanamo without given a fair and speedy trial or due process of law, does that mean that President Bush should have been impeached?

 

It's an interesting qeustion you raise. In that case, it was congress that passed the law and the President that signed and executed it. I am not really sure what the protocol should be. I do know that IMO the SCOTUS should have determined a law allowing that treatment of citizens to be unconstitutional. Perhaps a better question is why that did not occur.

[bpwallace49]

It's an interesting qeustion you raise. In that case, it was congress that passed the law and the President that signed and executed it. I am not really sure what the protocol should be. I do know that IMO the SCOTUS should have determined a law allowing that treatment of citizens to be unconstitutional. Perhaps a better question is why that did not occur.

 

I can see how they could get around some of the non-US citizens, but by detaining US citizens without proof of them being "enemy combatants" (which VERY loosely put them in the court of military tribunals) how can their constitutional rights be violated without recourse?

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31724.pdf

 

This legal opinion and brief (although VERY long) is extremely interesting. Essentially Bush issued an executive order that violated the constitutionalk rights of these detainees and no charges were ever levied, nor proven against them.

 

It also gets into EXTREMELY murky water as it pertains to the Constitution, much like a LOT of fine print in the Patriot Act. A whoooooole lotta suspension of the Bill of Rights in some of those provisions!

[Perchoutofwater]

I can see how they could get around some of the non-US citizens, but by detaining US citizens without proof of them being "enemy combatants" (which VERY loosely put them in the court of military tribunals) how can their constitutional rights be violated without recourse?

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31724.pdf

 

This legal opinion and brief (although VERY long) is extremely interesting. Essentially Bush issued an executive order that violated the constitutionalk rights of these detainees and no charges were ever levied, nor proven against them.

 

It also gets into EXTREMELY murky water as it pertains to the Constitution, much like a LOT of fine print in the Patriot Act. A whoooooole lotta suspension of the Bill of Rights in some of those provisions!

 

I'm not sure Bush did detain any American citizens, but playing this tit for tat yeah but your guy did this will all stop with FDR detaining an entire race. And conservatives are called racist.