Treaty Vs. States rights???

[Madcat455]

How would the gun treaty that could be ratified compete with the states that are exempting home grown weapons/ammo from Fed Regs???


Who wins that fight?


Curiosity prompts the question

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

Treaties trump all but the Constitution.

 

[Jack Parsons]

Pretty good read:

It is known as CIFTA, the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Materials. It can be found here verbatim:
http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/treaties/a-63.html

– EVERY aspect of the treaty introduces major required gun controls, most of which will affect average citizens (as well as the targeted criminal syndicates, dictators and other bad actors).

– The controls go way past anything EVER attempted by gun-control groups in the United States.

– NONE of the proposed gun controls are likely to pass by themselves through Congress. If the treaty is enacted they don’t have to — they become law when the treaty is ratified.

– Virtually NO PROTECTIONS FOR RKBA are to be found, and the wordings are loose enough to allow all sorts of attacks on gun rights American enjoy today.

– The U.S. government under this treaty GAINS POWER to manage firearms almost any way it would like to, without checks and balances.

– Once signed, many of the restrictions and government intrusions become MANDATORY, and the full Congress, already cut out of ratification (only the Senate approves treaties) would be cut out of the implementation process entirely.

– Top to bottom registration of all firearms, ammunition, ammunition components and other related materials is required if they are “in transit” and records must be kept indefinitely. This vague language, and the requirement to comply are a gun-banner’s dream and a rights advocate’s nightmare.

– “Transit licenses or authorizations” for transfers of firearms are required for imported firearms, and loose language could include the same for all domestic firearms.

– Lengthy recordkeeping is required that directly conflicts with U.S. law, and would be left up to bureaucrats and arbitrary controls and implementation.

– Home reloading of ammunition would become illegal and subject to severe sanctions, without government licensing that is undefined and could include almost any conditions, taxes and limitations, including scrupulous inventorying, recordkeeping and unscheduled audit searches of people who
reload.

– Similar licensing and controls will be required on anything made “that can be attached to a firearm,” known as “other related materials.” This includes components, parts, replacement parts and such items as wood or composite stocks, slings, bayonets, bayonet lugs, sights, scopes, rails, lasers, grips, flash hiders, suppressors, muzzle brakes and other paraphernalia. Attaching any such parts without a government license would be “illicit manufacture,” a criminal act with undefined penalties.

– Record sharing requirements ensure that any gun-owner data that must be destroyed under current U.S. law can be easily stored abroad, and can be retrieved at will as required under various international “cooperation” clauses.

 

[Madcat455]

Treaties trump all but the Constitution.

With that.. are the states that are passing the "home grown" law, using the US constitution for authority?? or their own State Constitutions?

And... does treaty trump state Constitutions?

 

[Zeeder]

The way the constitution has been "interpreted" by political crony judges, a treaty not only trumps the states, it's trumps the constitution itself.

According to some judges, a treaty by the president and 66 members of congress can take everyone's guns away. Ridiculous sounding but true. It's why they wanted the bricker ammendment passed(even if it isn't neccessary)

Jefferson, Madison, and even that twit Hamilton all agreed that the Supremacy clause only applied to things that were constitutional in the first place. In other words, a treaty can't take away your guns and it can't tump the 10th ammendment or enumerated powers. It can't give a foreign power powers that the federal government itself doesn't possess. It's purpose was to prevent the states themselves from going into treaties.

However, those guys are dead, and Obama is alive. And as we know, the supreme court is made up of political appointees.

 

[Danke]

From the Supreme Court:

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

Also, see:

9th A:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

10th A:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[OddballAZ]

The Senate will do whatever the hell the Senate wants to do. If they want to pass it, they will.

That just means we need to do, whatever the hell we want to do, and that damn well means we'll keep our guns.

People need to be bugging their state reps to pass Sovereignty bills under the 10th Amendment. The states are going to have the final say in this.

 

[Original_Intent]

With that.. are the states that are passing the "home grown" law, using the US constitution for authority?? or their own State Constitutions?

And... does treaty trump state Constitutions?

A treaty will trump a state constitution as long as it is made under the authority of the US Constitution.

What that supposedly means (before some activist judge twists it to mean whatever he wants it to mean) is that a treaty can only trump a state constitution IF the treaty was made within the boundaries that the Constitution placed on the Federal Government.

Danke is right - the US Constitution has been held superior to treaties - a treaty is only valid if it stays within the enumerated powers of the Federal gov.

There are cases where state laws have been overturned because they were inconsistent with treaties.

 

[Alawn]

the US Constitution has been held superior to treaties - a treaty is only valid if it stays within the enumerated powers of the Federal gov.

This is not totally correct. According to the supreme court a treaty CAN add new powers to the federal government. The only thing that will prevent it is if it is prohibited by part of the constitution.

Congress has passed laws preventing hunting birds based on treaties when the supreme court said that they did not have the authority to pass that law without the treaty.

A state constitution is absolutely overruled by a treaty.

 

[puppetmaster]

ah.... unless the state succeeds then we have a civil war again!

 

[idiom]

The Senate represents the states. The Constitution is essentially a treaty signed by all the states.

The better idea would be to require international treaties to be individually ratified by 3/4 of the states.