U.N. conference?

[Mike45]

A Harrisburg radio station was talking about a conference at the U.N. in July with the aim of banning all firearms in the USA. Has anyone else heard of this or have any other info? Mike45

[danp]

A Harrisburg radio station was talking about a conference at the U.N. in July with the aim of banning all firearms in the USA. Has anyone else heard of this or have any other info? Mike45

I'm not particularly worried, even if the UN did that we have no obligation to enforce it and I seriously doubt the bluehats could or even would try to confiscate our arms. It would take a willfull violation of the US constitution by our own government for it to happen.

[Siobhra]

If the UN votes on a Treaty outlawing personal handguns the US Senate must ratify it for it to become law. We already have signed a treaty that force's us to enforce in our country any other treaty we sign. So if the UN passes a gun ban treaty and a future president signs it then we have a gun ban. Or could. Just on the signature of the president. So the next time after the treaty passes that we have a liberal in office we lose our rights. The treaty could over rides the constitution. That part we are not sure of but if some Supreme Court has too many Lib's the the treaty wins over the constitution.

[danp]

If the UN votes on a Treaty outlawing personal handguns the US Senate must ratify it for it to become law. We already have signed a treaty that force's us to enforce in our country any other treaty we sign. So if the UN passes a gun ban treaty and a future president signs it then we have a gun ban. Or could. Just on the signature of the president. So the next time after the treaty passes that we have a liberal in office we lose our rights. The treaty could over rides the constitution. That part we are not sure of but if some Supreme Court has too many Lib's the the treaty wins over the constitution.

The US can not be bound by a treaty that violates the constitution since it can not act against the constitution by signing such a treaty. They can sign it, but it's null and void on the spot. The supreme court has never had to issue a ruling nullifying a treaty but from what I've read this is a pretty common understanding of how it would go down. As I said, it would take a willful disregard for the constitution by our own government.

[ChamberedRound]

The US can not be bound by a treaty that violates the constitution since it can not act against the constitution by signing such a treaty. They can sign it, but it's null and void on the spot. The supreme court has never had to issue a ruling nullifying a treaty but from what I've read this is a pretty common understanding of how it would go down. As I said, it would take a willful disregard for the constitution by our own government.

I apologize in advance for being long-winded on this. Here goes:

I understand and completely agree with your point, Dan. But, also understand that the UN can achieve its goals without requiring the US to violate/rewrite/amend the Constitution. Putting serious restrictions, licensing, registration, etc. on guns, handguns or long guns, would be a de facto ban on weapons that wouldn't necessarily violate the 2nd Amendment. It all depends on how all three branches of govt. decide to interpret the 2nd Amendment at that time. The current administration, in the form of the US's UN rep, John Bolton, has stated in-session at the UN that the US will not accept any resolutions which will infringe upon American's basic right to keep and bear arms. However, a new administration (especially a Democratic one) may not feel the same way. The UN is waiting with bated breath for the outcome of the not only mid-term elections, but the next US Presidential election. And the Executive Branch conceding to any weapons ban opens the door for the UN. Yes, the Legislative/Judicial Branches could still stop it, but it becomes an uphill battle at that point. Don't even open the door, I say.

I admit that they will have an uphill battle here, as we're the only country which has this right written into a Constitution. However, there's a reason the next meeting to discuss this issue was held on the 4th of July. It's a slap in the face to Americans, and they are symbolically attempting to convince everyone that on this important, and distinctly American holiday, our rights as Americans are less important than the will of the UN.

Although we shouldn't knee-jerk react to this, don't summarily dismiss it either. The UN, in the form of Rebecca Peters, is looking to enact a wordwide ban on weapons. It's been done in many countries in Europe, and the UN just recently pressured Australia to do the same. It wouldn't hurt for all of us to write to our respective US Senators and Representatives and make sure they hear our voices on this, as well as find out if anything is being done to prepare for the potential "attack".

Rant over

[Siobhra]

I am not a lawyer. I just gave the worse case fall-out of what's going on. If the treaty is signed and the court is mostly liberals then they could rule that it is legal because private gun ownership is not a right in the Constitution.

While it is unlikely it is possible. And it will become more fuel for a ban. As well as making it harder for other nations to get their rights back.

[LorDiego01]

I'd say this is pretty self explanatory.

[danp]

Well, there will always be what the law says and what the government does anyway, that's a fact of life.

The only question that matter is:

When the bluehats show up at your door asking for your guns, what will your response be?

[LorDiego01]

When the bluehats show up at your door asking for your guns, what will your response be?

Well, I doubt they'd have the man power to show up at everybody's door at the same time on the same day. So i'd personally be hoping we'll see this coming from a mile away and get a chance to get ready.

And by ready I mean.. bury the cache, hide the ones you need really well and tell them.... "Officer.. I dun't know nutting."

If all else fails, there's always South America.

[JamesBrown]

I seriously doubt that this would ever happen but if it does go ahead and try to take my guns, I DARE YA!