Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Trump Withdraws From UN Arms Treaty

  1. #1
    Moderator  
    Join Date
    11-30-07
    Location
    Co. Springs
    Posts
    7,507

    Trump Withdraws From UN Arms Treaty

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/16/b...n-gun-control/

    Late last month, President Trump signed an executive memorandum officially notifying the United Nations that the United States was withdrawing its support for a United Nations-backed treaty former Secretary of State John Kerry signed in 2013.

    With this action — “un-signing” a treaty document — Trump sent a clear, unambiguous, and long-overdue signal to the domestic and international gun control movement, that since 2001 had been pressing for a U.N. foothold to regulate firearms use and possession within our country: “Back off!”

    In signing this document, Trump drove a stake into the heart of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT); and our Second Amendment is the stronger for that action.

    Oh, the outcry from the left! New Jersey’s Bob Menendez, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wailed that in taking this “disturbing” action, Trump was “[jeopardizing] U.S. security.” Rachel Stohl, managing director for the Stimson Center in the nation’s capital, somehow concluded that the president’s action will “harm the American economy.” The common catchword by these and other globalists in describing the ATT that is now dead to the United States, was — as always for the gun control movement – “common sense.”
    Let's see where this goes
    It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    This treaty, never having been ratified by the Senate, meant nothing, had no force of law, and our lack of ratification neither had nor has any impact on what any other countries might have done or are doing regarding this treaty. Looks to me like a mountain is trying to be made out this - well - not even a mole hill. Not even a scratch in the dirt.

    A treaty such as this is not in the purview of the powers granted to the Federal Government. It is prohibited by the Second Amendment.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-27-02
    Location
    Kansas City area
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy View Post
    This treaty, never having been ratified by the Senate, meant nothing, had no force of law, and our lack of ratification neither had nor has any impact on what any other countries might have done or are doing regarding this treaty. Looks to me like a mountain is trying to be made out this - well - not even a mole hill. Not even a scratch in the dirt.

    A treaty such as this is not in the purview of the powers granted to the Federal Government. It is prohibited by the Second Amendment.

    Woody
    Would some future Congress be able to ratify the Treaty and force it on us? If so, better that Trump got it off the books now.
    Robert J. McElwain
    Practical Libertarian

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert J McElwain View Post
    Would some future Congress be able to ratify the Treaty and force it on us? If so, better that Trump got it off the books now.
    It being off the books is good. If it were brought up in the future, and the Senate ratified it, there would be a mighty case brought up to the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional. It might even be openly disregarded and opposed for being untenable and deleterious to sustainable freedom.

    Woody

    "We the People reserve the right and the power to preserve or restore freedom and the Constitution. Those vested with the powers to serve shall neither deprive The People the means nor compel such recourse." B.E. Wood
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •