Tag Archives: 2nd Amendment

Will Obama use the unratified Arms Trade Treaty to undermine the 2nd Amendment?

 

By Doug Book, editor

Among the terms of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) are the following mandatory provisions:

1.) Civilians are not permitted to “own, buy, sell, trade or transfer” “[any] means of armed resistance including handguns.”

2.) Also prohibited is the ownership of ammunition/munitions.

3.) All countries participating in the Arms Trade Treaty “shall establish and maintain a National Control System” with a list of all weapons including “their current owners.”

This makes the registration of all firearms–that is,  the National Arms Registry dreamed of by American liberals–a Treaty requirement. The registry will be used to enforce the prohibition against civilian ownership of firearms by making certain all gun owners have surrendered their firearms to the state. What the far left has been unable to accomplish at either the state or federal level has become possibly by means of International Law applying to all nations which have ratified the ATT. Should the U.S. Senate ratify the Treaty, each provision would ostensibly assume the force of law in the U.S. as well.

However, just as Harry Reid made it clear that the present Democrat-controlled Senate would not ratify the ATT, a particularly important fact will also prevent any future anti-gun Senate ratifying the Treaty. Two centuries of precedent and the decision in a number of Supreme Court cases have determined that no law may be passed in the United States which conflicts with or serves to change the Constitution. The terms of the Arms Trade Treaty obviously disagree with the 2nd Amendment. That being the case, the Constitution must either be radically altered or the Treaty rewritten. Neither of these is likely to take place.

But why would Barack Obama send delegations to 5 years of Treaty conferences, making certain the document language met Administration approval, if the Treaty terms could not be imposed on the American public even if the document were at some point ratified?

“The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is a treaty concerning the international law on treaties between states.” Sometimes described as the Treaty of Treaties, it was adopted in May 1969 and entered into force in January of 1980.

Under Article 18 of the Convention, “…a State which has signed or ratified a treaty has the obligation to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of that treaty prior to its entry into force.”

The written Object and Purpose of the ATT:

Object and Purpose: The Object of this treaty is to—Establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms. Prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion;

For the Purpose of—Contributing to international and regional peace, stability and security; Reducing human suffering; Promoting cooperation, transparency and responsible action by States Parties in the international trade in conventional arms, thereby building confidence among States Parties.

The question is whether the signature of Barack Obama or his agent John Kerry binds the United States by International Law “to not defeat the object and purpose” of the Arms Trade Treaty?

If so, could this entail a calculated scheme by which Obama might claim to be “compelled” to implement the terms of the treaty so as to avoid defeating the treaty’s object and purpose? For example, could Obama bring into play the treaty term calling for a national arms registry, claiming it was absolutely necessary to avoid doing harm to the purpose of the treaty?

I don’t know the legal answer to question. But I do know that, as the most corrupt president in the nation’s history, Barack Obama is capable of implementing any underhanded or illegal scheme he believes he might get away with. And he would undoubtedly go to any lengths to manufacture a method by which he could undermine the 2nd Amendment.

Will this administration spend the next months working to impose terms of an unconstitutional treaty on the American public?

Sources: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/10/03/constitution-vs-un-arms-treaty/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties

https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/English7.pdf

http://www.libertygunrights.com/2TreatySet10Pgs.pdf

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2517&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dunratified%2Btreaties%252C%2Bdomestic%2Bpolitics%26form%3DPRUSEN%26pc%3DAV01%26mkt%3Den-us%26refig%3Df5a8d567fbea420cbcafd9f2eaf5a93a%26pq%3Dunratified%2Btreaties%252C%2Bdomestic%2Bpolitics%26sc%3D0-23%26sp%3D-1%26qs%3Dn%26sk%3D%26cvid%3Df5a8d567fbea420cbcafd9f2eaf5a93a#search=%22unratified%20treaties%2C%20domestic%20politics%22

 Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com

 

 

Will the Senate threaten the 2nd Amendment?

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty goes into effect on December 24th. Through that date, Coach is Right will provide background and current information concerning the dangers this treaty poses to the American people and their freedom.

President Obama has been re-elected since this piece was written and Republicans secured a massive, midterm victory in 2014. The midterm results should guarantee an incoming Senate that would  not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty. But conservative voters were certainly betrayed by the vote of the Republican House on the Omnibus Spending Bill a few days ago.

First published on July 13, 2012

by Doug Book,  staff writer

As New York City plays host to a conference which will shape the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) into final form, most 2nd Amendment supporters are concerned that stealth language or overly broad applications woven into the document will serve to separate Americans from their right to keep and bear arms. After all, why else would preliminary versions of the Treaty be so difficult to obtain and U.N., pre-conference position statements remain consistently absent from the internet?  

Barack Hussein Obama leads the most anti-gun rights Administration in the nation’s history. Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and recently appointed, ATF Acting Director B. Todd Jones have spoken often and passionately about the importance of implementing more restrictive gun control legislation.  

But the gun-grabbing Regime will not be able to ratify the UN’s global gun control measure without first securing a 2/3rds majority of senators to vote in favor. And it won’t be easy to convince 67 politicians to sign onto a document which countless critics have spent nearly a decade rightly representing as a worldwide assault on the 2nd Amendment. It will be especially difficult as the American public may once again be told that the document has to be “passed” in order to find out what’s IN it!

Late last year the Heritage Foundation obtained an ATT “Draft Paper” from an NGO participating in the Treaty mark-up. The Paper makes it clear that the finished product would be broad in scope, controlling everything “from rifle scopes to battleships.” And though the Treaty purports to monitor only “international arms transfers,” document language shows the UN also wishes to control “internal transfers” as “any firearm transfer—meaning any change in ownership…might conceivably somehow affect another nation…”

Therefore the ATT will demand signatories control and monitor “transfers including ‘transport’ across national territory.” To accomplish this, a nation would necessarily “maintain records of all imports and shipments of arms that transit their territory,” creating records on “the type of arms transferred and their ‘end users’.” So as international records would be kept of all weapons bought and sold within the United States, the Treaty would create not only a global arms registry, but the rules by which arms may be transferred and to whom.

Would Senators sympathetic to global arms control try to slip these and other unconstitutional ATT edicts past American voters? 

DC politicians—including Republicans—have already written purposely misleading and legally ineffective language into both the 2012 and 2013 National Defense Authorization Acts for the sole purpose of deceiving the American public into believing their constitutional rights were being looked after.  As for treaties, they commonly include “reservations;” that is, language designed to “define and limit the effect of a ratified treaty.” A few dedicated, gun-grabbing Senators might get the idea of attaching a codicil to the ATT, claiming it would prevent the ratified Treaty imposing upon the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people thereby safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course they wouldn’t bother to inform Americans that the Arms Trade Treaty specifically forbids any reservations which are “incompatible with the object and purpose” of the Treaty! Would members of the Washington political class be so dishonest as to try such an underhanded stunt?

It’s doubtful that a sufficient number of Senators would risk the fury of the NRA and gun owning voters. But then, stranger things have certainly happened in the nation’s capitol.  After all, a Supreme Court Chief Justice has just prostituted both himself and the Constitution!

Maybe keeping tabs on the Senate wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

Sources:

(1) http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/UNArmsTradeTreaty_USSenateLetter.pdf

(2) http://propheticnewsblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/un-arms-trade-treatyloosing-our-right.html

(3) http://patricksperry.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-will-restrict-your-gun-rights/

(4) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/dc3364.doc.htm

(5) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/effects-of-the-un-arms-trade-treaty-on-the-us

 

 

Why Karl Rove hates Terri Lynn Land, a candidate conservatives can support

 

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

Because of the meddling of people like Karl Rove, John Boehner and the rest of the GOPe, what was supposed to be an easy jaunt to a Senate majority finish line next month has turned into a nail biter.

Tokyo Rove has forced Tom Tillis on us in North Carolina. Tillis is not doing well and could very well lose to a very vulnerable Democrat. He and Haley Barbour cheated to get another amnesty rubber stamp, Thad Cochran the nomination in Mississippi re-nominated and he too is headed for defeat. This bunch did the same thing in Kansas and forced Pat Roberts on us. It is no wonder we’re angry and some of us are thinking about sitting this election out.

Nevertheless, Terri Lynn Land’s campaign in Michigan makes this unnecessary. We can keep our integrity and get in this fight for our country.

He has not come out and said so, but Rove most likely hates Terri. He is determined to hand the Democrats control of America for generations by having the Republicans grant amnesty to illegal aliens. That makes Land his enemy.

On the record, Land has said she opposes any form of amnesty. This is why the Democrat in the Michigan race for an open Senate seat is Rove’s choice.

For some, myself included, this is all the reason necessary to support Land. But she is not shy about speaking out on the issues. Here are Terri Lynn Land’s positions on the issues.

As you read them ask yourself why a Republican candidate who is down just 41/39 in an important senate race is constantly overlooked in news reports? When you get to the end you’ll understand.

She supports privatization of Social Security; and simplified federal income taxes. Land is pro-life, pro real marriage and against Gay “marriage.” Land is against Obamacare and was in favor of the government shutdown to fight against it.

Second Amendment rights are absolutes to Land and a strong military is essential to our safety.     

Now you know why the GOPe doesn’t support Land and the media won’t report on her race which is much closer than a few that they are talking about. Neither group likes Terri Lynn Land, but we do.

Please support her at: https://terrilynnland.com/donate/

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Terri_Lynn_Land.htm#Immigrati

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth, all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com

 

Iraq vet/police officer shames legislators for passage of New York’s anti-gun measure, the “SAFE Act”

In 2013, New York legislators passed and the state’s gun-grabbing Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the “SAFE Act,” a knee jerk  response by the far left to the December, 2012 killing of 26 children and adults in Newtown, Connecticut.

At the time, Aaron Weiss was serving in Iraq. But in 2 minutes and 58 seconds, the now Upstate New York police officer cut New York’s gun grabbing lawmakers to pieces. No political correctness for Weiss as he plainly states: “My rights trump your dead.” The constitutional rights fought for by Weiss and many of the combat vet’s now dead friends must NOT be sacrificed in the name of political expediency.

This brief yet powerful video address to New York legislators is MORE than worth your time as Aaron Weiss succeeds both in verbally shaming the shameless and demonstrating the courage of those really in charge of this nation—the American people.

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh1zornUVv8

“Nobody wants to take your guns”

by Doug Book,  editor

There is nothing so dependably disingenuous as a liberal who proclaims a willingness to have an honest debate or engage in a legitimate compromise. For decades spent in the practice of calculated deceit have made truth a foreign concept to these unprincipled vermin.

And no subject has been the cause of more outright dishonesty from the left than the right to keep and bear arms.

For decades, liberals have begun each new call for “common sense” gun legislation by reassuring gun owning, 2nd Amendment supporting Americans that nobody wants to take their guns. “No one is seriously proposing to ban or confiscate all guns,” claims Martin Dyckman, Associate Editor of the St. Petersburg Times.  “You hear that only from the gun lobby itself, which whistles up this bogeyman whenever some reasonable regulation is proposed.” Rather than suggest Mr. Dyckman may not be telling the absolute truth, let’s hear from the “bogeyman” himself:

“Our ultimate goal–total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.” “The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”
Richard Harris in The New Yorker, quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.

“It will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have “woken up” — quote — to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be.”
Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass: Speaking of the banning of firearms in the US, beginning with “the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not “household” weapons.”

“There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands.”
Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, upon signing the Communitarian Network’s “Case for Domestic Disarmament.”

“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs).”
Sen. John H. Chafee (R.-R.I.): In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13A.

“Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition.”
Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993.

“There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.” “I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.”
Michael Gartner (then president of NBC News), Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?, USA Today, Jan. 16, 1992

Speaking of the Assault Weapons Ban:  “Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Charles Krauthammer (nationally syndicated columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

“I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S.  If you have a gun, you go to jail.  Only the police should have guns.”
Rosie O’Donnell. Shannon Hawkins, Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999  

“We’re talking about limiting people to one gun purchase or handgun purchase a month.  Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one?  Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles?  Nobody needs one.”
Statement by Time Magazine, National Correspondent Jack E. White
L. Brent Bozell III, Lock-and-Load Mode Against the 2nd, Washington Times, May 8, 1999

“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.” 
Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns

“The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States.”
 Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000)

“We Are NOT “Gun Banners”-and never have been… Handgun Control, Inc., has never advocated banning firearms used for legitimate purposes such as hunting and recreation.”  Measures We Don’t Support,” Handgun Control Inc. March 16, 1999
As Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School points out: “Hopefully you noticed Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) doesn’t include self-defense as a “legitimate purpose” for owning a firearm.”

Apparently, as long as the Brady Campaign considers a specific firearm usage “legitimate,” gun owners have nothing to fear.   

Just remember: Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns!

Sources:

http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html