Cifta its here

[Rsoich]

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/49907.htm
as reported by CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P2PyfQhiyg&feature=related

[d90king]

Mr Soros at his finest. He has been a big proponent of utilizing multi-national treaties to usurp the U.S Constitution for decades. :dead_hors

I don't believe it can pass, but it is important to follow none the less. :nono:

[daveohno]

Is it true that treaties ratified by those pampered, arrogant, wanna be royalty, US Senators supersede the US Constitution?

[Patriotic]

My understanding is yes and only has to be ratified by the Senate. As you know the current makeup of the Senate is 60/40 with Democrats holding a 2/3 majority. Take a look at how the process is done.

http://www.fryer.com/WGAERPA.htm

[daveohno]

I was horrified when I was told that the US Senate can trump the US Constitution like that. All around the globe, there are people running these governments that hold reprehensible views on just what freedoms the people should have and just how much the governments should be allowed to oppress the people. Their views on firearms are just awful and they have no problem deciding just what the governed should be allowed to do on just about anything the government decides.

[d90king]

I was horrified when I was told that the US Senate can trump the US Constitution like that.

It is a frightening thought... However very unlikely even in today's political climate.

[daveohno]

It is a frightening thought... However very unlikely even in today's political climate.
These senators think that they're some sort of crown prince or a deity of some sort. I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw them. These people just know what's best for you and the constraints of law and the constitution just won't curb their desire to do what they know is best for you, regardless of the legality of it.

[Old Fashioned]

Passage might seem unlikely but I think this bears very close watching. This passed under Pres. Clinton but, fortunately, was not ratified. This treaty certainly requires member states to enact or modify existing domestic laws so as to conform to this treaty. It would also spell the end of reloading as we know it today (requires a license to assemble ammunition). This would certainly make Soros and the left very happy. All it would take for ratification would be for a few senators to decide they were not going to seek re-election and decide to heck with the "gun nuts", I'll vote for ratification. I just don't trust politicians!

[Chilo45]

Just to clear up the confusion that seems to permeate gun forums about ratified treaties and the Constitution:

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution".

The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside".

HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"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.

Source: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

[Old Fashioned]

Chilo45, you are certainly correct. I was simply pointing out what the treaty calls for. My concern is that many times things are done that are not strictly in accord with the Constitution and the provisions of this treaty are incouragement for the inti gun people (anti gun and anti intelligent).

[Chilo45]

And yes, Old Fashioned, i do agree with your statement. As long as there are those who can justify their position with a viable to their point of view explanation on the legality of said point of view we have something to be very, very leery of. The past administration did just that to further their position on a number of things that made / are making the front page and these same type individuals are doing it with CIFTA.
Keep writing to our representatives expressing our disdain for these type of "end runs" to our rights; as it is up to each and every one of us to speak up and let them know that we are not silent and only voice our determination at the voting booth. I think that my representatives now know my position as they have heard and continue to hear from me as often as I feel it necessary - thank God for email and the internet.

Shoot straight and often.

[daveohno]

That's nice, but, there are probably 3 or 4 people on our Supreme Court that I would wager don't agree with that view as they are probably thinking of themselves as "World Citizens" and our quaint Constitution stifles those ends and must be "fixed" by them so we can be in the mainstream of world thought. That is one of the reasons the thought that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document is so dangerous, because it allows all sorts of mischief to occur. The progressives (that's what they think of themselves) are opposed to almost anything the founding fathers thought was a good idea. They are stateists and believe they know best and the government should be powerful to a dangerous degree when it comes to individual freedom. Private firearm ownership is something these people are vehemently opposed to and they aren't overly concerned how they achieve their end, be it legal or not. These people would authorize the police to forcibly enter your home and require you to surrender any firearms in your home because you shouldn't have these things in their opinion.