LongTimeCatFan wrote:http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ ... 2013-E.pdf
I think if you read this, it won't take long at all to find something that infringes on the 2A, starting with the munitions part. There is so much wrong with it, I could write a book. I also don't think THIS senate will ratify it, but once signed (as Obama already has) a treaty signed stays in limbo in perpetuity until either another senate ratifies it or another President withdraws the US from the treaty. Once a treaty is ratified though, it is irreversible, I believe.
Thanks. I don't know why that didn't come up yesterday when I did my few minutes of internet research, but all I was finding were articles on the treaty that didn't really give any details.
I'll talk about some of the provisions of the treaty itself in a minute, but first I'd like to just say a few words about the general relationship between treaties and the U.S. Constitution, because I think there is some misunderstanding there. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI.2) provides as follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The fundamental point here is that Federal law (including the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and any treaties) trumps state law. Although the clause doesn't specifically say it, we know from many years of SCOTUS precedent that the Constitution is superior to Federal statutes, and for purposes of U.S. domestic law, international treaties are generally treated as having the same legal force as Federal statutes.
The point I am getting at here is that a provision of a treaty cannot supplant a provision of the U.S. Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has never actually found a treaty provision to be unconstitutional, most attorneys and Constitutional scholars believe it could do so. So if this treaty were to be ratified, and if gun owners believed that it infringed on their Constitutional rights, they could challenge the offeding provisions of the treaty in the Federal courts (and ultimately, in the Supreme Court) in the same manner that they can challenge any Federal statute. It's not "irreversible," any moreso than anything else Congress does is irreversible.
Now, getting to the treaty itself. I'll admit I haven't read the whole thing, but from what I have read, I haven't seen anything that would make it unconstitutional, in my view. The provision you cited, relating to sales of munitions, provides as follows:
Article 3 Ammunition/Munitions
Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such ammunition/munitions.
(Emphasis mine.)
I understand that gun rights folks get nervous any time a "national registry" or similar concepts are discussed, but this provision specifically relates only to the
export of ammunition by contracting states. I don't see how that can possibly violate the Second Amendment (which grants us the right to "keep and bear arms," but does not grant the right to buy or sell arms from or to anyone we want, anywhere in the world, without being subject to international law or the laws of other countries). If the treaty does not apply to purely domestic sales, I don't see how it can possibly violate the Second Amendment.
Do you think I'm missing something?
I work as an attorney so that I can afford good scotch, which helps me to forget that I work as an attorney.
I think Williams went to um for a couple years and taught there too. The BOR has been doing OK by me the last few years. I think MSU has the most regents already. A destruction of Bobcats!
