Article Image
News Link • Gun Rights

United Nations Arms Treaty Would Equal Any U.S. Law, Including The Constitution

•, Douglas J. Hagmann
 Technically, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is not an overt “gun grab” treaty. Apparently, that statement alone is sufficient to cause many Americans to lose interest, misunderstand and downplay the threat posed by this treaty. Such characterization will be to the peril of every American, gun owner or not.

They are failing to understand the playbook in use by the globalists which includes a well orchestrated disinformation campaign being waged by antagonists of the Second Amendment. To quote Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has been attending the ATT conference, “the U.N. is aware of the political dangers of appearing to stomp openly on the Second Amendment.”

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

"... but we have a totally lawless government that sees the US Constitution as silly putty."

The only reason that the handful of major players in Government have the power and control that they do is, there are a whole bunch of law enforcement people and average citizens who either think that it should be this way, or feel that they don't have any choice.

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

Dennis, I appreciate where you are coming from, but we have a totally lawless government that sees the US Constitution as silly putty. The government has long infringed upon our Second Amendment rights. They will continue to infringe in increments untill even ancient flintlocks and pellet guns are banned. The Rubicon has been crossed long before we were born, the enemy is deep in our territory, even in our wallets, our homes, our computers and telephones, even in those "Smart Meters" and our atomobiles. I can't have a machine gun, M-16, or a grenade due to government infringing my rights to weapons. We aren't even supposed to have bulletproof vests! We must live free or die trying!  

Comment by Dennis Treybil
Entered on:

 Consider the text of the supremacy clause: 

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.

In a prior post, I had asserted that in one sense, the constitution itself, legislation and treaties were rather equal to each other.  Loosely, each is declared to be supreme law of the land.  Supreme law (Constitution) is supreme law (legislation) is supreme law (treaties) - hence, equal.

Legislation had to be in pursuance thereof (the constitution).  The in pursuance thereof language (as I read it) is binding only on legislation, not on treaties.  E.g. - if  ex pose facto legislation is passed, such would not be in pursuance (of the constitution).  It would be in direct conflict with Article I Sections 9 and 10.

In my prior post, I rhetorically asked, "Is it possible we're hopelessly screwed?!"

If there is any hope in the constitution, it is in the highlighted phrase in the above cite of the supremacy clause:

under the authority of the United States,

The constitution creates the United States in the form it took in 1791.  The authority of the United States is created and stated in the constitution, including the second amendment, which according to Article V is as valid a part of the document as any of the original 7 articles.

The USoA does NOT have the authority to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If this treaty were brought into effect (with or without Senate ratification), it could be challenged in the courts.  Usually, the court won't act before someone is prosecuted or otherwise actively acted upon.  This is NOT to say that the court WILL act after such an event, nevermind act in accordance with the Constitution.

Hamlet/Shakespeare's the law's delay comes to mind - if it comes to this, the courts can drag their feet and just sit on it, or refuse to hear such a case - nevermind an emergency ruling such as took place with Bush v. Gore or other instances where bypassing the legislative process is handy.

(BTW, I've not explicity stated this, BUT, treating a supreme court ruling as though it is supreme law of the land is a blatant violation of separation of powers.  Congress should impeach officers and judges who do this.  See Federalist Paper 78.  The same is true of executive orders)

I agree with Butler Schaffer - when the government interprets the constitution, the result is always (since 1937) an affirmation of the assumption/acretion of increased by the central body of the federal government.

Key phrase:  when the government interprets the constitution.

There is an oft-cited Jefferson quote to the effect that interpretation of the constitution must not be left to the courts.  The people must know it for themselves.

I am reminded of something I heard Michelle Shocked say on PBS' Austin City Limits:  Music is too important to be left in the hands of professionals.

The same is true of the Constitution.

If you want to know and understand what is being done now, read Butler Schaffer and others.  If you want to know what the promises were in 1791, read my work.  I write less about what is happening now, because I know less about it.  What I do know (or at least think I might know) is what the constitution meant in 1791.  Butler may or may not write on this: I simply have not seen anything by him directly addressing that.

The full article sort of alludes to the supremacy clause but does not provide a detailed analysis.  This post is a stab at that.

DC Treybil



Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: