Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

“Under the Radar?” Does U.N. treaty constitute a constitutional threat to the right to bear arms?

Written By: Bob - Jul• 10•12

The folks at IBD seem to think that it may:

The United Nations is putting the finishing touches on an Arms Trade Treaty that transcends borders and may even trample our Constitutional right to bear arms. Every indication is that the president will sign it.

…We are assured by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who enthusiastically backs the treaty, that it only deals with international trade and trafficking and does not affect our Second Amendment rights. How the treaty would have dealt with Operation Fast and Furious, the administration program that walked guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, she does not say.

We don’t believe such assurances, given by an administration that has shown no respect for the U.S. Constitution and has a robust gun-control agenda of which Fast and Furious may have been a part. Its expansive view of its powers, recently ratified by a bizarre Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare, is supported by judges at all levels increasingly willing to incorporate international precedent and law in their decisions.

The treaty, which former Clinton adviser and political pundit Dick Morris believes President Obama will sign soon after it is completed, would seem to cover guns and weapons in the warm, live hands of private American citizens.

The Obama Administration has shown it’s willingness for lawless activity, both by it’s willingness to assassinate American citizens that are also overseas terrorists (which truth be told, bothers me more as a matter of process than anything else), and its willingness to orchestrate a series of gun-running plots into both Mexico and domestically.

Are they willing to risk instigating a civil war by subverting the Constitution through trickery? I honestly don’t know, and that terrifies me.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. Keith in Seattle says:

    No, I don’t think that ANYTHING that the UN does will trump OUR US CONSTITUTION. Period. Their laws mean NOTHING to the people under the US constitution.

    • Orion says:

      It’s a real pity that the President, most of Congress, and the majority of the Supreme Court and many, if not most, Judges disagree with you.


  2. Cole says:

    The question isn’t about Obama. We know Obama wants to strip us of our rights. He also doesn’t seem to think his unconstitutional actions will have any bearing on the upcoming election.

    The true question is the senate. It’s overwhelmingly big government. That includes many of the Republican members. Would Republicans and Democrats up for election jeopardize their campaigns to ratify? They did it in 2010 with an unpopular bill if I recall. And that’s assuming they follow protocol and require 2/3 for ratification. This bunch doesn’t seem keen on following protocol. Or the constitution. Honestly I think it’s 50/50 whether they pass it or not.

    And I do agree with Bob that ratification leads to armed rebellion. A majority of gun owners, myself included, would resist confiscation. Because that’s the only refuge the constitution has left – we the people. If the Feds really felt the Constitution trumped treaties with foreign powers they wouldn’t be buying 450 million rounds of ammunition. They don’t expect to confiscate our firearms with strongly worded letters after all. God help us all if this treaty is ratified.

    • Orion says:

      And they’ll resist confiscation one at a time, or in small groups, and be given the Randy Weaver/WACO treatment by the media and the Federal law enforcement agencies that are dispatched to collect those firearms.

      How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. The Libs are very patient. They haven’t spent 60 years destroying this country to let a few guns in private hands stop them now.


      • SDN says:

        Except, of course, that it’s a lot harder to give people that treatment in the age of Internet, and a lot of us aren’t in isolated areas where friendly fire and collateral damage aren’t things to worry about. Setting a fire that burns down a block in a subdivision is hard to cover up.

  3. mytralmann says:

    If the NRA is not for it it will not get through the Senate which must approve All treaties. Even if Obama wanted to control guns in the US using such a mechanism, he would have no chance. If you really want to worry Bob, consider this: If Kennedy retires from the SC, as some have said he intends to do, and O is elected, the second amendment as we know it will be toast since he will appoint a gun hater a lot more powerful than the UN to replace him. There the Senate will fail, even if the Republicans take it, to prevent him since it will not be an immediate concern to the country as a whole. Indirectly, Roberts, by protecting Obama from the stigma of ignorance of the constitution he supposedly taught as a “professor”. has made this more likely. I hope it is not another of his judicial legacies.

  4. Sean says:

    To ratify a treaty and make it legal and binding on the US requires a 2/3 majority of the senate. Someone elsewhere saod that it’s a 2/3 majority of those senators PRESENT at the time the vote is called. Which means that 2/3’s requirement is the next best thing to useless if the fucking dems call a midnight vote when everyone else has gone home.

  5. LSBeene says:

    I’m not sure which takes precedence – but a treaty ratified by the Senate and signed by the President can conflict with our Constitution (Bill of Rights) – and if “interpreted” by an Obama-like (or Obama-Actual) regime as being binding.

    They would be incremental and back door it, but they would use it.

    Does anyone doubt it?

  6. Al Reasin says:

    Thanks Bob for linking to the domestic gunwalking story. The media and congress have ignored this as well as the Dallas and Tampa gunwalking operations. So how did all these operation get started and have the cooperation of other government departments and agencies without top level DoJ participation. Just saying.

  7. Brian Guy says:

    Obama has killed American citizens he SAID were terrorists. You really trust this guy? What’s to keep him from knocking off anyone he deems a threat to his power or ideology? Slippery slope…

  8. Clay says:

    What’s wrong with a Civil War? This country has needed the dust beat out of it’s rug for about 100 years.

  9. A year ago, 57 senators sent the president a letter saying they refused to ratify this treaty.

    I don’t hear that anything has happened to change their minds. Personally I see this whole thing as a red herring to distract us from the election.

  10. Jeff Hoser says:

    Its perhaps best this issue arises before November. If the President – as many pundits claim he will – (hopefully) signs it prior to the election it’ll be a major voter swing factor. I don’t for a moment believe the DNC and the White House is so naive as to play it out this way, but President Obama has to “dance with the one that brung him”, too and that means at least one dance to the tune of the anti-gun zealots . The Senate, OTOH, has to take a longer term view and, IMO, remains unlikely to ratify such a treaty.

    Recall what the public response to gun seizure was in Canada, where the tradition of gun ownership isn’t so deeply entrenched in law and custom as exists in America. Nor are our gun-owning neighbors to the north nearly so recalcitrant as Americans . >MW

  11. harp1034 says:

    A lame duck Senate could radify it with only 2 or 3 senators there on Christmas eve or New Year’s Eve with proxy votes in their pocket and nobody looking.

  12. LSBeene says:

    After doing some research – I found the real danger of this treaty.

    This treaty, like all treaties, OVER RIDES the 2nd Amendment. Any treaty does that, as it acts like an Amendment to the Constitution.

    While the senate may not (and probably won’t) ratify it – UNTIL THE SENATE REJECTS IT – it is in effect.

    Read that again: Until the senate rejects it – the treaty is in effect.

    It is not unlike a blatantly illegal or unconstitutional law that is passed : until a judge rules it unconstitutional or rules on an injunction, the law stands, and it must be obeyed.

    Now, it may be that this happens for only a few months – but suppose under the authority of this law President Obama signs an executive order (not hard to see, is it?) enforcing it, or setting up an agency (or using an existing one) to do [x], [y], and [z] in the interim ….

    None of that is a “flight of fancy” – as evidenced by his previous actions and attitudes.

    Again – once signed, and until rejected by the senate – this treaty SUPERSEDES our Bill of Rights – as it acts like a Constitutional Amendment.

    THEREIN lies the danger.

    If I am wrong, please tell me – but that is what I got when I looked into it.