Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From article: it demands that every nation create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders within its borders. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could prevent private individuals from purchasing ammunition for any weapons they do own
And the article is wrong. The treaty contains no requirements whatsoever for any registry of gun owners, it makes no effort to encourage any changes to any gun laws within the borders of signing members. Neither does it require (or even hint at) mechanisms for preventing any ammunition purchases. All of those claims are figments of the right-wing imagination.
A international treaty has to voted upon by the congress. Signing a treaty and passing a treaty are two different things.
Exactly. A signature on a treaty is worthless. It's only a ratification that makes you a state party and ratifications are only handled by the Senate. Much ado about nothing here.
From article: it demands that every nation create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders within its borders. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could prevent private individuals from purchasing ammunition for any weapons they do own
Read better articles. People are feeding you deliberate lies, thinking you are naive enough to uncritically pass them on. It appears they're right. Doesn't that p.ss you off?
BTW, a treaty can neither change nor affect anything in the Constitution.
If we ratify and sign a treaty that says Every country that's a party to this treaty, shall have three Presidents and only one House of Congress, that doesn't mean we now have to get three Presidents and kick out either the House or the Senate. We can completely ignore that part of the Treaty, because our Constitution says we will have one President and two Houses of Congress; and if the treaty folks don't like it, tough.
And if we atify and sign a treaty that says we have to restrict the guns in this country to only sporting guns, we don't have to get rid of the AR-15s that are in a lot of people's closets. Because that part of the treaty doesn't supersede the 2nd amendment, which says govt can't restrict or take away our right to keep and bear arms.
And if the treaty folks (including the President) don't like it.... see above.
And the article is wrong. The treaty contains no requirements whatsoever for any registry of gun owners, it makes no effort to encourage any changes to any gun laws within the borders of signing members. Neither does it require (or even hint at) mechanisms for preventing any ammunition purchases. All of those claims are figments of the right-wing imagination.
In other countries with parliamentary systems, even if the relatively conservative parties oppose approval, ratification is just a matter of time until a left-wing government takes power. Reduced private gun ownership around the world will surely lead to more pressure for gun control in our own country.
BTW, a treaty can neither change nor effect anything in the Constitution.
If we ratify and sign a treaty that says Every country that's a party to this treaty, shall have three Presidents and only one House of Congress, that doesn't mean we now have to get three Presidents and kick out either the House or the Senate. We can completely ignore that part of the Treaty, because our Constitution says we will have one President and two Houses of Congress; and if the treaty folks don't like it, tough.
And if we atify and sign a treaty that says we have to restrict the guns in this country to only sporting guns, we don't have to get rid of the AR-15s that are in a lot of people's closets. Because that part of the treaty doesn't supersede the 2nd amendment, which says govt can't restrict or take away our right to keep and bear arms.
And if the treaty folks (including the President) don't like it.... see above.
Beyond that the treaty ONLY applies to international shipment of arms and doesn't even touch anything about intranational sales. Within its own preamble it states that it "Reaffirm[s] the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system." Given that the sale of firearms in this nation to private individuals is perfectly legal and is governed by our own legal and constitutional system, the Arms Trade Treaty doesn't change your ability to go down to AmmuNation and pick up a .45 semiauto.
Fearmongering "what ifs" aren't terms and provisions of a treaty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
