[StBernard] Guns and Laws ~~ If true this is serious

[Westley Annis]

Good God!  Did **anyone** even bother to look at the dateline of the Reuters
piece?  3 years ago.  

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/


>From link above:


A "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" isn't possible under our
Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which held just last year
that: 

	District of Columbia v. Heller
<http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf> , 26 June 2008:
(T)he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns
held and used for self-defense in the home.

Furthermore, if an arms trade treaty ever materializes, the administration
won't be able to "bypass" Congress, as the e-mail maintains. All
international treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate
<http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm>
before they are considered ratified and in effect.

Also:
In addition, the idea that a treaty necessarily would make U.S. citizens
"subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," as the e-mail
claims, is wrong. Treaties don't subject one nations' citizens to the laws
of other nations. They do commit governments to whatever actions a treaty
specifies, such as ceasing to test nuclear weapons, in the case of the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty <http://www.ctbto.org/>  (a treaty
signed by the U.S., but never ratified by Congress). 

As for this particular treaty: First of all, it doesn't yet exist. What is
true is that the Obama administration, reversing the line taken by the Bush
White House, has voted to support a process that could, in 2012 at the
earliest, result in a treaty.

Read the rest at the factcheck link above.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/may/17/craig-james/craig-jam
es-says-barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-/