NRA-ILA's Emergency Petition to the U.S. Senate

Gidge

NES Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
10,414
Likes
6,417
Location
F.E.M.A. Region I
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
President Barack Obama SIGNED the U.N. gun ban treaty.

You know what this means. Now Obama and the U.N. are one BIG step closer to wiping out our Second Amendment freedom, our national sovereignty, and our American rule of law...once and for all.



Only you and I can stop Obama and the U.N., but we have to act NOW.

Please sign NRA-ILA's Emergency Petition to the U.S. Senate as soon as you can.

NRA ILA Petition to Stop the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty. Help NRA-ILA stop the U.N. gun ban! Sign this petition today!


Only the Senate can ratify treaties, so it's up to you and me to convince an overwhelming majority of U.S. Senators to vote NO on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. And we have to do it RIGHT NOW.



We need to line the halls of the Senate with boxes and boxes of these petitions. We need to make it clear to every Senator if they team up with Obama and the U.N. to destroy our gun rights — there will be a heavy political price to be paid at election time.

That's why every petition counts, starting with YOURS.

So please, sign your petition TODAY.

And after you sign your petition, I need you to make a much-needed contribution to NRA-ILA so we can make certain that U.N. bureaucrats never get the chance to trample our constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

With your help now, NRA-ILA can launch a BLISTERING ad campaign that exposes Obama's treachery. We can blanket the Senate with hundreds of thousands of these petitions. We can put every critical NRA-ILA campaign tool to work and stop this dangerous treaty before it becomes the law of the land.

But we can't do ANY of it without a generous commitment from you TODAY.



So after you sign your petition, I urge you in the strongest way possible to make an emergency contribution of $15, $25, $50, $100, or any other amount you can afford to NRA-ILA today.



Only NRA-ILA has the proven track record to win a battle this big. And every dollar you give RIGHT NOW will be spent stopping the U.S. Senate from ratifying the U.N. gun ban treaty.

Please take action as soon as you possibly can. And please forward this email to every freedom-loving patriot you know. We need as many signed petitions as possible!!!

Thank you.

Chris

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA-PVF | PVF Home
 
Since the 2nd Amendment recognizes a natural pre-existing right the only way we can lose it is if we surrender it.
 
A treaty does not circumvent the constitution. A treaty does not allow the government to do things the constitution forbids.

Reid v. Covert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
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; . . .
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect.[n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs,133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:
The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

If the government wants to try to enforce illegal laws based off a treaty, let them. They will have to contend with violent refusal to accept enforcement of those laws.

And once that starts, the politicians who signed it and made those illegal laws had better hope they never go anywhere in the open without level 5 armor on inside a bulletproof glass box and car.
 
Can someone confirm this is actually an NRA petition? I'm somewhat of a skeptic, because I've been burned in the past by signing petitions that were not what they claimed to be.

The domain name (nrastoptheungunban.com) seems a little strange, and I wonder why it was not simply placed on the NRA or NRAILA website? I can find no links to this site from NRA.ORG nor NRAILA.ORG.
 
According to the Washington Times, 53 Senators already voted on March 23rd against the UN Arms Trade Treaty (see paragraph 9):INHOFE AND MORAN: The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is dead on arrival - Washington Times

Not that past votes are necessarily any indication of future votes, even in the same non-election year, but it's hard to imagine a twenty-vote swing in the wrong direction just 6 months later (as would be necessary to come up with the 2/3rds majority to ratify the treaty).

It's really just amazing that just 12 short years after 9/11 we find ourselves to the left of Canada on this issue.[frown]
 
A treaty does not circumvent the constitution. A treaty does not allow the government to do things the constitution forbids.

Reid v. Covert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If the government wants to try to enforce illegal laws based off a treaty, let them. They will have to contend with violent refusal to accept enforcement of those laws.

And once that starts, the politicians who signed it and made those illegal laws had better hope they never go anywhere in the open without level 5 armor on inside a bulletproof glass box and car.


Uhm, seriously. The government enforces illegal laws and does not enforce legal laws everyday, why would one from a treaty make any difference, because said treaty supersedes the Constitution and that makes the enforcement illegal? Constitutional rights are negotiated or taken away daily. Where are the violent refusals you speak of.

I not not trying to troll here, just saying....
 
I was waiting for this line, then got to it sooner than I expected:

"And after you sign your petition, I need you to make a much-needed contribution to NRA-ILA so we can make certain that U.N. bureaucrats never get the chance to trample our constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms."
 
Here's one thing you all missed, and that is the overwhelming irony of this:

"Mr. Kerry says this treaty is about “keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors.” However, North Korea, Syria and Iran — which most would agree are “rogue actors” — voted against the Arms Trade Treaty. If 50 nations ratify the treaty it will take effect, but those rogue actors will not be a party to it and will not follow its provisions, leaving them free to continue dealing in arms. Meanwhile, the United States could find itself handcuffed when it comes to aiding our most vulnerable allies — including Israel, Taiwan and South Korea — owing to international pressure exerted under the guise of the Arms Trade Treaty.

So basically, if you read this right: Sen. Inhoffe compares this legislation to civilian antigun legislation being passed in certain US states. The irony of course is that it's common sense that the senate vote to prevent us from entering into this lunacy. It points to the following fact: that they are admitting that CRIMINAL sovereign states WON'T OBEY the LAWS anyways and would essentially hamstring the US and other law abiding nation states from defending themselves. Gosh that sounds awfully familiar but I just can't put my finger on where I've heard that before. /sarcasm.

It's actually quite enraging: our own government recognizes that it has an intrinsic right to sovereignty and self defense and consequently won't sign laws that criminals wouldn't follow anyways. Not surprising however is that Democrats voted primarily on party lines against this bill.

Took a minute but I found the senate voting record for this, which btw was 53Y-46N. The Bill of course prevented us from entering into this ludicrous treaty:
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

Guess who voted against it?
Massachusetts:Cowan (D-MA), NayWarren (D-MA), Nay
Colorado:Bennet (D-CO), NayUdall (D-CO), Nay
New Hampshire:Ayotte (R-NH), YeaShaheen (D-NH), Nay

Once again hat goes off to Senator Ayotte R - NH who faces lots of criticism from Liberal Moonbats.

Just like to point out that both Cuban senators Ruiz and Cruz voted Yea to prevent us from entering into this lunacy
[smile]
Florida:Nelson (D-FL), NayRubio (R-FL), Yea
Texas:Cornyn (R-TX), YeaCruz (R-TX), Yea

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom