Huge Ruling for 2A supporters

[Coach McGuirk]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/second-amendment-extended/

[il Padrino Ute]

It's a start.

[Hallelujah]

It's a start.

notice Alameda County didn't want to ban gun shows on county property, but they simply wanted to prohibit guns on county property. Well, Caleeforneeans, no guns, no gun show.

Nice.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...ca-4-20-09.pdf

[Hallelujah]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/second-amendment-extended/

But yu can't take them away from home? Only for 'home' defense.

[BlueHair]

So much for Obama taking our guns. Fearmongering took a big hit today. They can now move on to more scary issues like decriminalization of marijuana or being forced to perform gay marriages.

[il Padrino Ute]

So much for Obama taking our guns. Fearmongering took a big hit today. They can now move on to more scary issues like decriminalization of marijuana or being forced to perform gay marriages.

Don't be too sure that Obama won't take our guns away. This only mentions being allowed to keep a gun in the home for defense. When Obama comes out and says that concealed weapons permits are a good thing, then can start to believe that he won't try to disarm us.

[BlueHair]

Don't be too sure that Obama won't take our guns away. This only mentions being allowed to keep a gun in the home for defense. When Obama comes out and says that concealed weapons permits are a good thing, then can start to believe that he won't try to disarm us.

I guess the question to me is how is he going to disarm us? He doesn't have that authority. He could ask for Congress to take up the issue, but then it would be Congress disarming us. This reminds me of the liberals that were so afraid that Bush would overturn Roe V. Wade. It isn't going to happen unless the majority of americans want it and I don't think we are there yet. If we reach a point where the majority of the country doesn't want to allow guns, we may have to live without them. Then we will know how other victims of majority rule feel. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.

[Coach McGuirk]

I guess the question to me is how is he going to disarm us? He doesn't have that authority. He could ask for Congress to take up the issue, but then it would be Congress disarming us. This reminds me of the liberals that were so afraid that Bush would overturn Roe V. Wade. It isn't going to happen unless the majority of americans want it and I don't think we are there yet. If we reach a point where the majority of the country doesn't want to allow guns, we may have to live without them. Then we will know how other victims of majority rule feel. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.

He could do it through a back door, Such as ratifying the new proposed treaty to end mexican gun violence. Here is the outline from Gun Owners of America,

It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing
of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other
Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really
nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the "illicit" manufacture
of firearms, what does that mean?

1. "Illicit manufacturing" of firearms is defined as "assembly of
firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...."

Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from
a kit -- is clearly "illicit manufacturing."

Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be "illicit manufacturing."

2. "Firearm" has a similarly questionable definition.

"[A]ny other weapon" is a "firearm," according to the treaty -- and the
term "weapon" is nowhere defined.

So, is a BB gun a "firearm"? Probably.

A toy gun? Possibly.

A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.

If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama
administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of
the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning Reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to
adopting "necessary legislative or other measures" to criminalize
illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that "illicit manufacturing" includes reloading and modifying
or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama
administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the
basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress
to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning Gun Clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized
acts should include "association or conspiracy" in connection with said
offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by
regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun
clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to "adopt
such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention" under a
variety of circumstances.

As I am sure you know, ratifying a treaty makes it basically a part of the Constitution. So there is still scary shit and the anti gun politicians have admitted to wanting to ban guns, they just don't think they have the support right now.

[BlueHair]

He could do it through a back door, Such as ratifying the new proposed treaty to end mexican gun violence. Here is the outline from Gun Owners of America,




As I am sure you know, ratifying a treaty makes it basically a part of the Constitution. So there is still scary shit and the anti gun politicians have admitted to wanting to ban guns, they just don't think they have the support right now.

My understanding (I admit it is a very limited understanding) is that no treaty can supersede the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law and no treaty or other agreement can overrule it. Am I wrong? Do we have any experts on the Constitution on the board?

[BlueHair]

I just read Article VI and it seems pretty clear that the Constitution overrules any treaty.