UN arms bill

[johnmyers]

There was alot of talk a couple of weeks ago about Clinton signing a bill with the UN that would be going against the 2nd Amendment. Article on Daily Bulletin and alot of exposure from the NRA. The date was July 27 and it all seemed to get quiet about a week ago. What happened?

 

[Will]

Nothing ... it died. Seems that their were 51 Senators who didn't have HUA syndrome so it wasn't ratified by the US.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/un-fails-to-reach-deal-on-global-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-asks-for-more-time/?test=latestnews

 

[Eddie Harren]

I received a newsletter from the NRA on Friday, claiming that they had defeated the UN Arms Ban. I don't think very many politicians would back any kind of serious arms ban in an election year. I know the Muslim won't. He had his chance last week and "milktoasted" out.

 

[Minesweeper3433]

This kind of new actually makes me feel physically better. I get more stressed from lawmakers than I do from incoming artillery while in my tent. Nice to hear some great news every once in a while after all the worrying as of late.

 

[johnmyers]

Thanks for the replys, glad it was stopped for now

 

[nonliberal]

We are still screwed! One of the most pro-gun supreme court justices just opened the door for legislation and it's becoming apparent that the Supreme court will uphold any legislation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/

 

[hayboy]

80,000,000 Gun Qwners ---4,000,000 NRA Members---Less than 1,000,000GOA members ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[fredhorace77]

Scalia was really going good...answering questions fast and with thought...but boy he sure choked up fast when it came to gun control...

 

[nonliberal]

Scalia was really going good...answering questions fast and with thought...but boy he sure choked up fast when it came to gun control...

That's for sure! It's an open invitation just asking for more legislation and even hinting at an outcome...

He is even the Justice I find myself ideologically most in-line with.

 

[CanusLatransSnpr]

I'm glad the UN arms bill didn't pass but, not glad at all that there is talk of more bills to come from our Supreme Court. What are these do gooders thinking? Since when was our Bill of Rights "subject to interpretation"?

Mike

 

[Heavies]

Legislation from the bench as of late. A justice doesn't like what the bill says and claims, they just change around the wording and meaning to make it legal and justifiable.

What is this country coming to?

 

[Hombre0321]

Guy's I think if you take an objective view of what Scalia was saying we may not have anything to worry about him and his stance on the 2nd Ammendment.

I believe he was speaking to possiblitys and what if's. he knows that at some point in time there will be some form of Gun Control legistation coming before the "Court" He also knows that he will have to set in judgement of that legistation. He must read that "MUST" be objective about what ever that is, becuase he is on the court. Why would the man want to telegraph the way he may rule on such a bill? Before the bill is even written, or he has even seen it. I personally believe that Scalia was being smart and not giving anyone the chance to be critical befor the show even starts.

At least that is what I am hopeing he was doing. If you really listen to what he said, he didn't really say anthing.......
Roland

 

[Bradley Walker]

I would be more interested in this...

 

[necchi]

Walker,
What on earth does that have to do with the topic of UN Treaties?

 

[Bradley Walker]

Walker,
What on earth does that have to do with the topic of UN Treaties?

Well, they do... Awfully convenient having a nationally televised mass murder with an "assault rifle" right before the vote... Never mind no one saw the shooter's face, witnessed his arrest, and there are witnesses saying the shooter had help... Then there's the issue that the guy in court doesn't even look like the pictures of the accused and he appears to be whacked out of his mind and doesn't remember anything...

Never mind.

 

[nonliberal]

Guy's I think if you take an objective view of what Scalia was saying we may not have anything to worry about him and his stance on the 2nd Ammendment.

I believe he was speaking to possiblitys and what if's. he knows that at some point in time there will be some form of Gun Control legistation coming before the "Court" He also knows that he will have to set in judgement of that legistation. He must read that "MUST" be objective about what ever that is, becuase he is on the court. Why would the man want to telegraph the way he may rule on such a bill? Before the bill is even written, or he has even seen it. I personally believe that Scalia was being smart and not giving anyone the chance to be critical befor the show even starts.

At least that is what I am hopeing he was doing. If you really listen to what he said, he didn't really say anthing.......
Roland

He is a good justice, the main part that makes me nervous is how he almost coaches how to write the legislation. He might as well have just said, If you try to ban guns it will be defeated, but if you want to ban certain types of guns or magazines we will uphold that because it still allows you to bear arms, just not these arms listed in the new law.

Single shot shotguns are arms, so you can have those.
But if its semi auto, holds more than 2 rounds, travels farther than 100 yards, can penetrate a bullet proof vest, larger than .243 caliber, looks mean, has a pistol grip, can be concealed, barrel shorter than 33", makes loud noise, has ever been used in millitary, or has ever been used in a murder, it can be banned.
Don't want to get on that slippery slope.