John Kerry Signs UN Gun Ban Treaty!


rifleshooter474

New member
While Everyone Are Distracted Over The Elections, John Kerry Signs UN Gun Ban Treaty!

If U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has his way the United Nations will be able to say if Americans are allowed to have their Second Amendment rights. He signed an anti-gun treaty with the United Nations that the U.S. Senate has already said it is against.

The treaty Kerry signed without authorization from the Senate would create an un-Constitutional registry of all US gun buyers and would lead to the UN controlling American’s gun rights.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.

As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.

“This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong,” he said. “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”

U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate.

He claimed the treaty raises “fundamental issues” concerning “individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The National Rifle Association blasted the plan, claiming it would impose an “invasive registration scheme” by requiring importing countries to give exporting countries information on “end users.”

“The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “These are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American. The NRA will continue to fight this assault on our fundamental freedom.”

Once again Obama’s regime tries to end the Second Amendment by stealth.
 

CustomSatellite

New member
Obama has already proven he has little or no regard for rule of law or a limited power government. These elietest bastards have zero respect for law abiding God fearing citizens. They will stop at nothing to see our country fall to this new world order style of dictatorial submission. These people aren't american and the next installment in this process is HC. What ever happened to the America I know and loved? The America that cared about the will of the people. The America that would tell the UN or anyone that wanted to control us or our interests abroad to politely go "F" themselves. Thingso are sad and getting more sad folks. Keep buying ammo. I wear no tinfoil hat but these elected leaders are determined to sell us out.
 

Blueshell

Banned
Obama has already proven he has little or no regard for rule of law or a limited power government. These elietest bastards have zero respect for law abiding God fearing citizens. They will stop at nothing to see our country fall to this new world order style of dictatorial submission. These people aren't american and the next installment in this process is HC. What ever happened to the America I know and loved? The America that cared about the will of the people. The America that would tell the UN or anyone that wanted to control us or our interests abroad to politely go "F" themselves. Thingso are sad and getting more sad folks. Keep buying ammo. I wear no tinfoil hat but these elected leaders are determined to sell us out.
Treason.
 

SR9

New member
Any treaty has to be ratified by the US Senate. The senate usually votes it down in the past. Let's hope they continue.
 

Seeya

New member
Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883)."
Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or
taken away."

Boyd v U.S., 116 US 635. "...constitutional provisions for the
security of person and property should be liberally construed ... It is
the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of
citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
"Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no
duties, it affords no protection, it
creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO
rule making or legislation which
would abrogate them."

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
The Constitution for these united States is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Any law that is repugnant to the
Constitution is null and void of law and effect from its inception. 1.
Do you have a right? 2. If you have a
right and it is violated, do the laws of the country afford a remedy? 3.
If you have a remedy at law is it a
mandamus issuing from this court? The opinion of the court on all three
questions was yes, yes, yes.


The Constitution --- Plain and Simple: Treaties

Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
 
Last edited:

S&W645

NRA Life Member
The problem with the signing of it is that any Senate in the future can ratify it. Whether it be in 2016, 2020, or later.
 

scottdls

New member
This Treaty power is a neat way of amending the Constitution without going through the amendment process. 67 Senators can sign away the Bill of Rights via ratification of a Treaty...correct? And to think I thought they were stuck with the old fashioned way of confirming SCOTUS judges that ignore the plain language of the Constitution. This Amendment by Treaty is right next to the Article II Sodomy Clause and the Abortion/Privacy Amendment...silly me.
 
Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883)."
Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or
taken away."

Boyd v U.S., 116 US 635."...constitutional provisions for the
security of person and property should be liberally construed ... It is
the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of
citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
"Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no
duties, it affords no protection, it
creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO
rule making or legislation which
would abrogate them."

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
The Constitution for these united States is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Any law that is repugnant to the
Constitution is null and void of law and effect from its inception. 1.
Do you have a right? 2. If you have a
right and it is violated, do the laws of the country afford a remedy? 3.
If you have a remedy at law is it a
mandamus issuing from this court? The opinion of the court on all three
questions was yes, yes, yes.


The Constitution --- Plain and Simple: Treaties

Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Amen.
 

S&W645

NRA Life Member
No treaty, whether signed by "us" supersedes the Constitution.
So... it matters not what that traitor signs.
And you would leave it up to whom to prevent that from happening? Not the SCOTUS I hope as you already have proof that they don't follow the Constitution. A tax that isn't a tax created legally as an example.
 
Here you go......

2fcbd118e8739634a73ec5f662b81fcc.jpg
 

Seeya

New member
Only Belligerents Have Rights

Only Belligerents Have Rights

Bigger text (+) | Smaller text (-)
ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS

by Richard C. Donaldson and Alfred Adask
The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus." [Emphasis added.]
Notice the verdict's confrontational language: "fighting", "combat", and most surprising, "belligerent". Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being "passive" or "ignorant"? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be "belligerent" IN COURT...?

Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.

Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Sir Edmund Burke said,

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
But apathy ("doing nothing") isn't simply a function of cowardice or indifference; "apathy" is a synonym for "ignorance".

What is it -- apathy or ignorance? "I don't know and I don't care."

Ignorance makes the public more "manageable" in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizen's Rights, government has a vested interest in the public's ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be.

If you are a product [victim] of the public school system then consider this, The Department of Education gets what it pays for. ...and you need to 'get yourself smart' -- the sooner the better! This is not a good time for 'dumb-ass'.

'Silence gives consent', is the rule of business life. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. Silence gives rise to fraud - or - silence gives rise to agreement. What better way to acquiesce than to not object?
Acquiescence is acceptance!

Jack Lancaster: Only Belligerents Have Rights Fight Your Way To Freedom!
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
Thank you for the link. If anyone questions that the gov't considers us the enemy then they need to go and read http://www.freedom-school.com/belligerent-claimant.pdf from that site.

There are tons of great links at the home page of Freedom School - Texas . Seven Elements of Jurisdiction is a must-read for anyone willing to take responsibility for their own defense in court, and The Frog Farm FAQ, though old, is still a great primer on how one can go about procuring for themselves the most freedom possible in this day and age of abandonment by government of the constraints placed on it by the Constitution. I started reading the second one yesterday, and also started fact-checking it as I went along re: the citations to court rulings, and didn't find a single citation that isn't verifiable by searching the case and finding the same text verbatim that the FAQ cited.

I don't know if the site is still being updated or if it's just an archive, but it's essential reading through and through for anyone seeking the most liberty they can get for themselves. I had landed on the site a month or so ago while searching jurisdiction issues, and was pleasantly surprised to see Seeya link to it again here, and now you too. Tiny embers can turn to fanning the flames of freedom one person at a time, and what I've been finding is that it has much, much less to do with our relationship to government than with our willingness to extricate ourselves as much as possible from it. Self-responsibility, self-reliance and self-help are the hallmarks of individual freedom, and Freedom School teaches that in every way imaginable.

Blues
 
S

since9

Guest
By law, John Kerry is NOT AUTHORIZED to sign any such a treaty. If you agree with the line of reasoning below, please copy and send it to your Congressman as a "friendly reminder."

Specifically:

1. The U.S. Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI of the United States Constitution). Here's a complete list of all entities who are in compulsory compliance:
a. All laws of the United States
b. All Treaties made under the authority of the United States
c. All judges and judicial officers (including "officers of the court" i.e. lawyers), both of the United States and of the States. This includes all local, county, state, and federal judges, including the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
d. All legislators, both of the United States and of the States. This includes all local, county, state, and federal legislators, including both Senators and Representatives of the U.S. Congress
e. All executives, both of the United States and of the States. This includes all local, county, state, and federal executives, including local/town/city/municipal mayors and "managers," county heads of government, State Governors, and the President of the United States.
f. All citizens of the United States, so stated in the Immigration and Naturalization CFRs.
g. All visitors to the United States, so stated in the Immigration and Naturalization CFRs.
h. All illegal immigrants are already in violation, which is why they are detained and absolutely should be deported. Why? Because IT'S THE LAW.
i. Anyone who has ever taken an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" is also BOUND by and to our United States Constitution. This includes all members of the military, all law enforcement officers, and everyone acting under the color of the law (local, state, or federal investigators, attorneys general, magistrates, etc.)

Note: Under "color of law", it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Bottom line: It something or someone violates the United States Constitution, IT IS NOT LEGAL.

2. Only the President of the United States can make a treaty, but NOT unless it is "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article , Section 2 of the United States Constitution).

3. All Amendments, upon appropriate ratification, become fully a part of the United States Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress" (Article V of the United States Constitution).

4. By addressing itself to the broadest audience (as opposed to the First's use of "Congress"), and its use of the imperative, "shall not," the Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is an absolute. It applies to all entities mentioned in Parts 1a through 1i, above. NONE of those entities have any power or authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms. The question then becomes, "what is meant by the term "infringe?" Two similar definitions exist in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
a. to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (infringe a patent)
b. obsolete : defeat, frustrate
However, the key point to remember here is that when the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, the use of the term "infringe" as "defeat, frustrate" was NOT obsolete. In fact, that's precisely what our Founding Fathers had in mind. The more recent definition grew out of the original. Thus, any entity, measure, executive order, or legislation which defeats or frustrates our right to own, possess, or carry (keep and bear) arms is in direct violation of the United States Constitution, and any entities listed in Parts 1a to 1i, above, are in VIOLATION of their oaths of office.

Conclusion: Since no anti-gun, gun-banning, or other similar treaty has ever acquired more than half the Senate's or State legislatures' vote, much less two-thirds, whatever John Kerry signed is NOT any sort of a treaty of the United States of America. It is a worthless piece of parchment, invalid, highly illegal, and totally unenforceable in any U.S. or International court of law.
 

S&W645

NRA Life Member
but why do they want to enforce a law the people do not clearly want
Power. Right at the heart of the matter.

Now if HilLIARy should get elected, she is in violation of the Constitution. Women were given the right to vote but the 25th Amendment says that the President is He or Him in the wording.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,491
Messages
624,259
Members
74,334
Latest member
johnporter
Top