Rosemary Potter: ‘Are you upset enough?’

To the editor:

You could lose your guns over a deal being presented in our nation’s capitol.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in agreement with the United Nations that there should be major gun control all over the member nations.

The deal is called the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, and is disguised as “an international arms control treaty” to fight terrorism, insurgency and international crime syndicates.

According to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., this treaty is a “massive, global gun-control scheme.”

Former ambassador to the U.N. John R. Bolton warns that the treaty “requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms.”

President Barack Obama, who knows he can never legally, legislatively or constitutionally ban private ownership of firearms in this country, would seek to do so through U.N. “international law.”

In other words, he’s all for the treaty, so we’re not going to get any help from him.

Everybody knows that, locally or internationally, the only people affected by gun control laws are law-abiding citizens. The criminals will always have guns.

In this case, the criminals are those who seek to ignore our constitutional rights by disarming us internationally. The government will still own firearms, of course.

Since the U.S. Senate has to ratify any agreement made by the state department, our only recourse is to bombard our two senators to let them know we do not want to surrender our Second Amendment rights to the U.N.

They better understand that we’re watching, we’re voting and we’re upset.

Senator Mark Udall’s number is 202-224-5941. Senator Michael Bennet’s number is 202-224-5852.

Are you upset enough? Go ahead and call them.

Rosemary Potter

Click here to have the print version of the Craig Daily Press delivered to your home.

Comments

UltimatePatriot 2 years, 9 months ago

Ha! Pretty much everything in this article is incorrect. The putative United Nations arms treaty has nothing to do with restricting the sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of a potential U.N. arms treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of small arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market." Even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.

The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate. (Furthermore, the U.S. Congress cannot be "bypassed" in any such treaty process, as all treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate.)

There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

Don't be duped.

0

cag81625 2 years, 9 months ago

Thank you UP for not letting a good conspiracy theory get in the way of simple facts.

Remember, Rosemary, no politician ever got elected without a good dose of fear mongering.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.