With only a quick review of the two cases that Joseph and David cited, it boils down to:
1) Treaty trumps states' rights 2) Treaty does not trump enumerated rights 3) Everything else is up for (executive power) grabs By some eyewitness reports of the U.N. treaty debates, the required actions reads like a Brady Campaign wish list (registration, controlled transfers, microstamping, destruction of surpluses, etc). Since none of these requirements are direct denial of the right to own (and presumably bear) arms, then the actions could be implemented by executive order (unless I'm missing something fundamental). Even Texans would be subject to those controls . until they seceded. May be a moot discussion. I don't think the votes for ratification exist, and the odds will likely be thinner after 2012. _____ From: Dave Hardy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:28 AM To: Joseph E. Olson; Guy Smith; [email protected] Subject: Re: Treaty law and 2A mechanics There is an early 20th century case on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, I believe Missouri v. Holland, which essentially held that a treaty could expand Federal power (in that case, to regulate migratory bird takings, which were hardly within the commerce clause as it was understood at the time. The treaty power wouldn't trump the later Bill of Rights, but it would allow Congress (and prob. the Executive) to have broader powers than they otherwise would have. -----Original Message----- From: "Joseph E. Olson" Sent: Jul 8, 2011 10:06 AM To: Guy Smith , [email protected] Subject: Re: Treaty law and 2A mechanics There is a US Supreme Court case from the 1950's that says that the Bill of Rights trumps ALL of the original Constitution, including the treaty clause. I think it is Reid v. Covert. It's about a military wife killing her GI husband in Germany. Under the Status of Forces treaty, she was tried by Courts-Martial not in a civilian US District Court. S. Ct. reversed. **************************************************************************** ************* Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037) f- 651-523-2236 St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956 [email protected] http://law.hamline.edu/constitutional_law/joseph_olson.html >>> "Guy Smith" <[email protected]> 7/8/2011 11:46 AM >>> Since treaty law is not even close to being my expertise, I'll lean on the knowledge of this forum. What are the anticipated mechanics and probable rulings if either CIFTA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIFTA> or the U.N. Arms Treaty <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty> were ratified? Some folks (including members of Obama's camp) claim that treaty law has a disabling affect on legislation, and some are as bold as to suggest it can legally create regulatory control of enumerated rights (I fail to find any worthy support for that last one). My reading of CIFTA leads me to believe that it would vest the Executive with a broad range of gun control obligations. In the absence of judicial rulings otherwise, executive decisions on how to implement the treaty would stand. If ratified (unlikely, but possible) it seems this would create a never-ending series of legal challenges . enough to keep Alan Gura gainfully employed well into his dotage. Guy Smith Shooting <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0983240701/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=fre thimed-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=0983240701> The Bull and Gun Facts <http://www.gunfacts.info/>
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
