I have gotten a lot of push back from some of you stating that if the United States signed the treaty on the Small Arms deal at the U.N. but the Senate did not ratify it by a two-thirds majority it would not carry the force of law in the United States, thus making the whole treaty a moot point. So why would the Secretary of State go ahead and be prepared to sign it on the 27th or so of this month. Because all of you who said anything to me don’t know squat about what you are talking. Here is the deal.
Have you ever heard of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties? The document was written in 1969 and put into effect in 1980. You probably should have read it because it has some very important things to say about the way treaties are enforced and how they take effect. You see according to the Vienna Convention it doesn’t take ratification by the Senate to enact the full force of law with a treaty. All it takes is the lack of the Senate shooting the treaty down. If the Secretary of State and the President both sign the treaty and the Senate does not move to vote on the treaty, and the President does not renounce the treaty it is treated as de facto law. So it gets signed and Harry Reid (D-NV) just doesn’t bring the vote to the floor. Boom the treaty is in place until such time as it either gets voted on or the President renounces it, well if the current president gets reelected I do not expect him to renounce something he signed into treaty, especially being the gun control enthusiast that he is.
So there you have it, a procedural end around by the Senate, done through democratic control in order to avoid negating a serious piece of international legislation that amounts to setting up draconian gun control laws in the United States. Oh, it’s not draconian you say. So a federal database with a complete registry of every firearm privately held in the United States is nothing to worry about? No one would ever use that to come knocking on your door and say, you had two rifles, a shotgun, and a pistol. you sold the rifle two years ago, but now we have been ordered to confiscate the rest of your weapons for the safety of all the people. Turn the other three weapons over. That doesn’t seem draconian? Oh you say that would never happen?
Well perhaps you are forgetting that after Hurricane Katrina down in Louisiana that police took it upon the authority of the mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, and the Police chief, Warren Riley, to go door to door confiscating privately owned firearms. Was someone really going to shoot and kill a policeman over that? Well no, but a lot, and I mean a lot of people lost their guns because the police just came in and took them. Do you want the U.N. doing the same thing because of the way a treaty is interpreted to be in place, because the Senate refuses to bring it to the floor for a vote. I certainly don’t, but it will carry the full force of the law until such time as we demand it be struck down.