One of the Constitutional powers the President, granted to him in Article II Section 2 is
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The important part of this clause is "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". Keep this in mind as we move forward...
This week, actually Wednesday (yes, I am well aware that it was AFTER the election...), Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice moved that the General Assembly take up talks to ratify the U.N. Treaty on Small Arms. This measure passed, and they will take up talks on March 18-28.
This Treaty is very controversial in the U.S. first because it would require signature countries to keep a 20 year record on the "end user" of any gun purchased across international lines. So, for example, I own a Beretta PX4 pistol. If the treaty would have been in effect at the time of my purchase, the U.S. Government would have to keep track of me, and my gun, for 20 years. Telling Italy every time I moved, bought a new gun, or sold the Beretta. It is effective gun registration for any gun purchased from a foreign company...
Add to this the sketchy language "take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty" it gives anti-gun judges the ability to use this treaty as a way to effectively ban certain types of weapons.
But, Mr. Ninja, you say, doesn't the Senate have to have a two thirds majority to ratify the treaty? Excellent question, I reply. The answer is NO. Take a look at the language in the Constitution.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concurThey just need two thirds of the Senators present. In the past, both parties have used this language to ram through legislation and even treaties by calling for their vote in the middle of the night, during holidays, etc etc etc. The fact of the matter is that the Majority Party in the Senate controls the agenda. All the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid, needs to do is announce the vote when he has support of two thirds of the Senators present. This is how the Democrats will get this piece of very unpopular legislation passed.
But..., you say, Judges just can't ban types of guns outright. They need congress to pass laws!!! No, I reply again.
Congress has given over its regulatory power to the Executive. Things like gun registration and background checks, how deep they go, how much they cost, blah blah blah, are up to the Executive. Using this new treaty as a justification, the Executive can, without the need of congress, and with out the fear of not being re-elected, can regulate in to obscurity those weapons that could be used in the illegal weapons trade. What weapons are those??? "Assault weapons" that is read, scary looking ones with external magazines, and picatinny rails, and LASERS!!!!! AHHHHHH!!!! I scared myself.
So... What do we do about it?? Myself, I am going to piss my wife off something spectacular by buying a rifle that will surely be banned in a few months. When I buy the rifle, I will buy at least 4 high capacity magazines for it. I will also buy as many high capacity magazines for my pistols as I can, likely another 3 or 4 per gun. I will also buy a tube magazine extender for my Remington 870.
I will have to wait and see how things play out for optics... Eventually I want to purchase a red dot optic with variable 1-4x magnification. I don't know if these will be banned... They make the gun look scarier, so maybe it will banned. If it looks like these optics will be banned as well, I will risk my wife's ire again and buy a good one.