Shooting down claims about weapon's treaty

I write in response to the July 15 letter, "U.N. treaty a threat to Second Amendment," in which the writer claims it would "repeal America's precious Second Amendment."

The signing of any treaty cannot repeal the Second Amendment. Only Congress, or a Constitutional Convention called by the states, can do that. Furthermore, any treaty must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate to become ratified. Even if there was a treaty that was ratified by the Senate that "in essence repealed the Second Amendment," the Supreme Court has shown quite recently that it would strike down any such statute as unconstitutional (District of Columbia v. Heller 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago 2010)

The actual proposed treaty says nothing about confiscating guns or even regulating internal flow of firearms. It states in its preamble, "Acknowledging also the right of states to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory." (Factcheck.org). This is saying from the beginning of the proposed treaty that this treaty does not attempt to trump, "bypass," or "repeal" anything in our Constitution. If adopted, this treaty would not have legal influence on internal gun policy and ownership.

Hide Comments

READER COMMENTS

Loading comments...
Hide Comments