We’ve heard about the UN Arms Trade Treaty for months (if not years) by now, and it’s almost a given that it will never be ratified by the US Senate, because it includes plenty of rules that are anathema to the Second Amendment. But it was passed through the UN and enacts at Christmas:
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is set to take effect on Christmas Eve. Though the United States delegation to the U.N. has supported the treaty, it has very little chance of being ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. But there is still reason for concern, said Catherine Mortensen, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association.
“We are worried about an end-run around Congress,” Mortensen told TheBlaze. “Barack Obama or a future anti-gun president could use ATT and international norms compliance to rationalize enacting gun control policies through executive actions, especially in the import and export realms.”
“Even now, with an existing appropriations rider prohibiting action to implement the treaty unless it is approved by Congress, administration officials are publicly professing support for international efforts to bring the treaty into effect. That’s outrageous,” she added.
The U.N. General Assembly adopted the treaty in April 2013 with a vote of 154 to 3. The State Department points out that only Iran, Syria and North Korea opposed it.
That thing about Iran, Syria, and North Korea opposing it is used by the current administration to portray those who object to it as extreme. Except there are plenty of nations who are “for” it who later didn’t sign it, didn’t ratify it, or will ignore it just like other treaties.
The better news on the treaty is more recent, via CNS News:
(CNSNews.com) – As United Nations officials welcome the Christmas Eve entry into force of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), its progress in the U.S. remains hampered by significant Senate opposition and funding prohibitions included in appropriations legislation.
Most recently, the omnibus government funding bill passed by the Congress earlier this month contained new prohibitions on the administration using any funds to implement the conventional arms treaty. Under U.N. procedures the U.S. would be liable for 22 percent of the budget for the ATT secretariat, the body that will oversee its implementation.
It’s nice to know we’re at least not paying for it.
It’s especially nice since the UN’s attempts at gun control usually end up murdering lots of people.
And like was suspected about those who opposed the treaty – the question is who else didn’t sign or didn’t care – note the story says “among the non-signatories”, not “this is a comprehensive list of all the non-signatories”.
When the U.N. General Assembly adopted the ATT in April 2013 only three member-states voted against it: Iran, Syria and North Korea.
But the list of nations that have not signed the treaty is far longer, and includes some of the world’s more controversial regimes. Among the non-signatories are Russia (the world’s second biggest arms exporter, after the U.S.), China (the fifth biggest), Cuba, Ecuador, India, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Venezuela and Vietnam.
The effect of active and powerful restriction on small arms trade could mean major problems for recreational shooters in any free state as imported ammunition tends to be cheaper than domestic. Banning importation of cheap foreign ammunition through auspices of the ATT would be a way to impose a financial burden and barrier to entry into recreational shooting, and thus to harm gun culture. For those who believe in citizen disarmament, it’s a feature.
Meanwhile, the EPA found itself blocked from banning lead ammunition. Again, lead ammo is cheaper, and with regards to hunting ammunition, it performs very well and replacement ammunition is often very expensive.
A federal appeals court denied a lawsuit Tuesday by environmental groups that the EPA must use the Toxic Substances Control Act regulate lead used in shells and cartridges.
“We agree with EPA that it lacks statutory authority to regulate the type of spent bullets and shot identified in the environmental groups’ petition,” Judge David Tatel wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Note who’s suing and how. Environmental groups are suing the EPA to act (often environmental groups getting money from the EPA or other part of govt). This is something the environmental movement has done for quite a while, and often hand-in-hand with the EPA. They sue the EPA for the new rule they want, the EPA settles with the group, or gets a judge to rule in favor of the new regulation, and the EPA can just go out and make it happen.
And finally, the Obama amnesty was ruled an overreach by a federal judge in PA. I’ve been writing about how Obama will push for amnesty for illegal aliens for a long time, and since he just up and did it with his “executive actions”, that’s about when I stopped posting so much. Doesn’t feel critical to write about this stuff when it’s all over the news everywhere. If you’ve been reading here, or you’re remotely paying attention, you’ve seen it, heard it, and you’re mad about it. I yelled “fire!” for a long time, and now there’s a massive conflagration.
There’s only so many times I could post that pic from The People’s Cube. And then he just did it.
Except that judge in Western Pennsylvania has said that he can’t do it:
A federal judge Tuesday ruled parts of President Obama’s deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo dismantling the White House’s legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress’ lawmaking powers.
The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy.
Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress.
Part of the issue was also that the method by which Obama did it was through “prosecutorial discretion”. That’s supposed to mean that an individual prosecutor can look at an individual case and choose whether or not to go forward with charges. It does not mean that 5-10 million crimes can simply be ignored and that an entire statute can be mandated to be ignored by the executive branch.
“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.
Immigrant rights advocates said the ruling was a shocking overstep of the court’s authority. Indeed, the Obama administration has argued in federal court in Washington that judges have no power to review the president’s decision-making.
Illegal alien supporters, not “immigrant rights advocates”. Every legal immigrant who sees 5-10 million people cutting in line is apoplectic over this.
The White House defends the policy as a reasonable use of Mr. Obama’s powers to set priorities for enforcing laws, and to stop the breakup of families because of deportation.
Meanwhile, there are millions of US citizens in prisons and jails for various reasons whose families are broken up. There are millions of families broken up by government policies that favor broken homes as well. No tears are shed for them, no hearts bleed for them.
Joyce R. Branda, the acting assistant attorney general who is leading the case, argued that Congress has provided too little money and the administration can deport fewer than 400,000 immigrants a year out of the total population of more than 11 million.
Ms. Branda said given that, it makes sense for Mr. Obama to set priorities, including proactively telling millions of illegal immigrants that they are in no danger of being kicked out. That policy allows immigration agents to focus on the other illegal immigrants whom the president deems serious cases, or on those crossing the border this year and beyond.
When Obama’s DACA amnesty crap started, there were rallies of illegal aliens in major cities. Immigration officials could drive there with buses and start loading them up.
When the surge of illegal alien minors happened over this last year – because of Obama’s pro-illegal alien policies – immigration officials were driving buses into major cities and dropping off illegals downtown. Those same illegals could’ve been handed back to the nation that facilitated their passage, but they weren’t. They were dropped off with “walking papers” for court dates they would never attend, and told they wouldn’t be deported because “families”.
Branda is a lying shill. In the years of the Obama administration, we’ve seen ICE agents called terrorists by the president, and ICE agents sue to be able to do their jobs because they’re told to break the law.
Obama’s banking on the idea that no one will ever do away with his illegal dictatorial unilateral executive amnesty. The idea is that it would be politically horrible to “tear apart immigrant families”… which is sort of like waking up to find a family of criminals tearing open your Christmas presents and then them screaming how horrible it would be if you took your children’s presents that the illegals stole out of their children’s hands, and if you kicked them out of your house since it’s cold outside, or had them all arrested for breaking and entering.
To the mush-brained, it makes you seem heartless, but they’re just criminal invaders, thieves and criminal squatters in your house.
And the worst part is that all they would’ve had to do was ask if they wanted to come in. America is not uninviting.
So anyway, Merry Christmas. Despite all the lumps of coal we’ve gotten this year (including a crapton of new regulations for the new year we don’t know about), at least there are a few positives.