January 10, 2013
Obama can executive order guns away.
The basis of this comes down to the way treaty law has been interpreted recently by the courts. This was attempted successfully to a point by the Clinton administration, which everyone seems to have forgotten, when it came to the Kyoto Protocol treaty on environmentalism.
See, Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol treaty. But, Bill Clinton was shrewd. Knowing the treaty would not pass in the Senate for ratification, he signed an executive order to enforce the provisions of Kyoto until such time it was ratified by the Senate. I believe a challenge to this in the courts was thrown out, saying it was perfectly acceptable to do until the treaty got ratified.
Then, it was never submitted for ratification. It took prodding from a state convention amendment for a Senator to push for a vote on Kyoto. As predicted, it did not just get rejected, it went down in flames much to the global warming crowd’s chagrin.
The problem is, in March, this same scenario can be played out.
The United Nations treaty on gun trafficking is coming up for a vote in March. Hillary Clinton did not sign onto this treaty, but John Kerry will. This starts the clock ticking on ratification, and allows for the above scenario. With the stroke of the executive order pen, Barack Obama can commit the government to following the provisions of the UN treaty until such time it is ratified or rejected by the Senate. Then, Harry Reid never submits the treaty. Unlike Kyoto, not enough Republicans are in the Senate to force the vote. Oh, there also happens to be no time limit between a treaty signature and when it must be voted upon.
In the end, Barack Obama gets what he wants, a gun ban. Until the treaty is rejected, it’s legal. Courts have been ruling, wrongly in my opinion, treaties can supersede the Constitution.
This is how Barack Obama can use an executive order to take away guns.
By the way, that Senator who was able to force the vote on Kyoto? Chuck Hagel.