Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Russia: fewer guns, more homicides | Main | Arizona AG rules Tucson city regs are illegal »

Canada holds off on signing arms treaty

Posted by David Hardy · 26 September 2013 09:38 AM

It wants to study its effect on Canadian gun owners. That seems to be more than the U.S. did before signing. Of course, an unratified treaty isn't legally binding, or empowering, and I rather doubt this is going to be ratified. I also doubt that the major arms exporters to civil wars, genocidal governments, etc., are going to sign on, let alone follow it. When was the last time you saw their followers toting M-16s? AKs, yes, M-16s no.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Shootin' Buddy | September 26, 2013 11:47 AM | Reply

"When was the last time you saw their followers toting M-16s? AKs, yes, M-16s no."

The last time I watched the news from Africa (Liberia) or Palestine (HAMAS) or Afghanistan (CQM311s by Taliban and Northern Alliance).

fwb | September 26, 2013 2:23 PM | Reply

The Constitution always places the treaty making power in the hands of the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President cannot redelegate that which was delegated to him from the sovereign People. Delegata potestes non potest delegari.

So Kerry can't do nuthin even if BO says do it. And any and every treaty ever signed by a rep of the Pres is also invalid. AND no treaty can be made except on the Authority of the United States and that authority is nothing more than the delegated powers found in the Constitution. Thus a treaty which would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms would not be within the authority of the United States to sign.

Rich | September 26, 2013 3:35 PM | Reply

Okay not a lawyer or even close - I have read somewhere that supposedly once it is signed a later president can present it to a more sympathetic congress to get it passed. Can that happen or is there some death it dies never to be resurrected?

Matthew Carberry | September 26, 2013 5:46 PM | Reply

I'm not an expert on the Canadian government, but Harper may have had to make a stand if he felt Parliament would approve it and he opposes it.

fwb | September 27, 2013 8:14 AM | Reply

Just as with any legislation, treaties can be presented for advice and consent as often as those in power want. So even though a current senate says no, a later senate can approve.

AND most folks think it takes 2/3 of the senate to approve a treaty but that is not the case. The actual text of the Constitution says 2/3 of those present. Theoretically 3 senators could be present and 2 approve to meet the Constitutional requirements of 2/3 of those present to allow a treaty.

John A | September 28, 2013 4:16 PM | Reply

There are precedents, perhaps the most recent being V.P. Gore signing Kyoto One.

Leave a comment