Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Bills Introduced To Ensure Gun Rights

June 13, 2012 by  

Companion bills have been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to prohibit funding to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that restricts 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.

S2205 was introduced by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and HR5846 was introduced by Representative Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.). They are both titled the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012.

The Administration of Barack Obama reversed George W. Bush’s policy in October 2009 and voted to support U.N.-sponsored talks on a treaty to limit small arms sales. If passed, such a treaty would have a direct impact on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.

While there is little chance of such a treaty getting enough Senate support to pass, passage of this act would stop it in its tracks.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Bills Introduced To Ensure Gun Rights”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • David in MA

    America already has one, this is not a joke!
    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/dick-act-of-1902-cant-be-repealed-gun-control-forbidden/blog-247011/

    DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)
    Posted 01/26/10
    Read all 59 opinions

    DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable
    The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
    The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
    The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
    The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
    Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”
    The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
    During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
    The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
    Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”
    “This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”
    The Honorable William Gordon
    Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

    • Robert Smith

      “If passed, such a treaty would have a direct impact on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.”

      Can anyone show me WHERE the verbage that is the basis for such a claim that Americans will be impacted by such an international law?

      Rob

      • Thor

        That’s an easy one, Robert:

        “Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

        Once this happens, it becomes law in the US. When you have two conflicting laws, historically official practice has been to act on the more recent one…bye, bye 2nd Amendment.

        Fact is, they are gonna do what they want anyway…in which case, the people get to do a little civil disobedience of their own, freedom fighter style.

      • Robert Smith

        Words from the treaty that impact inside the U.S.

        Nobody has shown us any. Do you have access to the treaty?

        Rob

      • Thor

        The U S citizenry is the last bastion of armed private citizens on the planet. The U N has stated its position on this: “The principle of self defense has an important place in international human rights law, but does not provide an independent supervening right to small arms possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of states to use due diligence in regulating civilian possession.” It goes on to say that any nation that does not control (by banning) civilian possession is violating the human rights of its citizenry by not protecting them. Apparently the U S is the greatest violator of human rights on the planet because it allows 70 million of its law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

        American Rifleman, Oct. 2008, p. 16. Billed here as a statement released ostensibly by the UN Human Rights Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in a document entitled ‘Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons.’ Ironically, the US is not a member of this council. It is peopled by Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia—all the folk you want protecting your human and civil rights! What’s more, we have to hear this from the very organization whose stance on human rights violations contributed the massacre in Rwanda.

        (Cox, Chris W. “Barack Obama and the Global Gun Banners.” American Rifleman. October, 2008, pp. 15-16.)

        And, when the U N (or anyone else) makes against the principle right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ensured by the inalienable right to self-defense, it makes against the fundamental human right to equality—against the very principle of survival.

      • Thor

        http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Register/

        http://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers

        http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ATTPrepCom/Documents/PrepCom4%20Documents/PrepCom%20Report_E_20120307.pdf Read the “Preamble” starting on page A/CONF.217/1 with the sure knowledge that the UN defines all trade in small arms except to legitimate governments as ‘illegal.’ Meaning, they view your going down to the local Wal-Mart and buying an over-and-under like your granddaddy used to hunt quail with as an illegitimate act.

        • David in MA

          I am serious and despite the name is real, look up the DICK ACT, I believe it was passed around 1917.

      • CZ52

        “Words from the treaty that impact inside the U.S.”

        While the actual treaty has yet to be posted for consideration ALL proposed versions to date have included total gun registration, great restrictions and/ro outright bans on ALL semi-auto firearms, confiscation of any firearm that the government or UN doesn’t want you to have among others. You can look it up for yourself but I seriously doubt you will for you have not checked it out a single time before when the proof was presented to you.

  • old hillbilly

    It’s way past time someone in congress put a stop to the Constitution dismantlers!

  • http://google john p.

    We should get out of the United Nations and stop funding them .
    there just a bunch of Socialist Dictators who want us to bend over
    to there ways . and they will have your gun’s and your money .there
    just like our home grown democrats they want control of you and
    waste your money ..The Democrats have been trying to get rid of
    the Second Amendment for a long time . we can’t let them do it if
    we do what is next your rights or freedom of speech .

    • Robert Smith

      I’m a law abiding citizen and I don’t have any trouble getting any kind of firearm I want.

      Perhaps you overstate the efforts of the democrats.

      But! I would like to see a law where guns are treated like cars. If I’m legal to drive I can drive anywhere. If I’m legal to own a gun I should be able to carry it anywhere.

      Rob

      • Robert Smith

        I posted: “But! I would like to see a law where guns are treated like cars. If I’m legal to drive I can drive anywhere. If I’m legal to own a gun I should be able to carry it anywhere.”

        If the Republicans were such gun supporters why didn’t they pass legislation when they had control under Bush?

        It wasn’t even proposed. So, I don’t see them doing much for me either.

        Rob

      • Thor

        This one you hit smack on the nail-head, Robert. While once we had the choice between the lesser of two evils when voting for the top spot. Now, we have only the choice between two evils of equal proportions. Looks like a one-party system to me — one party with two sides separated by a common language.

        • David in MA

          Yes, there is a single party and they meet under different named, one name is bilderburgs, another is illuminatti, it’s even been suggested they meet under the name of mason’s…….they are real and they are in control, however, their agenda has gone from power & profit to playing God and impacting the lives of people in whether or not you can live a good life to no life at all……and that is not good.

      • CZ52

        “If the Republicans were such gun supporters why didn’t they pass legislation when they had control under Bush?

        It wasn’t even proposed.”

        Could that be because they didn’t have a veto proof majority in the senate and knew the anti-gun democrats plus a few anti-gun Republicans would filibuster it into oblivion.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        Robert i want a few RPG’s what gun shop do you get yours at ?

      • Robert Smith

        An RPG isn’t a gun… It’s an rocket propelled explosive granade.

        Rob

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “An RPG isn’t a gun… It’s an rocket propelled explosive granade.”

        But it can be considered a firearm.

  • fish

    If this treaty was passed it would start our 2ND “CIVIL WAR” “GAYBAMA” wants civil war so he can call in NATO troops to kill americans, throw the elction and become “DICTATOR”—”Zeg Hiel!”-”GAYBAMA”

    • Jimmy The Greek

      White Americans !z

    • druoak01

      To: FISH, I RESENT THE ASSCOCIATION BETWEEN MYSELF AS A GAY MAN & OMAMA(pun intended!)! I did’t vote for him. nor will I vote for either of them because they are one & the same.. What is televised & reported in the popular press about Gay folk focus on a minority stereotype. This message is not just for Fish, but for anyone else that seems to think that us Gays, the vast majority outside the cities(which is where we are invisible), are any less ready & able to use a firearm(yes, I got my NRA training at 13), to fight immediate threats to the Republic, both foreign & domestic, NEED A SERIOUS WAKE CALL! DAVID IN MA, You are 100% correct in all you write. While a minority of our founding fathers were Masons, it was not a majority. Back then, the Masons stood against all that the Bildenbergs, the UN & the now infiltrated Masons stand for today. A Constitutional America is controlled by foreign banks & president OMAMA says he takes his orders from the UN. Suppose that sums it up. I appreciate that someone has done their homework, more so than even myself, to research & find an important bill like the DIICK Bill. lol! I admit, I still have a sense of humor. Joseph Froton, Salem, NH “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.” Benjamin Franklin, 1776

  • raw

    Notice how they never repeal a law but rather always create another, thus completing the loop for lawyers, & you.

  • Steven Archibald

    Support the National Rifle Associaion w/Lifetime Memberships,sign up all your “kinfolk”if you are able.

  • gunner689AI

    BO has been setting our country up for failure since he took office. He and his follower’s allegiance is to world gvt. with them in charge. they don’t give two (expletive deleted) about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It’s a hinderance to their goals. To Hell with BO and any UN policies that try to affect our rights as citizens. Blue helmets make nice targets.

    • David in MA

      http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/dick-act-of-1902-cant-be-repealed-gun-control-forbidden/blog-247011/

      DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)
      Posted 01/26/10
      Read all 59 opinions

      DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable
      The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
      The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
      The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
      The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
      Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”
      The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
      During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
      The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
      Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”
      “This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”
      The Honorable William Gordon
      Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

  • T. Jefferson

    Both are bills that wont pass until after November.

  • http://www.facebook.com/larry.kemp.31 Larry Kemp

    I BELIEVE WE SHOULD ALL JOIN THE MILITIA TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS AND TO PROTECT OUR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THAT’S A WONDERFUL IDEA, LETS ALL JOIN THE NRA.

  • Sparta

    Instead of making more new laws we need to IMPEACH the Whole obama administration before it is to late.

    • Rick

      Or better yet try them for Treason and hang them on the white house lawn. Bring our troops home and place them at our borders and ports.

      • http://facebook firedup

        Treason in a time of war and we’re at war on many fronts – carries a max sentance of death while i don’t advocate that level – I do advocate being held responsible for the very real damage and the real danger this admin in its recklessness not to mention deceit has put us ALL in – I say impeachment and prison,for a long time – for impersonating an American citizen along with high crimes and treason – How many millions do you think Mrs Oscama will be able to piss away of our hardearned tax dollars then?

  • Buck

    The legislation is a plus , but for anyone serious about the threat the UN imposes to the USA should be working to get the USA out of the UN and the UN out of the USA .

    • Rick

      That is a great idea to help balance our budget that’s billions we could use here for our people instead of the 3rd world and their petty dictators.

  • http://facebook firedup

    Its about time SOMEBODY did SOMETHING CONCRETE to protect our 2nd amendment rights.I’m a lifetime member of the NRA – no i don’t carry a card,display an NRA decal in any windows,don’t wear an NRA ball cap but i have to wonder exactly what are they doing with my substantial dues money that was supposedly headed towards helping me to protect myself and my loved ones – when you hear of d-bag clinton off on another one of her rampages trying to grab all of the rest of us by the nuts – The criminals won’t be effected at all by her panderings – just the opposite i don’t want to think of the rampage they’ll be on if that clown somehow manages to get away with yet another clinton rape of this country.All my weapons are COMPLETELY above board all registered all bought legitimately – Do i carry when i’m on a long road trip? let someone find out if they approach my car while i’ve pulled over because of exhaustion if they try anything -

  • FEDUP!

    Anyone who thinks law controls criminals is a complete Moron.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.