U.N. gun control treaty trumps 2nd Amendment??

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by CATO, Jul 3, 2012.

  1. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    would be pretty hard to enforce a Secret Treaty, that no one knew about..... most folks would just say... Bu** S**t, and blow the guys head off....
    oldawg likes this.
  2. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    Not the treaty being secret but the details of National Security Presidential Directive-51 under which power might be seized.
    Congressmen have been told that they do not need to know the details of that.
  3. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    The same goes for some Yahoo showing up and spouting "National Security" ..... Folks are going to say, "Show Me, or take a hike, Dude..." with the dude looking down the Wrong End, of Big 12 Ga Barrel.... if it ain't on TV, and explained rather well, folks are NOT going to believe it, and they aren't going to give up their Weapons.... Maybe some citied folks would..... but certainly not anyone with any Brains......
    Cephus likes this.
  4. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++





    Shooting of Oshkosh police officer results in knee jerk neighborhood
    gun grab

    Oshkosh, Wis. -- Following the shooting of an Oshkosh police
    officer Saturday night, area residents were forced from their homes,
    their lawful firearms being confiscated by police.

    The Oshkosh Police Department's Special Weapons and Tactics Unit
    responded to the area, with a K-9 police dog in pursuit of the
    perpetrator who was reported to have fled on foot.

    Citizens' guns were seized through searches of area homes. The
    police promised to return the firearms after forensic tests proved
    they were not involved in the crime. The injured officer's name was
    withheld, but media reports indicate his condition is not life-

    "The message is: Hand over your guns, now!" said Corey Graff,
    executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. "This is a blatant
    case of guilty-until-proven-innocent and an abuse of police power."

    Still, residents in the area are furious about the home invasions
    by police and what they see as theft of their property. Although
    early reports are unclear, they indicate a search warrant was issued
    for two homes, yet additional home owners also had firearms

    "We want the perpetrator of this crime caught and brought to
    justice just like everyone else," said Graff. "But that doesn't mean
    the police should trample citizens' 4th amendment protections, steal
    lawful private property and enter the home without reasonable
    suspicion or warrant."

    One homeowner in the area said his guns were taken by police,
    guns that hadn't left his gun safe since last hunting season.
    Another victim of the police searches -- an elderly women --
    reported waking up to officers' searching her home in the early
    morning hours.

    The Oshkosh Northwestern reported, "Residents were not being allowed
    to return to their homes by press time."


    7-29-04 TYRANNY UPDATE!

    Oshkosh police say 'Sorry' for trampling citizens' rights in door-to-
    door gun confiscations.

    Oshkosh, Wis. -- In what appears to be an admission of wrong-
    doing by the Oshkosh Police Department, Fox 11 WLUK (Green Bay) has
    reported that area resident Terry Wesner was offered an apology by
    the department.

    Police evacuated citizens from their homes within a quarantined
    area near Smith Elementary School Saturday night (July 17, 2004) to
    conduct a broad gun sweep of the neighborhood following the shooting
    of Oshkosh police officer Nate Gallagher.

    Residents reported returning home from area shelters -- where
    they were herded by police -- to find their guns gone.

    Others watched in awe as police took their firearms after giving
    police consent to search. Some were told by police their firearms
    would be subjected to ballistics tests, and would be returned.

    "However, the bullet that hit officer Gallagher was not found,"
    said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners
    Inc. "So how can police conduct ballistics tests if there's no
    bullet with which to match the results? It defies logic."

    Graff said the biggest issue is what he calls the
    department's "Guilty-until-proven-innocent" posture towards

    In what appears to be a blatant knee jerk abuse of police power,
    the department unleashed the dogs — literally — when the
    Weapons and Tactics Unit (SWAT) showed up with its K-9 Unit to begin
    house-to-house searches.

    According to media reports, the suspect fled on foot into the
    neighborhood, and has not been apprehended.

    Warrants for searches were issued for at least two homes,
    (perhaps more) but homeowners in the area reported having all their
    firearms taken by police.

    Some witnesses said the whole neighborhood was evacuated by force
    and citizens were being told – not asked, but told – to hand
    their guns. Some weren't even asked.

    "That's what makes me so mad," said resident Terry Wesner in an
    Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004). "They had no reason [to
    remove firearms] without a warrant. . .I didn't know they removed
    anything until my buddy, who's staying with me, noticed they were
    missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone's
    guns." [Emphasis Added]

    In a subsequent report, another resident, who worked the late
    night weekend shift, reported he came home to find a scene that
    looked like his home had been burglarized — he said personal
    belongings were thrown about — and his gun safe was empty.

    "They didn't even leave a note, telling me what was going on,"
    the man said on camera.

    An elderly woman said she woke up to find police — who were
    reported to be dressed in black, quasi-military gear — conducting
    search in her home in the early morning hours.

    "Did the fact that this poor senior citizen happened to live in
    the immediate area of the crime warrant "Reasonable Suspicion"
    or "Probable Cause" that she could have committed this heinous act?"
    asked Graff.

    "Is Grandma taking pot shots out her kitchen window? Is she
    hiding something in the cookie jar?" He said.

    In the same Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004) Oshkosh
    Police Captain Jay Puestohl was reported to have, "declined to say
    on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms…"

    "If officers were acting honorably and respecting property
    owners' rights, why not say so? Why not be upfront? Why the
    secrecy?" Graff said.

    One resident in the neighborhood may have found himself the
    subject of the investigation simply by refusing to consent to a
    search (entirely within his rights) according to the news report.

    The Oshkosh Northwestern story quoted one neighbor — who
    suspected homeowners who exercised their right to refuse consent to
    the heavy-handed searches, were presumed guilty by police — as

    ". . .[T]hey've been downright rude to us. . .You don't treat
    called civilians this way." [Emphasis Added]

    The news story goes on to say that Captain
    Puestohl ". . .declined to say whether officers pursued the warrant
    because the residents refused a consent search."

    This hysteria-driven Oshkosh neighborhood gun grab could
    establish a nightmarish precedent for a wide-open abuse of police
    power to be unleashed upon Badger State gun owners said WGO.

    The silence from other gun rights groups on this issue is

    "The institutional gun lobby is just as scared as the poor people
    in that Oshkosh neighborhood," Graff said. "They might be
    thinking, 'If I speak out, will my guns be next?'"

    Wesner, one of the brave gun owners to speak out against the rash
    of gun confiscations that occurred after the shooting, said police
    confiscated his guns after entering his home without a search

    He reported in a Thursday, July 22 television interview with WLUK-
    FOX 11, "They [the police] are not going to come in my home again
    [without a warrant]."

    That same report stated that the police "acknowledged a lack of
    proper procedure [in not obtaining a warrant]."

    Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. said the most effective response for
    gun owners is to join and contribute to the organization's bold, no-
    compromise educational crusade.


    8-6-04 TYRANNY COVER-UP!

    Oshkosh police issue statement to clarify their actions in gun
    confiscation -- but 'muddy up the waters' instead

    In an embarrassingly misleading August 5, 2004 press release, the
    Oshkosh police department issued statements by police chief David
    Erickson to "clarify" the events of the July 17, 2004 shooting of
    officer Nate Gallagher.

    The police were not able to apprehend the shooter who fled on
    foot into the neighborhood.

    But the department's statements only validate property- and gun
    owners' concerns over the door-to-door searches and seizures of
    weapons that occurred that night.

    "In the course of the search [consent search] of his home,
    several weapons were found. These weapons were secured by our
    officers, taken from his home," Chief Erickson wrote.

    But in the preceding paragraph, police admit, "No one saw the
    shooter and there was only a general direction as to where the shot
    came from."

    Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. -- Wisconsin's only no-compromise gun
    lobby -- wants to know on what grounds police initiated searches if
    they themselves admit that no specific knowledge existed in regards
    to where the shot came from.

    "The 4th amendment to our Bill of Rights -- in the US
    Constitution, what police are sworn to uphold last time I checked --
    specific exigent circumstance must exist to initiate searches:
    consenting or by warrant. That wasn't the case here," said Corey
    Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc.

    Graff says that in stark contradiction to citizens' fourth
    amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures, police
    did a broad, undefined sweep -- scooping up everyone within the area
    hoping to find a "keeper."

    Equally alarming of the recent police statement is what appears
    to be an admission (although unintentional) that police pursued a
    search warrant for a homeowner who -- well within his rights --
    rescinded his consent to the police search after he realized police
    were stealing his guns.

    "A weapon was initially recovered from the home," the press
    statement said. "However the homeowner became uncooperative
    [exercising one's rights is being "uncooperative?" Emphasis and
    Comment Added] and permission to search was rescinded by the home
    owner...A search warrant was applied for, received and the
    subsequent search resulted in evidence being seized." The report

    WGO said homeowners were presumed guilty by police for refusing
    consent to search, which, they say undermines both due process and
    the rule of law.

    "The supreme court has ruled (Manuel Vs. US 1982) that exercising
    one's right to refuse a consent search does not give police the
    burden of proof sufficient to search," Graff said. "If it did, we
    wouldn't have a right to refuse consent to a search!"

    The press release went on to say that, "No other homes were
    entered, no other weapons were taken, and no one was forced from
    their homes."

    Yet, various media reports from the night in question reported
    residents giving on-camera statements that contradict the comments
    of police. Residents said that additional unwarranted searches had
    taken place, additional weapons were taken, and that families spent
    the night at local shelters while police combed the neighborhood.

    "The Oshkosh Police Department is working to ensure the safety of
    the neighborhood." The report concludes. But WGO said the police
    must protect the rights of citizens, first.

    "In our opinion, either the Oshkosh police are completely inept
    when it comes to citizens' constitutional rights or they just plain
    don't respect those rights," Graff said. "Either way, citizens --
    both gun owners and non gun owners alike -- have reason to be

    WGO is asking honorable peace officers who may have witnessed
    additional abuses during the July 17, 2004 gun confiscation to honor
    their oath of office by making those abuses public.

  5. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Makes perfect sense...any army needs an enemy, and that enemy is us.

    The piece stated that in two instances, they had a warrant...however ill-gotten it was, you have to comply in that situation.
  6. goinpostal

    goinpostal Monkey+++

    It's my understanding,that an elected official signing a treaty with a foriegn power/powers,that is contrary to,and undermines the Constitution is commiting an act of"HIGH TREASON"!
  7. bfayer

    bfayer Keeper Of The Faith

    It is the Senate that ratifies treaties with a 2/3rds vote (Art.II Sec. 2). That makes the election this year even more important. We need to have enough votes to ensure the RINOs don't get the vote to 66. If you live in a state where a Senate seat is up this year, I would suggest you start working for a candidate with an "A" rating from the NRA so they win the election.

    Keep in mind the Senate also confirms Supreme Court nominations, that makes the Senate race twice as important this year (No matter who wins POTUS.) (2 potential vacancies).

    Also look for candidates that support a nullification amendment. If we get that passed, then even if both houses and SCOTUS forget to read the 10th amendment, the states still have a way to remind and correct them without resorting to extreme methods.

    The one thing Chief Justice Roberts got right in the Obama Care decision is when he said: "It's not our job to protect the people from their political decisions". Or as Obama said "Elections have consequences".
  8. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    So when they come to confiscate guns for violation of the treaty as long as they have a warrant it will be okay ?
  9. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    It'll be legal, if the treaty is ratified. It'll also be a violation of the Constitution that should be challenged, both in court and by force of arms. (That's part of the beauty of the 2nd, it does not require court support.)
    Yard Dart and oldawg like this.
  10. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    This statement doesn't make sense to me...you're mixing Amendments IMO (due process and right to bear arms). You CAN be searched if due process is followed (warrant obtained). The RIGHT to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. A treaty with foreign governments nullifying the Constitution is where we turn the page in the DOI to the sentence starting with

    For me, any man cannot be happy under the oppressive taxation we must now shoulder.
  11. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++


    oldawg, tulianr and Yard Dart like this.
  12. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Perhaps it is best to turn your ammunition at 2,250 ft/sec to the government officials that allow this.
  13. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

    Me thinks Washington as well as many of our local elected officials don't understand that the same sentiment still lives in enough of us. return us to the freemen we were. By the vote if we can but if not then pick up and dust off the ORIGINAL intent of the 2nd amendment and put it to good use.My name on one more list? oh well........Send the UN in and you won't have to feed them when we send them back.
    Seawolf1090 likes this.
  14. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Everyone....scrape together whatever money you can and go buy a gun ASAP. Tell your friends....any freedom-loving American.

    Do not tolerate individuals asserting their will over the whole.

    Soros Promotes UN Control Over Gun Ownership
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2013
    Gator 45/70 and oldawg like this.
  15. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    I thought I was going to buy more ammo tomorrow, now I find that it is buy a gun day.

    Decisions, decisions.
    oldawg likes this.
  16. TwoCrows

    TwoCrows Monkey++

    After SecState signs the ATT, the White House promulgates an Executive Order saying that in the interim period until the treaty is ratified, all agencies of the Executive Branch shall treat the provisions as if they have been ratified.

    If you don't believe that the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. would pull such a stunt, you have been sleeping for the last 3 1/2 years.

    On July 27th Clinton is going to sign the UN small arms control treaty.
    Then the Senate goes in a lame duck session and ratifies it ?
    Or is there an "emergency" and the Senate gets suspended ?

    They have already given plenty of evidence that they have no respect for constitutionality.
    Seawolf1090 likes this.
  17. Motomom34

    Motomom34 Monkey+++

    Very interesting... this thread has given me more to think about. I have been watching the violence rise in Chicago. Sometimes I think it maybe a false flag. I find it odd that it is Chicago not only the Prez's home town but a place being run by his buddy Rahm Emanuel. You know the liberals have to get their agenda done. Health care- check, gay marriage- check, grow government- check, get the guns........
  18. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Well...the more violence, rioting, social unrest there is, the easier it will be to declare martial law, confiscate the guns and have a sizable portion of the population wanting both done in the name of "safety."
    Seawolf1090 likes this.
  19. PAGUY

    PAGUY Monkey

    The supreme court has already made a ruling that the constitution trumps any and all treaty's.
  20. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Dude, this means NOTHING if the people will not hold their government accountable.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary