Dec 2, 2016
Tea Party Tribune
Tea Party Tribune
Tea Party and Political News Reporting

UN Small Arms Treaty Means Big Changes for our Constitution

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Flush with a new sense of purpose after his re-election victory, President Obama signaled his administration’s support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. What follows are two of the treaty’s provisions:

  • Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.
  • Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regulations of the items referred to … such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred … and end-users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.

That means every firearm, its various parts and ammunition will be regulated. And you, the “end-user,” will earn the privilege of having your name recorded in an international registry.

“That can’t happen here,” you say, “The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller denies the feds, the states and local authorities the power to restrict my ‘right to bear arms.’”

If you believe so, you are dead wrong.

Most Americans believe the only way the United States Constitution can be revised is when Congress passes an amendment for the states to ratify. However, the president and Senate can do just that by signing and ratifying an international treaty. And just in case you have forgotten, Fast and Furious Democrats control the White House and Senate.

In 1920, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Missouri vs. Holland said the Constitution’s treaty-making provision (the Supremacy Clause) means that international agreements entered into by the United States are the “supreme law of the land.” The issue in the case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The U.S.-British agreement limited the hunting of certain endangered birds. The State of Missouri contested the treaty for violating their 10th Amendment state’s rights.

Progressive Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the high court’s majority, established a line of legal reasoning that persists to this day: That changing times requires rethinking the interpretation of our dusty and antiquated Constitution.

“… We must realize that they [the Founders] have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters,” wrote Holmes, “… We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that [10th] amendment has reserved.”

In other words, the “Truths” the Founders declared to be “Self-Evident” are malleable clay. The Constitution is not a parchment containing the steadfast certitude of law but a living and evolving “being.” More importantly, there is no need to exercise the constitutionally sanctioned remedies to amend the document when we have nine erudite high priests who are better suited to the task.

When President Obama signs the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, and if the Democratic Senate ratifies it, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause – as interpreted by Holmes – effectively removes our Second Amendment protection from the founding document.

It’s more than a little ironic that an early 20th century treaty, designed to save birds, effectively renders us a nation of sitting ducks.


Originally, from Los Angeles, I eventually made my way around the country: Arizona, the Bay Area and now South Florida.
Show full bio


  1. @Miller51550

    Nov 9, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    I was calling all the OBAMA SUPPORTERS BRAIN DEAD ZOMBIES months ago.


    Stock Market is down, layoffs are being announced as I type.

    And this is the FIRST OF MANY ANIT-AMERICAN, ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES that will being coming hot and heavy.

    Boehner and the OLD DOGS in the GOP think the TEA PARTY IS DEAD.

    The only way that America WILL SURVIVE. IS IF the Tea PARTY TAKES BACK AMERICA.

    • jackie

      Nov 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm

      I think we ought to start IMPEACHMENT proceedings against Obama!! Libya and Fast and Furious were
      much worse than Nixon's Watergate!! 4 people were killed because of Bengazia!!!
      What do you think?

      • mysoulisachicp71

        Mar 20, 2013 at 2:28 pm

        I think you are right as rain. I'm amazed every day that goes by that this man is not snatched up by the scruff of his neck and thrown in jail to await trial. Please sign and share>>

  2. Dave

    Nov 9, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    One thing people need to realize is that the Supreme Court has no authority. They merely interpret the law. States will fight this and good luck making them follow an international treaty that supersedes the Constitution.

    • Crabby

      Nov 9, 2012 at 10:25 pm

      Dave, that 1920 cite is complete horse feathers anyway. If you will look up Reid v. Covert, the SCOTUS themselves ruled that no treaty ratified by the Senate supersedes the U.S. Constitution. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up your butt. Not to say they won't try it – they regularly attempt (and succeed when people are complacent) to over ride the Supreme Law of the Land.

  3. not_sure

    Nov 9, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    Stop spreading this crap. This is a simple matter of principal, agent, and delegation of authority. Only the people amend the Constitution, not the President and the Senate. A treaty is only valid and “the law of the land” if it is not in violation of the Constitution in the first place. There is no point to a Constitution at all if Congress can simply scrap it with a treaty so the Founders would NEVER have allowed for that. If Congress entered into a treaty allowing slavery and requiring the re-institution of a King in the US would that be ok? NO. The Constitution cannot argue with itself and it’s only BS spread around like this that gives the *impression that a treaty supercedes the Constitution. It doesn’t and it can’t – unless repetition of crap like this convinces people that it does. Stop it.

  4. Ben Pillow

    Nov 9, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    It's not just the Dem's in the Senate who would need to vote for this, they would likely need at least 14-15 GOP Senators to vote as well to get the requisite 2/3rd's majority vote needed to ratify the treaty.

    • Crabby

      Nov 9, 2012 at 10:27 pm

      Reid v. Covert, SCOTUS decision, 1957. It matters not how many Senators they get, no Senate ratified treaty may supersede the Constitution.

  5. Prayers For America

    Nov 9, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    No sure, you obviously aren't sure. If we can have taxation without representation, reference Obamacare that was passed not as a tax but decided upon by the Supreme Court as actually being a tax, then don't think for one second that a Treaty of any type with the UN won't include the citizens of the USA. It's a "work around", as it isn't exactly a change of the Constitution, but a modification of what was already agreed upon on an International level. If anyone thought for one second that Obama wasn't going to do all he could to control the citizens of the USA and to get us to become a Global Society with Global currency and a government controlled by the UN, then they need to start doing a good bit of real thinking. La-La Land isn't reality, but too many people have been living in it and believing the words of a Genie…who is not what he has lead everyone to believe his is. That Genie being Obama….who comes out of his bottle only when he can vanish again quickly after performing his magic that is only stripping the USA citizens of their Rights that so many men and women died for us to have. Congratulations to all that voted for Obama because I have news for you: You will not be immune. Kiss your Freedoms, your money and your job security Goodbye. But you asked for it, now you will have it. Hope you're all proud of yourselves. Tell me how proud you are 4 years from now….if we as a Nation even have the Right to comment freely anymore. Even that Right to Freedom Of Speech will become a fantasy and it will be a fantasy much faster than you realize. Wait and see…..

    • Curt

      Nov 10, 2012 at 5:18 pm

      Don't forget Obummer gets to pick 2 or 3 new supremes

  6. @sgtguthrie1

    Nov 9, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this require ratification in the Senate AND the House? Also to modify the constitution don't 2/3 of the states need to ratify the treaty as well?

  7. Zombee

    Nov 11, 2012 at 11:52 am

    "We the People" in the near future are going to have to decide whether to recognize and comply with foreign imposed tyranny … or revolt and fight for our Constitution.The choice is clear. We don't retreat and we don't surrender. Patriots in Exile.

  8. Jay

    Nov 23, 2012 at 5:14 am

    If the people don't stand up, the UNSAT will be passed into law by 0's new "Because I Said So" declaration.

  9. Robert

    Dec 22, 2012 at 11:37 am

    You may wish to do a bit more homework before posting an article.

    The fact is, in regards to treaties, according to the Supreme Court, a treaty is considered "supreme law of the land" as long as it does not contradict the Constitution itself, but, a treaty CAN over rule an individual states rights, provided that the treaty and statute do not infringe property rights or sovereign powers reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.

    The treaty-making power is not limited to what may be done by an unaided act of Congress with respect to rights reserved to the States. A treaty becomes the supreme law of the land and preempts those areas typically reserved to the States by the Constitution.

    No treaty that the United States may enter into could ever void the 2nd Amendment, or any other provision of, or Amendment to, the Constitution.

Leave a Reply