H.R. 575: Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013

[Noob]

H.R. 575: Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013

To express the sense of the Congress that the United States should not adopt any treaty that poses a threat to national sovereignty or abridges any rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and to withhold funding from the United Nations unless the President certifies that the United Nations has not taken action to restrict, attempt to restrict, or otherwise adversely infringe upon the rights of individuals in the United States to keep and bear arms, or abridge any of the other constitutionally protected rights of citizens of the United State

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr575

Time to put pressure on Congress to pass this.

[Spikender]

...

Wasn't this the point of the motherbucking Second Amendment?

Why the heck would we need to pass a bill that reaffirms what the second amendment already says?

The madness continues.

[ZENemy]

Shall not be infringed is not enough?

Ill tell you what, no law will replace enforcement, another law will do NOTHING. All we have to do is ENFORCE the 2A and no more laws will be needed.

Does this mean that we need to go around shooting people? NO! In my opinion it means "I am lawfully armed and will protect my arms with my life, this is not a threat but a warning, if you choose to advance on me there will be issues."

Yea, I'm sure you would get RAIDED the next night, but what other choice do we have? The 2A has not kept tyranny at bay at all in my opinion, look at where we are today.


"Oh I cannot go into your court room armed? Guess I wont be going to court then"

If we do not starting enforcing the 2A with vigor, its gone.

[paulbot24]

I agree, but I do like the specific United Nations language in this as it could pertain to the small arms treaty.

[Noob]

I agree, but I do like the specific United Nations language in this as it could pertain to the small arms treaty.

I think that what it is mainly about.

[Spikender]

The Second Amendment protects against that.

Shall not be infringed.

That means period. There is no room for error in such an absolute statement. There is no "expect", or "save for", or "unless".

Shall.

Not.

Be.

Infringed.

Don't see why it's so hard for these idiots to get that through their head. I do like the UN language as well, but it's a sad state of affairs when a bill like this exists when the language in the Second Amendment is so clear.

[Mini-Me]

H.R. 575 SHOULDN'T be necessary, but the problem is that some people try to "interpret" the US Constitution as allowing treaties to override it. The "Bricker Amendment" was a failed attempt to explicitly block this interpretation, but the Supreme Court at least ruled correctly in 1957's Reid v. Covert that treaties cannot override the Bill of Rights. Interestingly, the Bill of Rights contains the Tenth, so this SHOULD reinforce that treaties cannot give the government extra-Constitutional powers...but with things the way they are, and with the government refusing to respect the Bill of Rights altogether, H.R. 575 does have a point to it. As others have said, it's a sad state of affairs that anyone even considers the alternative to be up for debate.