The treaty has to be confirmed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate according to Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution. The President may sign a treaty with the advise and consent of the Senate as long as is has been discussed and two-thirds of the members in the Senate present at the time agrees to it. As far as if it is treasonous that would have to be answered by the Senate.
To early to tell.
Hope there is merit to it.
Otherwise lets not waste time dwelling on it.
Give it a day or two.
First - it's not "treason."
Second - in my experience U.N. "treaties" only carry the force and effect that the signatory governments CHOOSE to apply, regardless that they've signed a particular treaty. Also in this case, the legislatures of the signatory countries have to "ratify" the treaty. In particular, two-thirds of the Senate has to vote for the treaty in order for it to have any effect on the United States "gun control" policy and actions. The chance of that happening is ZERO.
IMHO - Mr. Obama's signature is a symbolic message to the international community that his administration (but not necessarily the Legislative Branch of our government or the majority of Americans) supports a greater degree of "gun control" than is presently in place on the global stage. The anti-gun control folks are freaking out because they see ANYTHING that can be viewed as enhanced "gun control" ANYWHERE as a slippery slope that will result in the government taking their guns.
This article does a pretty good job of reporting the facts and circumstances surrounding this issue:
Thank-you Wayne and Seb for the information. I had any idea about how treadies get formed or the president's involvement in such matters. Thanks so much!
Up2, there are 3 sides to every story; the left, the right, and the truth. However you can only know the truth by truly listening to both sides. Remember Democrats including President Obama will tell you Fox News is not legitimate and not to watch it. Have you ever heard a Republican say the same? If you have it's very rare because a traditional Republican wants you to be free, voice your opinion and views. Have an honest debate and learn the truth.
But Funky, no one has come forward to give the "other side" of the story so I have to take what is presented. If you have something to contribute, I would love to read it.
up2, I believe in the rule of law "Constitution" therefore I agree wayne44 and sebekm, AKA Chief MVB. Sometimes a case is made too strong for the other side to spin.