What is this call I just received from the NRA

Ratification of an international treaty

In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate a treaty, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties. In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.<1> Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.<2>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification

Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.

Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. emphasis added
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

A vital foreign policy concern is being egregiously neglected: America’s dismal record regarding its treaty obligations. Since taking power in 2001, the Bush administration has blocked the adoption of numerous treaties. Over an even longer period, the U.S. Senate failed or refused to ratify treaties already signed. This behavior has appalled our friends worldwide and angered the world community.

During the Clinton administration, Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blocked ratification of worthwhile treaties. Many of those treaties remain unratified today. Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s record in blocking treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol is well known.

The United States Constitution describes the duties of the President and Senate regarding treaties as follows: “ shall have Power, by and with the consent of the Senate, to make treaties; provided two-thirds of the Senate concur” (Article II, Section 2; #2). Both the current president and Senate have failed to live up to their obligations. Why?

Increasingly, U.S. foreign policy has come under the control of neo-conservative religious nationalists who view the United States as a superpower that must not be constrained by any international treaty, even a human rights treaty, whose provisions exceed the limits in U.S. law. By so acting, they refuse to allow the emergence of any new laws or rules that are supported by international consensus. The limits of American law become de facto limits for the world.

The view in Washington was once very different. Following World War II, there was great support in the United States for a new kind of world order based on cooperation among nations. This country was in the vanguard of those proclaiming and defending explicit visions of human rights. By contrast, U.S. foreign policy in recent years has been unilateral and preemptive, costing us friends worldwide.

Because the issue of blocked treaties has not received the attention it deserves, we offer the following list of treaties that the United States has failed to ratify. For those who believe that the building of a new planetary community is vital for world peace and prosperity, this should be a major factor in the upcoming election. It is an issue the Foreign Relations Committee needs to address, especially if we hope to repair the poor reputation of the United States in the world and, in time, hope for our nation to resume its former moral leadership.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=kurtz_28_3

Note: a lengthy list follows and includes the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Control (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the the Mine Ban Treaty

Daley: Send gun industry lawsuit to World Court
April 27, 2010

Six years after the state Supreme Court dismissed his $433 million lawsuit against the gun industry, Mayor Daley today called for a change of venue — to the World Court normally reserved for disputes between nations and crimes against humanity.

Wrapping up the sixth annual Richard J. Daley Global Cities Forum, Daley convinced more than a dozen of his counterparts from around the world to approve a resolution urging "redress against the gun industry through the courts of the world" in The Hague.

"This is coming from international mayors. They're saying, 'We’re tired of your guns, America. ... We don't want those anymore because guns kill and injure people,' " Daley told a news conference at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

"If we ship over poison to a country, don’t you think we should be responsible for it? That’s what they’re saying: 'Be responsible for what you manufacture and sell in my country.' ... You have to think outside the box. You have to be about how you protect your people."

Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard Casauban noted that the Mexican government is waging a brutal war against drug cartels that get “85 percent” of their weapons from the United States.

"The U.S. government says, 'We cannot do a lot of things to stop this,'" Casauban said. "We should take actions with legal effects in order to stop this trade between the United States and Mexico."

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter acknowledged that using the World Court is a long-shot. But, he said “you never know until you try” and it’s worth a try to counter the political muscle and money of the National Rifle Association.

"We have to do different things. The political establishment in many state capitals — and certainly in Washington — so deathly afraid of the NRA that people cannot make the right decision for their own constituents," Nutter said.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/2206864,daley-gun-lawsuit-world-court-042710.article

Mayor Daley Insults America In Pre-McDonald Ploy

Fearful that America’s Supreme Court will soon strike down Chicago’s handgun ban, frustrated by the Illinois legislature’s rejection of his anti-gun agenda, and repudiated by American courts and legislatures over his plan to sue federally licensed manufacturers and dealers of firearms for third-party crimes, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley (D) is showing contempt for his own country’s and state’s institutions, by seeking a foreign entity to enforce his anti-gun agenda against the American people.

This week, Daley called for “redress against the gun industry” in the World Court, in The Hague, Netherlands. Forgetting or not caring who his constituents are, Daley blurted “This is coming from international mayors. They’re saying, ‘We’re tired of your guns, America.’”
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5789