U.N Small Arms Treaty

Why would the U.S. support the Small Arms Treaty, knowing fully that it will interefere with our Second Amendment? I have an asnwer, but wish to hear what others think. Opinions welcome!

 

The question arises, does ratifying a treaty Constitute an amandment to the Constitution as it would remove a Constitutional protection...

I fail to see how that would be different than trying to amend the Constitution through legislation.

 

I'm not sure. It depends exactly what this Treat entails. I would imagine that there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment if signing on to the Treaty affects our Constitution. The details have not been published yet. I am speculating at this point. I do not believe that there would be enough support in Congress. Most Americans cherish their rights.

 

First, why don't you tell us how it will interfere with our Second Amendment right? That would be a good place to start.

 

Well, nothing is concrete at this point, as the text of the Treaty has not been published. Here is an article from Forbes about it. In addition to the possibilities listed in the article, there is talk about micro-stamping all parts of a gun, which will increase the cost of weapons, pricing out many low-income families from protecting themselves. While I admit that this Treaty is not meant to be a gun-grabbing scheme, it certainly pushes us closer to that possibility. Lucky for us, the Treaty is not binding unless approved by 2/3 of Congress.

 

..... any text from the treaty or are you simply arguing what you were critical of a few posts ago?

(Peer reviewed, digested, being told what to think, etc)

 

Once again, you have put the cart before the horse.

You previously have made an assumption that this "treaty" would infringe on our Constitutional rights when you said:

"Why would the U.S. support the Small Arms Treaty, knowing fully that it will interefere with our Second Amendment?"
​

You made this conclusion even though you admitted above that "nothing is concrete at this point". I'm afraid your critical thinking skills still need some work.

 

I have posted this before:

Read Reid v. Covert. The Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

 

Good work, Foghlai.

Why do you suppose this inane fear-mongering is able to find such a receptive ear?

 

I guess we'll just have to wait for the full text then.

 

Yes, that would be a much more rational position to take. Certainly a more logical method than your previous claim that "it will interefere with our Second Amendment". As the other member already mentioned, there is NO treaty that would be enforceable in this country if it defies our Constitution. Your original fearful hysterics had no merit.

 

One cure for the small arms desiease is, Popeye arms and a can of spinich.

 

I have always maintained that it would be unenforceable without Congressional approval. I can still speculate as to what it may entail.

 

You are free to speculate, yes. What you cannot do, however is use that speculation to formulate a valid conclusion. You have stated that Obama's support of a small arms treaty that restricts the illegal flow of weapons into world hot-spots makes some sort of indication of his alleged "anti-gun" views. An inane conclusion if ever there was one.

 

The pipe dream of this restricting the flow of illegal guns is also speculation.

 

You mean the treaty you know nothing about?

THAT one?

 

Yes, that one, and I say so because this is typical of feel-good, liberal gun regulations.

 

What's "typical"? The treaty you know nothing about?

Typical.

 

Even if this passes in the Un, it only be lip service. As both for example Usa/russia military arm sales rely on the bread and butter of gun sales across the world. We all remember the soundbite of the ak47 being the most sold firearm on earth.

 

No, just regulations that restrict law-abiding citizens, and criminals laugh at.

 

But you haven't cited what these regulations would be, so the argument is meaningless.

 

Well, most have not been released yet.

One, however, is the micro-stamping of all gun parts, thereby making guns more expensive, as several manufacturers have already stated, and puting those more expensive guns out of the reach of less fortunate people that just wish to protect themselves.

We'll just have to wait for the text.

 

D-Day For Gun Control:

Without much fanfare and with as little publicity as possible, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at the U.N. The treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights.

The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT’s true intent: to force gun control on the United States.

Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty.

The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU), which will ensure that “parties [to the treaty] take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within [their] territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the illicit market or to unintended end users.”

The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this requirement and will move to make sure that they do, indeed, take “all necessary measures.” This requirement will inexorably lead to gun registration, restrictions on ownership and, eventually, even outright bans on firearms.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: “After the treaty is approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms.”

Bolton explains that “the administration knows that it cannot obtain this kind of legislation in purely a domestic context. They will use an international agreement to get domestically what they couldn’t get otherwise.”

The treaty makes no sense otherwise, except as a circuitous vehicle to achieve gun control in the United States. The vast majority of all small arms and light arms exports (the ostensible focus of the treaty) are from sales by the governments of the United States, Russia, China, Germany and Israel. Individual or corporate arms trafficking is a distinct minority. But it is to absorb the brunt of the treaty’s regulations.

Insofar as the treaty restricts governmental action, it bars governments from arming “illicit” groups in other nations. This provision could well be interpreted to ban U.S. arms sales to Iranian or Syrian dissidents. It could even be used by China to stop us from selling arms to Taiwan, since the U.N. does not recognize Taiwan as a nation, but rather an entity occupying territory that should belong to China.

And let’s not forget how well the United States has done in reducing murders and other crimes despite the absence of comprehensive gun controls and bans. In 1993, there were 24,350 homicides in the United States. Last year, there were 13,576 (despite a growth of 60 million in the population). Only 9,000 of these murders involved a firearm. (Less than one-third of the highway deaths each year in the country.)

Obama has left gun control off his legislative agenda so far. Now his strategy becomes apparent: Use international treaties to achieve it.

And bear in mind that under the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution, we would be obliged to enforce the ATT despite the Second Amendment. International treaties have the force of constitutional law in the United States.

If it is ratified during the lame-duck session of the Senate this year, then nothing can ever change it. Goodbye, Second Amendment.

Right now we need 34 courageous Republican senators to step up and demand that Hillary not sign the treaty, and indicate their intention to vote against its ratification if it is submitted. Only such an action can stop this treachery in its tracks.


Source

 

Sign this petition to show your opposition to the Small Arms Treaty...

Click here-----> Petition.

 

UN arms treaty aims at terror, but puts Second Amendment in crosshairs:

UNITED NATIONS – American Second Amendment rights and U.S. foreign policy interests could be directly threatened by the latest wording of a United Nations draft treaty seeking control over international trade in conventional weapons, FoxNews.com has learned.

A U.S. delegate argued against the provisions during closed-door talks Friday, but insiders close to the proceedings say UN approval of a final document by the self-imposed July 27 deadline remains likely.

The development comes just days after Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, warned there should be “no compromise” on the issue of a U.S. citizen’s right to own a firearm.

“We will not stand idly by while international organizations, whether state-based or stateless, attempt to undermine the fundamental liberties that our men and women in uniform have fought so bravely to preserve – and on which our entire American system of government is based,” LaPierre told the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

[video=youtube;JRG9faggb-4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRG9faggb-4[/video]

The latest draft bars weapons transfers to “non-state actors” – which, by definition, include private citizens.

While treaty supporters say the provision speaks to a long-stated goal of denying weapons to terrorists, many experts warn of wider consequences.

“The ATT will not limit the ability of terrorists to acquire arms. The reason for this is simple: The UN has never defined terrorism, because some member states insist that terrorist groups like Hamas are struggling against so-called foreign occupation,” Ted Bromund, senior research fellow with the Washington-based Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, told the conference last week.

Implementation of the latest draft risks restricting U.S. foreign policy because it could limit Washington’s ability to sell arms to strategic allies such as Israel and Taiwan, one insider explained.

“It says states ‘shall not authorize’ arms transfers unless they take account of certain issues, but the U.S. took the view that [the criteria] was incompatible with the current U.S. export control system,” this insider explained.

Despite the U.S. objections, the source told FoxNews.com: “Momentum overall is still very strong for getting a treaty.” To meet the deadline, emergency sessions have been arranged for this weekend – even though translators may not be on hand.

The U.S. mission to the UN did not respond to a request for comment on the latest turns in the talks, which are taking place in New York.

UN resistance to exempting civilian arms from the treaty is linked to the fact that few of the world body’s 193 member states provide their citizens with a constitutional right to bear arms.

The U.S. opposition to arms transfer restrictions, meanwhile, marks a clear acknowledgement on the part of the Obama administration that the treaty, as it stands, risks straitjacketing U.S. foreign policy.

Indeed, such wording applied historically might have constrained the Reagan Doctrine, which allowed for giving overt and covert aid to anti-communist resistance movements during the ultimately successful Cold War confrontation against the Soviet Union.

In discussing other ways the draft treaty has evolved, the source close to the talks said there is now “some momentum” towards exempting ammunition from the treaty. This would meet a key U.S. and gun lobby demand. There may now also be no reporting requirements for small arms and light weapons sales.

But the U.S. Friday did not oppose the draft treaty’s call for proscription of arms transfers that “prolong international instability,” the source confided.

With the word “instability” serving as UN code for “war,” this provision could arguably help aggressors who strike first to hold onto their gains, some analysts will argue. That’s because states would not be able to help the losing side by arming it.

But the U.S. Friday did not oppose the draft treaty’s call for proscription of arms transfers that “prolong international instability,” the source confided.

With the word “instability” serving as UN code for “war,” this provision could arguably help aggressors to hold onto their gains, some analysts will argue. That’s because states would not be able to help the losing side by arming it.

Source