UN Small Arms Treaty

[Jack Nastyface]

Admittedly, the content of Wayne LaPierre's note is innaccurate, and the language is certainly...alarmist...but such is the way with any lobbyist.  I can't help but notice that he asks for "emergency", "urgent" or "immediate" donations three times in his note.  Considering that the ATT was started in 2006, I am inclined to think that asking for money at the last freaking minute is more a call-to-money than a call-to-action.

FWIW...MUCH of the language of the ATT is obviously directed towards "less robust" regions / governments where federal or state agencies have little to no effect in enforcing legitimate guidelines and policies regarding the manufacture and outside sale of small arms.  I could be wrong about this, but I tend to think they are probably referring in part to former Warsaw Pact and other 2nd world / 3rd world nations where organized crime and corrupt government has comprised even the most basic concepts inherent to responsible commerce.  I have personally witnessed the cottage industry weapons industy in NW Pakistan and I can guarantee you that local arms manufacturers and dealers have zero interest in doing background checks on their customers.

And more to the point of the UN:  I'd like to know if there is now, or has there ever been, a UN agreement which has severly impinged on the rights of US citizens?  IIRC, the US didn't sign the landmine act, and I can't recall the US stance on the thermobaric and clusterbombs limitations acts.

Respectfully,

Jack Nastyface

[LongBlade]

And more to the point of the UN:  I'd like to know if there is now, or has there ever been, a UN agreement which has severly impinged on the rights of US citizens?  IIRC, the US didn't sign the landmine act, and I can't recall the US stance on the thermobaric and clusterbombs limitations acts.

Respectfully,

Jack Nastyface

For better or worse landmines seem to not be included in the 2nd amendment.

[LongBlade]

Speculative in scope, but there's good news:

While the treaty's details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel, said Greg Suchan, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs from 2000 to 2007.

Suchan also highlighted ongoing concern that the treaty may end up giving foreigners access to U.S. gun-ownership records.

On that score, LaPierre, who serves as NRA executive vice president, warns that the "UN's refusal" to remove civilian firearms and ammunition from the scope of the treaty amounts to a declaration that only governments should be gun owners.

But he revealed he was set Wednesday to tell the UN gathering that 58 U.S. senators had signed a letter saying that they would refuse to ratify any treaty that includes controls over civilian guns or ammunition.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics

[LongBlade]

Further insight into what signing the treaty would mean:

Apparently once signed, there is already a treat in effect which says the US will honor and act as though the treaty is ratified until such time that it is approved or disapproved.

That's a bit crazy, but apparently true.

http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-end-run-on-gun-control-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

[Jack Nastyface]

Is Dick Morris overweight, or is that just his tinfoil underwear bunching up under his shirt?

A cursory review of the protocols of the 1969 Vienna convention clearly states that that "It applies only to treaties concluded between states, so it does not cover agreements between states and international organizations or between international organizations themselves".  So the idea that the US would be bound to honor this treaty because of the 1969 convention appears not to hold water.

BTW...A second Vienna convention (1986) that governs state and international org treaties is not ratified, nor is the US a signatory.

No matter how much you/we may hate and / or detest the UN, there still does not appear to be ANYTHING in this treaty or underpining conventions etc that would allow a UN-enforced compromise or surrender of the 2nd Amendment.

I'd be more than willing to bet a copy of "name of pc game of your choice here" that IF this treaty is passed and ratified, your rights as US citizen will remain completely unhindered (unless, of course, you happen to be a US citizen who sells weapons to narco-lords and terrorist organizations...in which case the bet does not apply).

Any takers?  How about we put a 1 year limit on outcomes?

Jack "blue beret" Nastyface

[Jarhead0331]

You can keep your game...but hopefully, you'll do some more research and see this treaty for the threat it is to American national security and sovereignty.  The threat of this type of treaty is not only on how it will permit foreigners to influence or control our own domestic and foreign policy, but on how it will be used by the Obama administration to implement its undeniable goal of eviscerating the 2nd Amendment. 

This is not fear mongering.  This is an overt, highly publicized goal of Barak Hussein Obama and the cronies he has placed in positions of power throughout our government.  One can deny it, one can ignore it...but its still the truth.

...So let's review some recent history and see if gun owners and other Second Amendment defenders might have very good reasons to take issue with this treaty. Actually, we don't have to look back very far at all.

Consider the Fast and Furious debacle, an operation that was represented to be all about targeting bad guys who are committing violent crimes on both sides of our border with Mexico. There can be no remaining doubt that the program was really aimed at border gun shops and their right to conduct legal civilian firearms sales.

And after the 2010 Republican House cleaning dashed President Obama's dream of a carbon cap-and-trade program, he wasted no time finding a way to circumvent that pesky obstacle. His EPA is gleefully pursuing that same anti-fossil energy agenda. Meanwhile, Congress sits idly by and allows this breach of its constitutional responsibility established by separation of powers to continue.

Then there's the currently proposed, Obama-endorsed, Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If ratified by Congress, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights. As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.

The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it... for free. And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe...all current voting members of LOST.

Both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush supported the treaty during their tenures, yet they never sent it to the Senate for ratification because of opposition over concerns that it will limit commerce and allow international bodies to wield control over U.S. interests. During W's term of office, then-Senator Joe Biden introduced LOST before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he chaired in 2007, yet it was never brought to the floor for a vote.

Steven Groves, an international law fellow at the Heritage Foundation, believes that opposition from Republican members of Congress who have objected to LOST reflects a legitimate deep-seated distrust of the United Nations and other international bodies, observing: "This seems to me a bit of a Trojan Horse for the ability of one country to affect another country's environmental policy. That's generally something we do not like as conservatives and Americans."

Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry and other proponents have been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive.

But, like LOST, the Arms Trade Treaty can't be enacted unless Congress ratifies it. Right? And, of course, they would never approve any global agreement that will infringe upon our constitutional Second Amendment protections. Right? Well, let's assume for argument's sake that they won't. But now consider another possibility, something called a "soft law".

Remember that sustainable development agenda mentioned earlier that the European foreign ministers want to incorporate into the treaty provisions? Originally intended to be implemented in connection with a U.N. treaty, an "Agenda 21" plan was enacted as a soft law in 1993 creating a nongovernmental organization, the "International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives" (ICLEI), by Executive Order after the Clinton administration was unsuccessful in getting Congress to ratify the program. They wouldn't approve the treaty because it would transfer massive regulatory control over broad aspects of U.S. energy production and consumption. In 2003 the NGO's name was changed to "ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability" to emphasize "local" and diminish concerns about "international" influence and associations with U.N. political and financial ties. ICLEI's are now active in most of our counties On its web page, "ICLEI: Connecting Leaders", the organization explains that their networking strategy connects cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies.

Agenda 21 envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption. A summary version titled AGENDA 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993), calls for "...a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced—a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources." The report emphasizes that "This shift will demand a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

ICLEI's web page states that its Local Agenda 21 [LA21] Model Communities Programme is "designed to aid local governments in implementing Chapter 28 of Agenda 21, the global action plan for sustainable development." As Gary Lawrence, a planner for the city of Seattle and an advisor to the Clinton-Gore administration's Council on Sustainable Development and to U.S. AID commented at a 1998 U.N. Environmental Development Forum in London titled "The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium", "In some cases, LA21 is seen as an attack on the power of the nation-state." He went on to say, "Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process will very likely bring out many...who would work to defeat any elected official...undertaking Local Agenda 21 ...So we will call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."

And so they have. "Comprehensive planning", "growth management" and "smart growth" (which is Agenda 21 with a new name). All mean pretty much the same thing... centralized control over virtually every aspect of urban life: energy and water use, housing stock and allocation, population levels, public health and dietary regimens, resources and recycling, "social justice" and education.

So this time the U.N.-sponsored ATT initiative, whether enacted by Congress or through a soft law Executive Order, can be expected to receive an appealing identity as well. Most likely it will purport to protect us from "terrorism", "insurgency" and/or "international crime syndicates". Perhaps, without saying so, it will be pitched to protect us even from ourselves.

Don't forget that an Illinois senator named Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. That was after he served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago which contributed large grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.

But then, as a former lecturer in constitutional law, wouldn't he certainly realize that the U.N.'s gun- grab agenda violates our sovereign rights? Perhaps the answer to that question warrants some serious reflection!

Full article here...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/

[LongBlade]

Breaking news headline on Foxnews.com:  UN Fails to Reach Agreement on Treaty to Regulate Global Arms Trade

[W8taminute]

^That's a good thing.  I wonder if that means we've dodged the bullet (pun intended) at having our 2^nd Amendment taken from us?

[LongBlade]

^That's a good thing.  I wonder if that means we've dodged the bullet (pun intended) at having our 2^nd Amendment taken from us?

Sort of.

Again, according to what I read, an international treaty has the same force as a constitutional amendment.

However, the details of the arms treaty were never public - they may never have been close to finalized (we don't know).

So the short answer is that we dodged buying a pig-in-a-poke.

[Kushan]

Obama has endorsed the new version of the treaty.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/21875-obama-endorses-un-arms-trade-treaty-massive-gun-control-effort-underway/

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

A treaty on arms trade implies crossing national borders. That has nothing to do with your 2nd amendment.

[LongBlade]

A treaty on arms trade implies crossing national borders. That has nothing to do with your 2nd amendment.

Perhaps, but why take chances? Especially when he promised in one of the debates to attempt to curtail the 2nd Amendment. This needs to be watched closely to ensure it does what he says it does.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Hasn't there been a lot of extra-judicial seizing of firearms in the US lately?   I've only heard anecdotal evidence but what I've heard is that many states are circumenting the law by simply declaring a firearms owner (or prospective owner) to be mentally unfit and then prohibiting them from owning firearms.

[W8taminute]

Obama has endorsed the new version of the treaty.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/21875-obama-endorses-un-arms-trade-treaty-massive-gun-control-effort-underway/

Did you read the comments from some of the readers at the bottom of this article?