[wow6599]

U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) has drafted a letter and sent it to the President and Secretary Clinton asking them to oppose the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. Below is a link from the NRA-ILA that makes it easy to contact your Senators.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6953


Here is what I sent Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) -

"I would very much appreciate a yes or no answer on this subject.

Will you sign, or go along with, Senator Moran's letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton asking them to oppose ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty presented by the United Nations to OUR COUNTRY. The Bill of Rights is not open for discussion and has nothing to do with the UN. Yes or No?"

Regards,
XXXXXX

[Mike1234567]

Thanks for the heads up and will do. It's a damned shame we should even NEED to send letters such as this.

[Pfletch83]

I just sent a notice R.P.'s way.

[bobbo]

There is NO treaty right now. There has been NO treaty presented to the U.S. for ratification. There won't be for at least another year, if not longer (far more likely longer). When it says there is a treaty to vote on, I will read it. IF (and that's a big IF) there are restrictions, I will contact my legislators. Until then, as Mr. Dylan said, there's "no reason to get excited."

The schedule for the Preparatory Committee for the discussion of a possible treaty (http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ATTPrepCom/index.htm)

As you can see, the wheels of bureaucracy turn even slower the further up you go...

[wow6599]

Then don't reach-out your Senators bobbo. If it's all the same to you though, I would encourage folks to follow the NRA-ILA's advice and Senator Moran............

[gathert]

Sent and email to three of the important guys in SC. There is no way my guns are getting regulated.

[Yo Mama]

There is NO treaty right now. There has been NO treaty presented to the U.S. for ratification. There won't be for at least another year, if not longer (far more likely longer). When it says there is a treaty to vote on, I will read it. IF (and that's a big IF) there are restrictions, I will contact my legislators. Until then, as Mr. Dylan said, there's "no reason to get excited."


Problem is when it comes out and is an a version you can read it will be much to late. Senators need to know through the process where we stand, not at the end when it moves through.

[AlexanderA]

This is baseless fear-mongering. That seems to be the NRA's bread and butter these days.

[wow6599]

This is baseless fear-mongering. That seems to be the NRA's bread and butter these days.

Thank you, I feel much better now.......

If you don't want to use the link to contact your elected officials fine, but I didn't start this thread for the peanut gallery to chime-in about their views on the matter.

[wow6599]

Here is what I sent Senator McCaskill (D-MO) on 6/28 -


"I would very much appreciate a yes or no answer on this subject.

Will you sign, or go along with, Senator Moran's letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton asking them to oppose ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty presented by the United Nations to OUR COUNTRY. The Bill of Rights is not open for discussion and has nothing to do with the UN. Yes or No?"

Regards,
XXXXXX


Here is the response I got today......and yeah, I know it was probably written by a staff member -


June 30, 2011

Dear Mr. XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me regarding efforts to prevent illicit small arms transfers. I appreciate hearing from you, and welcome the opportunity to respond.

In October 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced U.S. support for the concept of a small arms trade treaty, which would prevent small arms from being exported into the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes. The international treaty would be modeled after U.S. export controls for arms transfers and would call for regulations similar or the same as those already used by the United States. Please note that there is currently no treaty, and a draft will not be written before 2012 due to the timeline of the coordination process through the United Nations.

Treaties to which the United States is party require not only the President's signature, but also ratification by the Senate. Should a small arms trade treaty come before the Senate, I will keep your thoughts closely in mind. Please know that I will not support ratification of a treaty that infringes on our constitutional rights in any way, including important rights laid out in the Second Amendment. In fact, I supported an amendment to the Foreign Operations appropriations bill that would prohibit funding going to international organizations, including the United Nations, that required the registration of or placed a tax on a gun owned by a U.S. citizen.

As a former prosecutor, I understand the difficult task of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. However, I believe that efforts to prevent illicit small arms trafficking should not infringe upon law-abiding citizens' right to own or sell firearms, or unduly burden the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri. That's why I supported legislation to allow the transport of firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains under regulations similar to those for planes, and to require National Parks to honor the gun carrying laws of the states in which the parks are found. Both measures have been enacted into law. I will continue working to protect the constitutional rights of all Missourians.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.



Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at www.mccaskill.senate.gov.

[Yo Mama]

Her response was encouraging.

[AirForceShooter]

I've got one Senator that's a lame duck and loves Obama.
The other one is supposedly a republican and since he's gotten to Washington went to sleep.

AFS

[wow6599]

Her response was encouraging

I think so too.......surprised actually.

[Cyborg]

McCaskill's response was a hellova lot better'n Cornyn's or Kay Bailey's. Both gave a butter-wouldn't-melt-in-their-mouth reply. Had to rinse my mouth out after readin' 'em. Half threw up.

Saw a bumper sticker t'other day. Had just 4 words on it. Legislation Registration Confiscation Revolution

Don't reckon it'll be long now.

Please note that I in no wise endorse, approve of, desire or otherwise am in favor of armed rebellion against duly constituted authority.

However

"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design . . ."

[wow6599]

Here is the response from my other State Senator, Roy Blunt (R-MO) -


Dear XXXXX,



Thank you for your letter on the United Nations discussion of a Small Arms Treaty.



As you know, some at the U.N. have long favored ways to limit individual arms ownership. The Arms Trade Treaty seeks to control the international trade of conventional weapons. On October 14, 2009, President Obama overturned the Bush Administration's previous decision to oppose such a treaty in favor of national controls.



I am a strong defender of our Second Amendment rights. The right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms is an individual right guaranteed by our Constitution and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The most basic right of Americans is the ability to defend themselves and their families, and I've consistently voted in favor of preserving our constitutionally protected right to own firearms as law-abiding citizens.



U.N. Treaties and resolutions shouldn't be signed just to make U.N. bureaucrats feel useful. The U.S. Senate has a constitutional responsibility to consider treaties and resolutions on the basis of their value to our country, not those of other countries or global organizations. Should legislation addressing a "Small Arms Treaty" be submitted to the Senate, I will strongly oppose it.



Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt
United States Senator

[Cop Bob]

There is NO treaty right now. There has been NO treaty presented to the U.S. for ratification. There won't be for at least another year, if not longer (far more likely longer). When it says there is a treaty to vote on, I will read it. IF (and that's a big IF) there are restrictions, I will contact my legislators. Until then, as Mr. Dylan said, there's "no reason to get excited."


Kinda like the Health Care bill... they gave everybody plenty of time to read and respond to than one...

[kozak6]

A treaty needs a 2/3 Senate majority vote in order to be ratified.

What are the chances of that actually happening?

[wow6599]

A treaty needs a 2/3 Senate majority vote in order to be ratified.

What are the chances of that actually happening?

2/3 of a Liberal Senate..........

[bobbo]

Kinda like the Health Care bill... they gave everybody plenty of time to read and respond to than one...

Apples and oranges, my friend. UN treaties take years to write, and years to approve. Right now, the discussion phase is more about who sits where, when is the meeting, what languages will it be in and what time to break for tea and crumpets. Very little (if any) actual decisions about the treaty have been made at this point. The UN isn't exactly known for its speed. Heck, this process started with a resolution in 2006. 5 years later, they still have nothing to show for it.

2/3 of a Liberal Senate..........

.......that has obviously pushed through the Kyoto Protocols and the ICC treaty with such haste, as well as the Free Trade treaties with South Korea, Panama and Columbia with absolutely no stalling... Oh, wait.

Seeing how there's 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans, the chances of at least 67 approving such a treaty are very low indeed.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be upset over a relatively real potential of a future treaty messing with my right to go down to the LGS and get me a new gun. It's good to see someone in the world take an interest in their elected representatives (I've got Chuck Schumer for my senator, so I'm not going to waste my time when it comes to gun control :)).

I'm just saying I'm not going to get my britches in a twist over this right now. In 2 years, maybe. Almost definitely not until after the 2012 election (assuming Democrats win the White House and take more seats in the Senate).

[Ryanxia]

Just e-mailed my rep.

Senator Moran sent a letter to the President of the United States opposing the UN Arms Trade Treaty. I would ask that you support the OPPOSITION of this Treaty in protection of our Constitutional Rights. I have written to your Office in the past in request that you protect our Constitutional Rights, I sincerely hope that you will continue to uphold our way of life.

Please sign Senator Moran's letter to the President and the residents of Maine will continue to support your Office. Thank you.

Sincerely,

XXX

There is discussion here so the OP should ask the mods to move this to Activism Discussion before they delete the whole thread.

[Nico Testosteros]

The treaty is to hold down on the illegal transfer of weapons.
Think armies of child soldiers in Africa or warlords leading cult armies.
And IT WILL NOT affect our rights in the US of A.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp


But its good to remind your Senators of the public support for maximum gun rights here in the US of A. Even if there isn't any UN treaty and if there were, that treaty wouldn't be aimed at nor would it affect our gun rights.
Its just more internet chain email lies from the right.

[GWARGHOUL]

I think we should still oppose, it (The U.N.) period.

[popper]

This IS the way the KBO/Clinton gov works. EPA enforcing Kyoto, Geneva convention, TARP, QE1,2,3? Check out the mayors and gov officials in the Brady group. These guys don't play be the rules. Notice the non-AK weapons in the Tripolli video last nite? Wonder where they came from. The guy in Norway used a 45 AUTOMATIC pistol, as reported by the press. Who sells those?

[jimmyraythomason]

I'm not a: neither will I: But NOW is the time to:<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de_P2aUZJyA>

[USAF_Vet]

Although both of Michigans Senators are Democrats, I sent them both an e-mail. I sent an e-mail to my Rep, Fred Upton, who has an A grade from the NRA. I don't expect anything favorable from the Sens, but they may surprise me, although I doubt it. Last time I sent Stabenow an e-mail was to get her opinion on Travers, when he was first being considered for ATF head. She supported him in the post, and never e-mailed me back after pointing out his very anti-2A track record.

[highlander 5]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Constitution take precedent over any foreign treaty.
And even if it does pass the UN's ability to enforce the treaty is pretty much useless.
Not saying I want it to pass but just asking a valid question.

[Mike1234567]

A 2/3 house vote indeed does trump the Constitution.

[Old krow]

Senators need to know through the process where we stand, not at the end when it moves through.

Absolutely. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. " - Leonard H. Courtney

It's not really a matter of whether or not it passes and whether or not it can be enforced, or the lack thereof, it's our voice that matters. If you oppose, then oppose it. They should already that it isn't going to pass because they should already know that it's going to meet heavy opposition. I don't see how waiting will achieve that objective.

[alsaqr]

Been an NRA member for over 50 years; i wish that the NRA had not thrown out this red herring issue. A foreign treaty does not trump the US Constitution.

SCOTUS ruling in Reid vs Covert:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1

[Bobson]

-Deleted-

[kozak6]

Got a call the other day from the NRA about this.

As they framed it, Iran and North Korea are voting on this in order to take away our 2nd Amendment rights. Yep. That's what they said :scrutiny:.

[hso]

Absurd to think that this has any direct relevance to US law. Without Congressional ratification of the treaty it has no meaning. Remember that there are plenty of states that do not follow specific UN rules and orders. Heck, Iran has been under UN censure for years continues to thumb their nose at the UN.

Be sure you let your Senators know that you will not tolerate any laws restricting the 2A, regardless of where the proposed restrictions might come from. But at least be sure of what you're talking about if you're going to cite specifics instead of regurgitating some half formed propaganda.

[USAF_Vet]

The treaty can pass the UN, and probably will, but unless the Senate ratifies the treaty (which is unlikely to happen) even if other coutries do ratify it, it means nothing to the 2A. It would only effect those who ratify the treaty. I'm not dealing small arms to Equador, so it's not a big deal to me if Equador ratifies the small arms treaty. Still, even if it has a slim to none chance of being ratified by the USA, I still wrote to my lawmakers in opposition of such a chance.

[Old krow]

Absurd to think that this has any direct relevance to US law. Without Congressional ratification of the treaty it has no meaning.

That's very true. It takes a 2/3 Senate vote (of members present). My concern isn't necessarily that it will pass, the senators that signed the letter to the Administration are themselves enough to stop the treaty from being ratified. I believe that there were 45 total. My concern is, why only 45? Seems to me like that number should be higher.

[Luchtaine]

I read an article summary on the NRA-ILA's site a few weeks ago that said 51 were in opposition. I'd have to dig around their archive when I have more time to find it though.

[Davek1977]

As much as I admire and suppor the NRA and their mission, I'll be the first to say the fear mongering is a BIG turn-off. Instead of getting everyone worked up with half-truths, they SHOULD have stuck to the facts....you know...truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.....not "whatever version of the truth brings us more donations" A brief explanation of what the treaty actually entails and what it would take to be approved in the US would have been appropriate. Instead, it gets painted as a sinister lot by the "axis of evil" to disarm us. REALLY? We get SO angry (and rightfully so) when the Brady bunch mutilates the truth in order to further their agenda, but yet we accept it when our side does it? Like i said, I support the overall mission of the NRA, but think tactics like these need to go.

[alsaqr]

As much as I admire and suppor the NRA and their mission, I'll be the first to say the fear mongering is a BIG turn-off.

What Dave said.

The incoming NRA President is one David A. Keene, a former delegate to the UN Small Arms Conference under the previous administration. Keene is making this proposed treaty an NRA issue. Surely he knows better. LaPierre and Keene are pandering to the group of Americans who have absolutely no idea how the US gov't works.

i detest this tactic by the organization i have belonged to for over 50 years. i have written letters to Wayne LaPierre and will write a letter to Keene today.

The proposed UN treaty, even if ratified, would have no effect on our 2nd Amendment rights.

From the treaty proposal:

UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…

[Yo Mama]

I'm concerned that some often feel the NRA informing the public about threats to our 2nd ammendment rights translates to fear mongering. Where else will you get this information? The media is silent. The NRA is the only place I hear about upcoming threats, and enables me to take action. How is this bad?

If the Sentate ratified it would be law. It's simple. No Constitution would revert back to the original law, the 2nd ammendment for the US would be done. That's the plan for the lefties, any way they can get it.

[alsaqr]

It's simple. No Constitution would revert back to the original law, the 2nd ammendment for the US would be done.

The SCOTUS has ruled not so. There is no threat to our Second Amendment rights from this proposed UN resolution.

[TexasBill]

Guys, please read the Snopes item. In 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes treaties, even those ratified by the Senate. Therefore, the U.N. can barf up all the treaties it wants; any of them that violate American Constitution rights are dead on arrival.

Furthermore, ratification requires 67 Senators. Considering that even some of our Democrat legislators are conservative and either pro-gun or not opposed to them, any treaty that called for the restriction of Second Amendment rights wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of ratification.

So, there's no treaty yet, there's no way any treaty that was presented it could have the effect the NRA claims, and there's no chance it would be ratified if it even existed.

I hate to be cynical about this, but I have come to the conclusion that LaPierre is using this as a scare tactic to generate donations.

However, it never hurts to let your elected representatives know where you stand and remind them from time to time. Just don't get them all riled up about a nonexistent treaty.

Note: I am a member of the NRA. That doesn't mean I approve of everything they do.

[Jonah71]

I think so too.......surprised actually.
I don't trust her not to change her mind when the time comes. I hope I'm wrong.

[Mike1234567]

One word... "amendment".

[highlander 5]

never mind treaties,to add an amendment to the constitution is an even bigger hurdle. IIRC 2/3 of the senate and 2/3 of the states have to rattify any amendment. Our founding fathers were pretty smart guys even 200+ years ago.

[alsaqr]

IIRC 2/3 of the senate and 2/3 of the states have to rattify any amendment. Our founding fathers were pretty smart guys even 200+ years ago.

Two-thirds of both houses of congress and two-thirds of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. The Equal Rights Amendment and the DC Voting Rights Amendment both failed the state ratification process.

[Yo Mama]

The SCOTUS has ruled not so.

The same SCOTUS that's a step away from changing from Cons to Lib? That's my main concern, SCOTUS has been helping us recently, but not always.

[TexasBill]

The same SCOTUS that's a step away from changing from Cons to Lib? That's my main concern, SCOTUS has been helping us recently, but not always.

Yup, the same one. Remember the ruling is 54 years old. It has survived liberal courts and conservative courts, so it's probably pretty safe.

[whalerman]

Relying on a Supreme Court decision that is a half century old is what sounds foolish to me. What sounds sensible is fighting ratification of the treaty. So let me get this straight. We have nothing to fear, so go ahead and ratify the treaty because it won't make any difference anyway? Very strange thinking to me.

And there is no guarantee what this administration or others that follow would do by executive order. Laws seem to mean less and less these days.

[alsaqr]

Federal appeals courts operate under the legal principle of stare decisis : "Let the decision stand." SCOTUS very seldom over-rules a previous SCOTUS decision.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm

An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices.

[Mike1234567]

I'm with others who state that the US government should never ratify any treaty that aims to disarm any peoples anywhere. That's a pretty hypochritical thing to do, isn't it? If the US government agrees that other peoples should all be disarmed then it must certainly think we should be too. It's only logical.

[robhof]

I let my congressmen know my concerns, but I agree that the NRA does a LOT of fear mongering... I used to read all their alerts and forward them to my friends, but one is a far left zealot that always Snopes my forwards, then sends them back. I use Snopes now and delete about 90% of their urgent alerts.

[Carl N. Brown]

Anyone recall the Kings College, London, debate between Rebecca Peters of IANSA and Wayne LaPierre on this very subject, back when IANSA and NRA were representing opposing viewpoints ?

The Great UN Gun Debate from the Library of Kings College London 2004, MOTION: "Should the United States Senate Support the Proposed UN Treaty that Bans Private Ownership of Guns?" Moderated by British TV personality Paul Lavers, Pro: Director of IANSA, Rebecca Peters, Con: Head of NRA ILA, Wayne LaPierre, aired on US pay TV from October 20-30 2004.

[USAF_Vet]

Politicians and Lobbyist both do a lot of fear mongering, on both sides of the aisle. To me that shows a lack of intellect on the part of the fear monger, along with a lack of thought on the part of the voters. I know we can't do much about the idiot lobbyists, but any politician who talks at me like I'm a fool doesn't get my vote, regardless of their political leanings.

[USAF_Vet]

I got a reply from one of my Senators.

Thank you for contacting me about the proposed United Nations (UN) Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.

The illegal manufacture and trafficking of firearms contributes to crime and violence around the world by arming criminals, terrorists, and other militant groups. Illicit firearms, especially small arms and light weapons, can destabilize entire regions by fueling armed conflict and violence against innocent civilians. In addition, the presence of such weapons complicates humanitarian relief programs, peacekeeping initiatives and the development of democratic societies. According to the United Nations, there are more than 875 million small arms and light weapons in circulation worldwide, and these weapons are responsible for approximately 300,000 deaths every year.

Over the years, the United States and other UN member governments have undertaken both national and international efforts to combat the significant increase in illegally manufactured and trafficked firearms. U.S. policy includes attempting to curb black market transfers of small arms to zones of conflict, terrorists, international criminal organizations and/or drug traffickers; encouraging other nations to raise arms export standards to U.S. standards; streamlining and strengthening U.S. export procedures to improve accountability without interfering with the legal trade in or transfer of arms; and supporting the destruction of excess stockpiles of small arms, particularly in regions where conflicts have ended. In July 2001, a nonbinding “Program of Action” (PoA) was adopted by UN member governments, including the United States, that encouraged nations to ensure that manufacturers use markings on small arms and light weapons to facilitate the tracing of illicit weapons transfers; establish procedures to monitor legal sales, transfer and stockpiling of small arms and light weapons; and make the illegal manufacture, trade and possession of such weapons a criminal offense.

In 2008, the UN General Assembly convened a UN Group of Governmental Experts to examine the possibility of an international treaty focused on denying arms to groups that would abuse them, including rogue states, terrorist organizations and illegal militias. Under the Bush administration, the United States was an active participant in the 2008 UN Group of Governmental Experts and endorsed the Group’s recommendations for an international framework for controlling the international conventional arms trade. In October 2009, the United States voted for a UN resolution laying out a schedule for talks on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a final UN Conference on the ATT in 2012.

The United States supported the resolution in part because it states that the 2012 Conference will operate under the rule of consensus decision-making, a provision that was necessary to gain U.S. backing. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “as long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.” In this instance, consensus decision-making means that the United States maintains its right to veto any agreement produced by the 2012 Conference.

Some have raised concerns that UN efforts to combat the illegal international arms trade may restrict the rights of law-abiding American citizens, despite the fact that the proposed ATT is strictly focused on the illegal manufacture and trafficking of firearms around the world. While I believe these concerns are misplaced in regard to the proposed ATT, it is important that any efforts to curb the illegal international arms trade do not infringe on the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens.

As the world’s largest exporter of conventional weapons and a government that is widely considered to have the gold-standard on arms export controls, the United States has a special responsibility to promote responsible global arms trade. I support ratification of a strong and effective ATT, and I look forward to working with the administration and my Senate colleagues to achieve that goal.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin