Arms Trade Treaty


PDA






DSling
April 1, 2013, 10:25 PM
This is where my research started.
Wiki Arms Trade Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty#U.S._reverses_earlier_position)
Reference number 18 brought me to the following website. I thought it was a valid reference.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/7/disinformation-continues-as-un-arms-treaty-takes-shape.aspx
For example, the most recent draft treaty includes import/export controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the "end user" of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

I thought maybe the state department would say something different. What I found was that they do support it and further state that they will not take our rights. I believe that to be a lie.
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/
KEY U.S. REDLINES

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
There will be no lowering of current international standards.
Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

This happened today. As for last I would like to extend my thanks to Iran, Syria and Korea.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/01/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE9300D020130401

If you enjoyed reading about "Arms Trade Treaty" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WardenWolf
April 1, 2013, 10:53 PM
Russia can still veto. And will.

DSling
April 1, 2013, 11:08 PM
If Russia veto's it what will happen. I do not understand the rules of the UN. It seems like a pointless body unless it has actual control over countries

Justifying my means with their end.

WardenWolf
April 2, 2013, 12:02 AM
The treaty dies. Plain and simple.

Rob G
April 2, 2013, 12:03 AM
If Russia veto's it what will happen.

As I understand it, it has to be a unanimous decision. If Russia vetos it then it's dead in the water.

DSling
April 2, 2013, 12:32 AM
So out of all the countries in attendance who has the power to veto?

Justifying my means with their end.

joeschmoe
April 2, 2013, 12:41 AM
If Russia veto's it what will happen. I do not understand the rules of the UN. It seems like a pointless body unless it has actual control over countries

Justifying my means with their end.
Then you don't understand it. Contrary to conspiracy talk radio, the UN is not a one world government that rules the globe. It does not have power over countries. It is governments getting together, voluntarily, and agreeing to work together on many issues.
Any of the security council members can veto when in the security council, but not in the General Assembly.
Any treaty must be confirmed by Congress, basically as a parallel US law.
No treaty can over ride the Constitution.

baz
April 2, 2013, 01:21 AM
Russia can still veto. And will.That's not being reported here (http://grendelreport.blogspot.com/2013/03/us-abandons-requirement-for-consensus.html#13dbae683dad830a_1).

gc70
April 2, 2013, 10:16 AM
One of the rules of the conference on the Arms Trade Treaty was that the conference could only agree on the text of the treaty by consensus; the US was insistent on that rule. Consensus was not achieved during the conference.

Here is the official current status (http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/) of the treaty:

The Conference could not reach agreement on a treaty text. Member States have decided to refer the adoption of the treaty to the General Assembly of the United Nations. To this effect, a draft resolution, by which the General Assembly would decide to adopt the ATT, was submitted to the General Assembly on Friday, 28 March. The General Assembly will meet on Tuesday, 2 April, to hear the oral report of the President of the Final Conference and to take action on the draft resolution.

DSling
April 2, 2013, 11:29 AM
What it's required for the general assembly to approve it? My worry is that this ethyl be force feed to us

Justifying my means with their end.

gc70
April 2, 2013, 12:03 PM
What it's required for the general assembly to approve it?

Good question.

By a majority vote, the General Assembly (http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/background.shtml) can "Consider and make recommendations on the general principles of cooperation for maintaining international peace and security, including disarmament" - " except where a dispute or situation is currently being discussed by the Security Council."

By a two-thirds vote, the General Assembly can "take action if the Security Council fails to act, owing to the negative vote of a permanent member."

I have not heard anything about Security Council consideration of the Arms Trade Treaty, so I assume the General Assembly could approve the text of the treaty by a majority vote. However, General Assembly approval would only mean that specific language for the treaty was available and each country would then decide whether or not to ratify the treaty.

If treaty language is approved, the real question is whether or not the Senate would vote to ratify the treaty. Even if the Senate ratified the treaty, the application of the treaty's provisions in the United States would still be subject to the Constitution.

usmarine0352_2005
April 2, 2013, 01:01 PM
.

Looks like this just passed. What does this mean for gun companies?




http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/28/buyers-beware-un-arms-trade-treaty-will-regulate-individual-gun-ownership/




.
Buyers, beware: UN Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership

By John Lott

Published March 28, 2013

FoxNews.com


Just like with gun control, in general, it is only the “good guys” who will obey the new rules. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, if passed, would only be effective against those countries that choose to obey them.

The treaty pretends that individual weapons smugglers are the main problem. But governments, not private individuals, are the primary source of weapons. For example, the FARC guerrillas fighting in Colombia get their guns from the Venezuelan government.

Unsurprisingly, the U.N. treaty provisions are the long-time favorites of American gun control advocates: registration and licensing of guns and ammunition, along with restrictions on the private gun transfers. Unfortunately, these expensive measures have a long history of failing to curb crime wherever they have been tried and primarily end up disarming law-abiding gun owners.

The treaty pushes gun registration and licensing as a way to trace those who supply these illicit weapons. Yet, to see the problem with these regulations, one only needs to look at how ineffective they have been in solving crime. Canada just ended its long gun registry last year, as it was a colossal waste of money.

Indeed, it is a costly scheme. Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry just for long guns. With more people and more guns in the United States, the estimated costs for a similar registration scheme for 13 years would be about $67 billion.

Gun control advocates have long claimed registration is a safety issue. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun is left at a crime scene, and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link it back to the criminal.
.
.

firesky101
April 2, 2013, 01:14 PM
Do you have a source for it passing? That article says "if passed".

ZZZ
April 2, 2013, 01:17 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/02/un-adopts-pact-to-regulate-multibillion-dollar-global-arms-trade/

Ryanxia
April 2, 2013, 01:17 PM
Edit: I see the link now.

Baldman
April 2, 2013, 01:19 PM
I just saw articles on Fox yesterday saying that it was unlikely to pass since at least 6 nations were set to veto it and it only needs 1 veto. It is crap legislation but then again it is the UN.

Ryano
April 2, 2013, 01:21 PM
Looks like Russia chose to abstain, and it passed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/arms-trade-treaty-approved-at-un.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

usmarine0352_2005
April 2, 2013, 01:24 PM
.

It passed. Check the front page of CNN. It's the banner so sourcing it wouldn't help.
.

gc70
April 2, 2013, 01:39 PM
And why would the US favor the treaty?

Mr. Countryman downplayed any negative effect on the American arms industry, which accounts for about 30 percent of the $60 billion to $70 billion annual trade in conventional arms.

“This treaty will bring much of the rest of the world not up to the American standards but much closer to the American standards,” he said. “In that sense, I believe it levels the playing field and gives American manufacturers a better competitive position in the world.”

22-rimfire
April 2, 2013, 01:46 PM
Time to see what it actually says...

kwguy
April 2, 2013, 01:52 PM
I've been watching this for a bit. The Senate has been standing pretty firm against this treaty, and during the last budget negotiation, have reasserted that. I doubt the Senate would ever ratify it.

Still, I hate the fact that we entertain anything the UN does. They are a joke, and should have no say in how we do business in our country.

Doc Samson
April 2, 2013, 04:28 PM
Still, I hate the fact that we entertain anything the UN does. They are a joke, and should have no say in how we do business in our country.

Exactly! Other than being extremely corrupt, cowardly, and ineffective, I really cannot think of much that they bring to the table, particularly ours.

joeschmoe
April 2, 2013, 05:36 PM
I've been watching this for a bit. The Senate has been standing pretty firm against this treaty, and during the last budget negotiation, have reasserted that. I doubt the Senate would ever ratify it.

Still, I hate the fact that we entertain anything the UN does. They are a joke, and should have no say in how we do business in our country.
Where do you guys get these ideas from? Late night coast to coast radio conspiracy theories? The UN is nothing more than a place for countries to voluntarily get together to agree to work together. They aren't some unelected one world government handing down edicts to control us. This new "treaty" has no effect on us until our Congress ratifies it by passing a new law that allows it. That's it. As if the UN did not exist and Congress passed this law of it's own accord. Same thing.
If the UN disbanded and the building was removed from NYC today, tomorrow we would still need a place for countries to get together to discuss issues and try to work together to resolve common problems. Better here than Brussels, Berlin or Bonn.

The UN has no power over us, except what we agree to do ourselves. When we volunteer to enter into a treaty it is like signing a contract. That is all. We are bound by the terms, because we agreed to them. If we don't agree to them, we are not bound to the term.

Trent
April 2, 2013, 05:51 PM
Well, hell.

I guess we can kiss 5.45x39, 5.7mm, and a host of other calibers goodbye.

Damnit.

DSling
April 2, 2013, 06:00 PM
Sui the president agreed to it but congress doesn't. So what does that do to the word of the president? What does that say about the US agreeing to it but not following it? If Italy follows it does that mean that we will no longer import their weapons because it has to be reported?

Justifying my means with their end.

cajun executioner
April 2, 2013, 06:07 PM
Where do you guys get these ideas from? Late night coast to coast radio conspiracy theories? The UN is nothing more than a place for countries to voluntarily get together to agree to work together. They aren't some unelected one world government handing down edicts to control us. This new "treaty" has no effect on us until our Congress ratifies it by passing a new law that allows it. That's it. As if the UN did not exist and Congress passed this law of it's own accord. Same thing.
If the UN disbanded and the building was removed from NYC today, tomorrow we would still need a place for countries to get together to discuss issues and try to work together to resolve common problems. Better here than Brussels, Berlin or Bonn.

The UN has no power over us, except what we agree to do ourselves. When we volunteer to enter into a treaty it is like signing a contract. That is all. We are bound by the terms, because we agreed to them. If we don't agree to them, we are not bound to the term.

Very true Joe. I'm not worried about today or even tomorrow. I'm worried about 20 or 30 years from now, what may happen to my children's or my grand children's rights. The country seems to be heading in the wrong direction and its only getting worse. What happens in 10 years if Hillary is elected? She has always been a big proponent for the treaty. I'm just worried about the backdoor politics I guess and what are the future possibilities of this passing.

Pukindog12
April 2, 2013, 06:11 PM
What happens if Reid doesn't ever bring the treaty to the Senate floor for a vote?

DSling
April 2, 2013, 06:25 PM
Is that legal to do? Just avoid the Senate

Justifying my means with their end.

joeschmoe
April 2, 2013, 06:39 PM
Is that legal to do? Just avoid the Senate

Justifying my means with their end.
What part of this is still unclear to you? For the 3rd time; Unless Congress agrees to it, it has no meaning. DOA. No treaty, or law, can over ride the Constitution or 2nd Amendment. None. Never. Even if all of Congress agrees to it.

Constitution for the United States of America
Article. II. Section. 2.

The President shall... have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

JRH6856
April 2, 2013, 06:43 PM
Just in case anyone actually wants to read a draft of the treaty so they can actually know what they are talking about, here is a link. (http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf)

For the most part, the treaty “encourages” the states which are party to the treaty to do a lot of things. It doesn't require anyone to do much of anything. :scrutiny:

Ohio Gun Guy
April 2, 2013, 07:08 PM
The current administration doesnt seem to care about the Constitution and any constraint on what it wants to do.

Trung Si
April 2, 2013, 07:29 PM
Texas Attorney General to Obama!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/texas-ag-obama-ill-sue-if-un-arms-treaty-ratified/
God Bless Texas and our Legislators!

Sam1911
April 2, 2013, 07:36 PM
The current administration doesnt seem to care about the Constitution and any constraint on what it wants to do.I believe we already hashed that question out when the President came out with his long-dreaded list of Executive Orders after Sandy Hook.

Remember how he "doesn't care about the Constitution," and how he'll "do whatever he wants and dare the Congress to try and stop him," and how he'd simply declare new enforcement policies and there wasn't a darned thing anyone could do to stop him? Yeah, and when they were released they were COMPLETELY constrained within his -- very limited -- Constitutional mandate as the Executive.

We're always quite ready to assume that Obama will one day simply declare the Constitution void, claim the supremacy of his office, and dictate his new world order. And yet, somehow it doesn't happen.

Same deal here.

What's most troubling is if any of the foreign nations who do adopt this treaty's guidelines read them as preventing sales of guns, parts, or ammo to lawful civilians of other countries. I (so far) don't see any reason to believe they will, but that is a possibility. Will this treaty, if eventually adopted by someone like Russia (who abstained!), be interpreted so as to make unlawful the commercial export of 5.45x39mm ammo to AIM Surplus (just for example)? I'm thinking NO. But there's a chance that it could, I guess.

Truly military arms (all full-auto these days) can't lawfully be imported already. Will CZ, or Beretta, or Uberti, or Taurus, or Izmash, or any of the 100s of other foreign arms makers have to stop exporting handguns and rifles that end up in the hands of American civilians? No way. These countries are all DESPERATE for trade (as are all of us in the global economy -- and have been for millennia now). They may try and shut off some of the back-room deals with the LRAs, FARCs, Talibans, Zapitistas, various narco groups, etc. ... at least for show. But the routes of trade which can be couched as 'legitimate' (meaning in accordance with the laws of both nations involved) will NOT be closed.

JRH6856
April 2, 2013, 07:49 PM
Well, the treaty does prohibit the sale of arms to a country where they might be used in an attack on a school. So I guess that pretty much cancels sales to the US. :rolleyes:

Black Butte
April 2, 2013, 08:42 PM
And why would the US favor the treaty?

Because they fired John Bolton and Obama has his cronies installed at the UN. Susan Rice doesn't even know what day of the week it is. How is she going to oppose this administration and stand up for the American people?

This was planned by Obama since the beginning, but it went unreported by the press. This administration announced to the UN early on that it was reversing the pro-gun stance of the Bush administration.

dragon813gt
April 2, 2013, 10:47 PM
Is there anyway it could become law w/ out congressional approval? I'm sure they will try any way possible.


Brought to you by TapaTalk

JRH6856
April 2, 2013, 10:55 PM
Is there anyway it could become law w/ out congressional approval? I'm sure they will try any way possible.

Yes. If the US were invaded and conquered by a country that had ratified the treaty. :rolleyes: :banghead:

Arkansas Paul
April 3, 2013, 11:38 AM
I admit, I haven't read the terms of the treaty. What exactly does it mean for us private gun owners?
Are there stipulations in it that directly infringe on our rights? Or is it a more subtle approach that could someday be turned on us? Don't get me wrong, neither are acceptable. I've already emailed my senators encouraging them to oppose the treaty. I just would like to know exactly what it entails. Kerry swears up and down that it has no effect on RKBA in the U.S., but forgive me if I'm not very trusting. :scrutiny:

tomrkba
April 3, 2013, 11:40 AM
Treaties are not self-implementing. Laws would still have to be passed to comply with the treaty. I think the main effect will be to change how firearms and ammunition is moved before it arrives at the US border.

Sam1911
April 3, 2013, 12:01 PM
What exactly does it mean for us private gun owners?[Merged, as question is under discussion in this thread.]

Post 33 and others.

kwguy
April 3, 2013, 12:12 PM
The UN has no power over us, except what we agree to do ourselves. When we volunteer to enter into a treaty it is like signing a contract. That is all. We are bound by the terms, because we agreed to them. If we don't agree to them, we are not bound to the term.

I'm not a big fan of the UN because they remind me of a bunch of blathering idiots sitting around at a meeting, not really doing much of anything except wasting my time when I have better things to do. You're right, they DON'T have much power over us (hence my point about the Senate ratification). I just think we're wasting our time 'sitting around at that meeting', listening to those guys.

hammerklavier
April 3, 2013, 12:34 PM
I'm still wondering what Russia was promised for their abstention, we'll look the other way as they continue to sell arms to countries like Syria, no doubt, but what else?

JRH6856
April 3, 2013, 02:11 PM
So if Russia did not abstain, what would have happened? It would have still passed with 193 votes. Neither Russia or any other country has veto power in the General Assembly.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 3, 2013, 04:29 PM
Guys, Bill Clinton signed the CIFTA Treaty in the 1990s that is much worse than this one. You could be jailed just for talking about firearms in a way that could be construed as avoiding the treaty requirements. Senate ratification of the CIFTA Treaty was still listed as one of the top 20 priorities of the Obama Administration in 2008. Still not ratified. If Obama had a secret plan to restrict the Second via international treaty, he did not need this.

However, it will be interesting to see how the reporting requirements are implemented in foreign nations.

Zoogster
April 3, 2013, 07:06 PM
People think too short term and selfishly to realize the overall change these types of things have long term on a global level.


No it won't mean your gun is illegal next year.

What it will mean is more nations will add more hoops to jump through to import, export, and own firearms.
That even in nations where the real law is the tribe in this 100 square miles which differs from the tribe in that 100 miles, which differs from the official government over there that really is just the government of the main city, some foreign nation will still be implementing gun control on everyone.



Also while many Americans may not see the connection, as legal ownership of modern arms or even most arms by regular citizens becomes less legitimate and demonized abroad, you become more and more alone.
While you may not immediately see the connection, the reduction of a firearm culture, especially connected to independence and self reliance, means what exists in the US becomes more odd and less understandable at a global level.
It also means there is fewer places in the world you can point to or highlight as examples.
Eventually that means the culture in the USA is easier to pave over and have the USA join the rest of the modern world as well.

Other smaller nations will also see more impact than the big powerful USA that few will directly pressure.
When the resident of a third world nation who lives in a fairly autonomous area of the country the official government does not even venture to much, wants to go buy a firearm, and they cannot not even just because of laws in thier own country but because the international community won't export anything to them, they have things like this to thank.
Or when they have a firearm but cannot order some aftermarket stock, because it is a firearm part that requires a complicated import and export process, they have this to thank.


The USA does not see the full extent of even the shorter term problems because it is such a large nation with tons of resources and industry.
Some smaller more typical nations though don't have tons of competing businesses. They don't have that large of a market either. So they have one manufacture, or two manufactures, and if they can't help them then they are in trouble if they cannot import some basic part from abroad because of a bunch of crap.
Broken $50 stock? Maybe impossible to purchase.
Need a new spring? You might have to adapt one made for something else, because that firearm one is a firearm part you cannot order from some US or other gun parts supplier.

All while this is primarily meant to centralize power with the governments that voted on it. Reduce the threat posed by armed civilians that could turn into rebels against either thier own government, or against some invading force from another place. While having minimal impact on most national governments or the troops at thier disposal. Reduce the power held by the civilians and as a result increase the power of the governments.

Which is ironic because they will use examples that demonstrate the opposite. It has little to do with things they point to like the government of Libya using arms against rebels, arms all national governments have and which they don't intend to change, and more to do with preventing successful rebel groups of civilians from forming without outside assistance from those that do have arms (and to then make that outside assistance illegal at an international level in most cases.)

Sam1911
April 3, 2013, 07:14 PM
Personally, I am also of Zoogster's way of thinking. I don't like gun control -- ANYWHERE, for ANY reason, even when it's a "think of the children" appeal in lower Zamhoobia where the XYZ rebels are fighting the "legitimate" Supreme Dictator of the Dem.Rep. of Zamhooville (or whatever). And I earnestly believe that the disarmament movements do more long term, universal, harm than global good.

But that is rather outside the scope of what we and the NRA are most immediately concerned about.

Ohio Gun Guy
April 4, 2013, 12:56 PM
The problem with the "Move along, nothing to see here" is that if go back and look at threads around the last two presidential elections... There was plenty of "Move along, nothing to see here" comments as well.

Look where that's got us. I'm concerned. The other side "Bends" the rules when it suits them.

alsaqr
April 4, 2013, 03:15 PM
No treaty supersedes the US Constitution. SCOTUS in Reid vs Covert:

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html

Texshooter
April 4, 2013, 04:27 PM
Mr. joeschmoe, sorry, but

La La Land.

Ohio Gun Guy
April 4, 2013, 04:28 PM
For those of you looking for more information on how to write your representatives, it is fairly easy.

First go to the US Post Office site and confirm your zip code and 4 digit extension: https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction!input.action

Then go to the Senate Web Site: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

The House Web Site:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/

Then, use Google find your State Legislative Bodies and Send Correspondence to your state reps. They all use a Web Based e-mail system. All you typically need is your zip code (With extension), a valid e-mail address, name address, etc.
I usually type up a letter in word, copy it then customize it for each representative. (Some are NRA members, or some have recently voted on something, etc.)

Texshooter
April 4, 2013, 04:37 PM
What part of this is still unclear to you? For the 3rd time; Unless Congress agrees to it, it has no meaning. DOA. No treaty, or law, can over ride the Constitution or 2nd Amendment. None. Never. Even if all of Congress agrees to it.
"Peace in our time."

What, sir, is unclear to you?

Sam1911
April 4, 2013, 06:48 PM
"Peace in our time."

What, sir, is unclear to you?
Well, I'll bite. What's unclear to me now is what Neville Chamberlain's quote there is supposed to indicate in this context? Not even arguing ... just flummoxed!

JRH6856
April 4, 2013, 07:04 PM
Texshooter, the meaning of your last two posts in this thread is unclear to me. While joeschmoe's posts you respond to are perfectly clear.

USAF_Vet
April 4, 2013, 08:54 PM
Are we even worried about ratification of this in the Senate? 34 Senators have signed onto a resolution (S. Con. Res 7) that opposes the UN Arms Trade Treaty. Since it has to have a 2/3rds majority to pass the Senate and be ratified (that's 67 Senators for those bad at math) they don't have the votes. Isn't this mostly a moot point now, at least for those of us in this country? Mexico can do whatever Mexico does, treaty or no treaty. Same with the other countries that signed onto it.

Imports of modern guns and imports of mil surp guns and imports of ammo might be effected. I emphasize might simply because the treaty doesn't force anyone to adhere to anything, just urges countries to legislate more rules. But the US economy and free market capitalism will do what it does, and will fill the void of supply where there is the highest demand. US based ammo manufacturers can and will make 5.45x39, 7.62x54r, 5.7x25 and all the rest of the popular foreign rounds. Buying a foreign import gun might be more expensive because of restrictions on the export side of things, but that will leave a gap for a US manufacturer to step in and fill the void.

If the treaty is DOA in the Senate, is there really anything to worry about that cannot be overcome?

JRH6856
April 4, 2013, 09:32 PM
Are we even worried about ratification of this in the Senate? 34 Senators have signed onto a resolution (S. Con. Res 7) that opposes the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

Do politicians always honor their resolutions? Or do they treat them more like campaign promises? Do you think you can trust that not 1 of the 34 might have a change of mind?

My concern is this: While the Constitution can not be violated or abridged by treaty obligations, existing laws can be nullified. When, as is the case currently, a single party controls the Presidency and Senate, a treaty can be a way to do an end run around a House that opposes desired legilation.

It is not clear that gun registration is unconstitutional; at present it is just illegal. But the UN ATT requires importing countries to provide end user information to the manufacturers in exporting countries and this requirement may be used to justify the creation of a firearms registry in order to maintain the end user information required by the treaty. Because of treaty obligations which make it law, such a registry could be created by executive order without House approval. It would be up to SCOTUS to determine if it violated the Constitution.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 4, 2013, 10:13 PM
But the UN ATT requires importing countries to provide end user information to the manufacturers in exporting countries and this requirement may be used to justify the creation of a firearms registry in order to maintain the end user information required by the treaty.

How? How would you do that even if you wanted to? It isn't like the importer knows who the end user is when they purchase the firearms, or even when they sell them in many cases. Even if the importer did report that information, in many cases it is going to be another FFL who is the purchaser.

Alhough I agree that such a system would be troubling if implemented. It would essentially be a Project Echelon for guns - the United States would be prohibited by law from creating a centralized record system but they would be sharing the same information with countries that are under no such prohibition.

However, this Senate will not ratify the treaty. There were already 53 votes in the Senate for the budget resolution to oppose it. It needs 67 to be ratified. Just like CIFTA, it is going to linger around but there is no way it gets ratified in this Senate... Even after 2014, it would still be tough given how many votes they need to swing.

hovercat
April 4, 2013, 10:22 PM
The question that the senators who favor this treaty should be asked is......WHY???
What benefit to the USA will this provide?

JRH6856
April 4, 2013, 10:31 PM
How? How would you do that even if you wanted to? It isn't like the importer knows who the end user is when they purchase the firearms, or even when they sell them in many cases. Even if the importer did report that information, in many cases it is going to be another FFL who is the purchaser.

Alhough I agree that such a system would be troubling if implemented. It would essentially be a Project Echelon for guns - the United States would be prohibited by law from creating a centralized record system but they would be sharing the same information with countries that are under no such prohibition.

However, this Senate will not ratify the treaty. There were already 53 votes in the Senate for the budget resolution to oppose it. It needs 67 to be ratified. Just like CIFTA, it is going to linger around but there is no way it gets ratified in this Senate... Even after 2014, it would still be tough given how many votes they need to swing.
You would track the imported firearm from the country of origin to the importer to the distributor, to the retailer to the end user...and then from user to user.

May not be able to do that now. But it could be done if there were a national firearms registry.

From the UN ATT (linked earlier):

Article 3 Ammunition/Munitions

Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such ammunition/munitions.

Article 4 Parts and Components
Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components where the export is in a form that provides the capability to assemble the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such parts and components.

Article 5 General Implementation

4. Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties. States Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.

5. Each State Party shall take measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) and of items covered under Article 3 and Article 4.

~~~~

Article 8 Import

1. Each importing State Party shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, pursuant to its national laws, to the exporting State Party, to assist the exporting State Party in conducting its national export assessment under Article 7. Such measures may include end use or end user documentation.
2. Each importing State Party shall take measures that will allow it to regulate, where necessary, imports under its jurisdiction of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1). Such measures may include import systems.

~~~~

Article 12 Record keeping

1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate.

4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

FWIW, I agree that ratification is highly unlikely.

kwguy
April 4, 2013, 10:49 PM
However, this Senate will not ratify the treaty

I agree. I think the main concern is that the political climate may change in the future. There are certainly powerful forces at work to make that change happen. If that were the case, it is certainly possible something like this could be ratified by a future Senate. That is why we must fight to make sure that political climate / reality does not happen.

(I believe that if the U.S. signs onto the treaty, and the Senate does not ratify it, it get's 'shelved' and could be ratified in the future?? I'm not too sure how that works...maybe someone else here knows if that's true?)

Also, the implementation of this treaty (as far as registration, etc is concerned), may well be difficult; however, difficult, stupid laws / rules have been passed before, so we should not let that be a reason to not be concerned.

It's not so much the current probability of this happening, as is the concern for the future possibility of where this might go, that has many people worried.

That's why the NRA takes, what many may consider (on the part of the MSM), a 'no compromise' view. Because the slippery slope, while laughed off by 'lunch room liberals' as paranoid, does happen.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. And that's what the anti's are doing.

JRH6856
April 5, 2013, 12:22 AM
I believe that if the U.S. signs onto the treaty, and the Senate does not ratify it, it get's 'shelved' and could be ratified in the future??

That is correct. Once signed, the next step is ratification and that can take as long as it takes. Unless the signature is withdrawn, or other signing parties withdraw in the meantime, it could be ratified 200 years from now and would then go into effect.

Amendments to the Constitution are the same way. The 27th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) was submitted to the states for ratification in 1789, but was not adopted until 1992 when enough states finally ratified.

kwguy
April 5, 2013, 04:32 AM
^^^^ Wow. Talk about playing the long game...

JRH6856
April 5, 2013, 04:46 AM
Well, you see, they kept adding more states, which meant the number needed to ratify kept increasing. And then a couple of states withdrew their ratification along the way. At least one ratified twice. It's an interesting story.

Arkansas Paul
April 5, 2013, 10:23 AM
Well, I emailed my senators and got a response back from one of them. I didn't realize that it took a 2/3 vote in the Senate to ratify. That is good news for us, as a 2/3 vote is highly unlikely. Anyway, here was the Senator's response to me.

Dear Mr. Gann,

Thank you for contacting me with your strong support for Second Amendment rights and opposition to the UN Small Arms Treaty. It is good to hear from you.

Like you, I am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I certainly understand your concerns over the creation of new gun control laws or the renewal of an assault weapons ban. Today, there is plenty of evidence, both in our country and elsewhere, that simply disarming law abiding citizens does not help reduce violent crime. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor any gun legislation closely and should any bills come to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote, I will keep your thoughts and concerns in mind.

Additionally, I am vehemently opposed to the U.S. signing any UN Treaty that would regulate small arms. I believe this is a backdoor way to chip away at every law abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms. As you know, the Obama Administration has expressed an interest in international small arms control initiatives that were resisted previously by the Bush Administration. However, if the Obama Administration does sign the U.S. as a party to the treaty, it would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate. I continue to be actively involved with some of my colleagues in gathering information and educating other Senators and the general public to prove that this treaty is unnecessary and unconstitutional. Besides signing onto a letter circulated during the 112th Congress to both President Obama and then-Secretary Clinton expressing overwhelming opposition to such a treaty, I am a proud original cosponsor of S.Con.Res.7. This concurrent resolution, introduced by Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) on March 13, 2013, states that the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty and that if he does in fact sign and transmit it to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the treaty. I believe in upholding our Constitution and will not support restrictions on the Second Amendment rights and freedoms of United States citizens. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue closely and I will oppose this treaty should it come to the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue. Please be sure to visit our website at www.boozman.senate.gov . I look forward to your continued correspondence.


Sincerely,
John Boozman
U.S. Senator

joeschmoe
April 5, 2013, 05:40 PM
Mr. joeschmoe, sorry, but
La La Land.
"Peace in our time."
What, sir, is unclear to you?


I have noticed that those who complain the Constitution does not work, are the same people who don't understand how it does work.

Read the Constitution and learn how your government works.

Ohio Gun Guy
April 5, 2013, 08:36 PM
^
I'll challenge you to be a little more specific. It's easy to disagree in general terms.....

My .02

The problem is that in our system, it is left to the Judicial branch to sort it out AFTER the legislation / action is taken. They can rule on something on their own, but it doesnt seem to happen. Therefore, what I and many other worry about are these laws that pass, then are implemented and go many years before being challenged. Look at the Heller case....McDonald....etc.

JRH6856
April 5, 2013, 09:31 PM
The problem is that in our system, it is left to the Judicial branch to sort it out AFTER the legislation / action is taken. They can rule on something on their own, but it doesnt seem to happen. Therefore, what I and many other worry about are these laws that pass, then are implemented and go many years before being challenged. Look at the Heller case....McDonald....etc.

Before John Marshall realized that determining constitutionality was a task for SCOTUS, that task fell to POTUS. That is the main reason he was given veto power. He still has that power and has used it in the past. SCOTUS is properly the final resort when both the legislative and executive branches have failed to meet the constitutional standard.

But it is easy to disagree in general terms; what specifically about the process would you change?

joeschmoe
April 5, 2013, 10:16 PM
^
I'll challenge you to be a little more specific. It's easy to disagree in general terms.....

My .02

I was very specific (3 times) and was given extremely vague and bizarre retort. If you can explain what texshooter specifically meant I can respond.


The problem is that in our system, it is left to the Judicial branch to sort it out AFTER the legislation / action is taken. They can rule on something on their own, but it doesn't seem to happen. Therefore, what I and many other worry about are these laws that pass, then are implemented and go many years before being challenged. Look at the Heller case....McDonald....etc.

No. SCTOUS cannot just rule on their own. The president can veto before it becomes law. SCOTUS can only rule when their is a specific case before them. They do not rule on hypotheticals, only on specific cases that have worked their way thru the system. That's how it's supposed to work. They are not a replacement to Congress. They are not mullahs or an Ayatolla to sit in judgement of everything Congress does.

Ohio Gun Guy
April 6, 2013, 09:10 PM
It's called judicial review.

Sam1911
April 6, 2013, 09:15 PM
Sheesh... Yes it is called judicial review. BUT judicial review only happens when some specific case is brought before the court (which takes years). The court cannot just look as the collection of new legislation passed this year and say, "hey, let's rule on that treaty they passed! I don't like that one!"

First the new law has to be passed. Then someone has to break it and get caught, tried, and convicted under it. Then they have to appeal, again and again up the chain (without their conviction being overturned at any point). Then it has the CHANCE to be heard by SCOTUS, if they decide to.

Then there may be some judicial review.

joeschmoe
April 6, 2013, 09:28 PM
They are supposed to be slow. The symbol of the court is the tortoise. Seriously. The SCOTUS building has a tortoise and hare carved into the building referring to the Aesop's fable "slow and steady wins the race".

Most problems, like this treaty work themselves out before they get a chance to rule on it. This treaty is not likely to effect us, or at least not for a long time. Only then can they step to rule on it.

joeschmoe
April 6, 2013, 09:39 PM
I have noticed that those who complain the Constitution does not work, are the same people who don't understand how it does work.


^
I'll challenge you to be a little more specific. It's easy to disagree in general terms.....

My .02

The problem is that in our system, it is left to the Judicial branch to sort it out AFTER the legislation / action is taken. They can rule on something on their own, but it doesnt seem to happen. Therefore, what I and many other worry about are these laws that pass, then are implemented and go many years before being challenged. Look at the Heller case....McDonald....etc.

Thanks for another specific example of what I said. You claim the system doesn't work, but in fact you just illustrated you don't understand how the system is supposed to work.

Ohio Gun Guy
April 6, 2013, 11:43 PM
Are you a legal scholar?

I was lamenting that our system relys on the judicial branch to litigate laws after the fact.... This I think we agree. I also said that there is a way they can directly review law....and there is, and as I alluded to, it is not used. It is original jurisdiction, and it may be applicable to a treaty in so much as a treaty is with another state. I am not a lawyer, but you continue to call those who disagree with you ignorant, not just here but in other posts...

Summary: Yes, the Supreme Court hears cases on review from lower courts. IT DOES have "Original Jurisdiction" in some cases. My whole point was that I dislike that we live with the poor/unconstitutional law until it is challenged. I believe some States - Legislative bodies rely on this to have their dumb ideas enjoy the force of law for YEARS... Washington DC & Chicago.

I have done all of this without alluding to tin foil hats or maligning your intelligence. Further, I have not quoted your post.

I'm done with this conversation with you. Hope things cool off, we'll see you around. OGG

Zoogster
April 6, 2013, 11:51 PM
This treaty clearly encourages registration of all arms.

It should not be ratified.
However it is sad that most of the world will be passing it.


What this means is whenever you invade one of these other nations that has complied well with the law, you should be able to sieze local records of all law abiding gun owners and go round up all legally held weapons, and perhaps hold those that cannot answer for missing ones as suspicious in camps and prisons as potentiel rebels and terrorists.

In fact if it is in a database you could even sort or use software to sort by caliber or type and prioritize those weapons you feel are the biggest threat to your invasion force first.
Or sort by those that own the most legally owned weapons first, to get the most bang for your manpower in prioritizing those weapon caches first! Crush the gun nut civis first!

JRH6856
April 7, 2013, 12:15 AM
Summary: Yes, the Supreme Court hears cases on review from lower courts. IT DOES have "Original Jurisdiction" in some cases.

The point is, even in cases with original jurisdiction, SCOTUS can not act on its own. It must wait for someone with standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29) to petition the court.

"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law."

In the case of a treaty, as in the case of a bill before congress, until it is ratified or passed and signed and actually has force of law, it can't harm anyone so no one has standing.

joeschmoe
April 7, 2013, 12:48 AM
Are you a legal scholar?

I was lamenting that our system relys on the judicial branch to litigate laws after the fact.... This I think we agree. I also said that there is a way they can directly review law....and there is, and as I alluded to, it is not used. It is original jurisdiction, and it may be applicable to a treaty in so much as a treaty is with another state. I am not a lawyer, but you continue to call those who disagree with you ignorant, not just here but in other posts...

Summary: Yes, the Supreme Court hears cases on review from lower courts. IT DOES have "Original Jurisdiction" in some cases. My whole point was that I dislike that we live with the poor/unconstitutional law until it is challenged. I believe some States - Legislative bodies rely on this to have their dumb ideas enjoy the force of law for YEARS... Washington DC & Chicago.

I have done all of this without alluding to tin foil hats or maligning your intelligence. Further, I have not quoted your post.

I'm done with this conversation with you. Hope things cool off, we'll see you around. OGG
I did not comment on your intelligence but on your mistaken claims about the Constitution. Even very intelligent people can be wrong.

SCOTUS cannot rule on a law without a case; where someone has standing to bring a case. Please cite some example where this has happened.

If you enjoyed reading about "Arms Trade Treaty" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!