Arms Trade Treaty

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DSling

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
98
This is where my research started.
Wiki Arms Trade Treaty
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
So out of all the countries in attendance who has the power to veto?

Justifying my means with their end.
 
DSling said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
DSling said:
What it's required for the general assembly to approve it?
Click to expand...

Good question.

By a majority vote, the General Assembly 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.
 
UN adopts treaty to regulate global arms trade

.

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




http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...reaty-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.
.
Click to expand...
.
 
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.
 
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.”
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
kwguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Other than being extremely corrupt, cowardly, and ineffective, I really cannot think of much that they bring to the table, particularly ours.
 
kwguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Well, hell.

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

Damnit.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
US May Now Support the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (long)
Replies
1
Views
364
rbernie
rbernie
C
  • Locked
U.N. OKs Weapons Trade Treaty Resolution
Replies
7
Views
558
migoi
M
S
  • Locked
Senate letter to Potus against UN treaty
Replies
10
Views
1K
Yo Mama
Yo Mama
D
  • Locked
U.N. members, gun lobby face arms fight
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
the pistolero
T
J
  • Locked
Anti's are at it again
Replies
0
Views
324
John-Melb
J
Back
Top