Arms Trade Treaty

joeschmoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

What happens if Reid doesn't ever bring the treaty to the Senate floor for a vote?

DSling said:

Is that legal to do? Just avoid the Senate

Justifying my means with their end.

Click to expand...

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;

Click to expand...

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.

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.

The current administration doesnt seem to care about the Constitution and any constraint on what it wants to do.

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!

The current administration doesnt seem to care about the Constitution and any constraint on what it wants to do.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

gc70 said:

And why would the US favor the treaty?

Click to expand...

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.

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

Is there anyway it could become law w/ out congressional approval? I'm sure they will try any way possible.

Click to expand...

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

What does the U.N. small arms treaty really mean for private gun ownership?

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.

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.

What exactly does it mean for us private gun owners?

Click to expand...

[Merged, as question is under discussion in this thread.]

Post 33 and others.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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:

Click to expand...

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

Mr. joeschmoe, sorry, but

La La Land.

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.)