ArcherandShooter
Member
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/13/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-and-the-second-amendment/
This is a well thought-out commentary that is worth the time to read and think about. Typically for Heritage, there is no trace of sky-is-falling, but the threats that are honest-to-God things to worry about and take action to prevent are discussed.
To summarize the four key threats they see:
1. Transfer requirements - there are rules governing "international transfers", but the actual definition of these does not mention the word "international", raising the question, "will ALL transfers be covered?"
2. International business - most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and supply chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market or foreign firms to not sell in the U.S. This would have the obvious effect of making guns harder to buy because the supply would be tightened.
3. Ongoing "review" - the rules are not ALL written or final, even once the treaty is adopted. Just as the U.S. congress has done for years (see Dodd-Frank and the ACA), the petty details will be tweaked and expanded by rule-making and interpretation over a long time. We all know who dwells in the details.
4. Constitutional interpretation - the existence of the ATT will be a tool that certain judges in the U.S. will be all too willing to use as a standard to be considered in deciding "what the second amendment MEANS in today's world".
One more interesting point, especially in light of item #2, is that Heritage presents this as a reason for us NOT to quit the U.N., because that body is going to do crazy stuff with us or without us, and will effect our lives whether the U.S. is a member state or not. Therefore, they say, we should stay in and fight that crazy stuff before it is allowed to happen. My take on that is that I'm not sure we'd ever succeed given the rampant insanity of Turtle Bay, but also that that approach is only as strong and effective as the willingness of any U.S. administration to actually fight that fight. If we have any more years like the last few, that fighting won't happen and then what is the point?
Anyway, a thoughtful and though-provoking article that I thought I'd share with y'all.
This is a well thought-out commentary that is worth the time to read and think about. Typically for Heritage, there is no trace of sky-is-falling, but the threats that are honest-to-God things to worry about and take action to prevent are discussed.
To summarize the four key threats they see:
1. Transfer requirements - there are rules governing "international transfers", but the actual definition of these does not mention the word "international", raising the question, "will ALL transfers be covered?"
2. International business - most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and supply chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market or foreign firms to not sell in the U.S. This would have the obvious effect of making guns harder to buy because the supply would be tightened.
3. Ongoing "review" - the rules are not ALL written or final, even once the treaty is adopted. Just as the U.S. congress has done for years (see Dodd-Frank and the ACA), the petty details will be tweaked and expanded by rule-making and interpretation over a long time. We all know who dwells in the details.
4. Constitutional interpretation - the existence of the ATT will be a tool that certain judges in the U.S. will be all too willing to use as a standard to be considered in deciding "what the second amendment MEANS in today's world".
One more interesting point, especially in light of item #2, is that Heritage presents this as a reason for us NOT to quit the U.N., because that body is going to do crazy stuff with us or without us, and will effect our lives whether the U.S. is a member state or not. Therefore, they say, we should stay in and fight that crazy stuff before it is allowed to happen. My take on that is that I'm not sure we'd ever succeed given the rampant insanity of Turtle Bay, but also that that approach is only as strong and effective as the willingness of any U.S. administration to actually fight that fight. If we have any more years like the last few, that fighting won't happen and then what is the point?
Anyway, a thoughtful and though-provoking article that I thought I'd share with y'all.
