Quantcast

Let's be realistic. Small Arms Treaty, and getting foreign handguns here.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Orion8472, May 30, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Orion8472

    Orion8472 Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,020
    What would be the result of the Small Arms Treaty, here in this country, if it is ratified? Would that mean you couldn't get guns from other countries any longer?

    What if it isn't ratified here, but is abided by another country [that had exported to the US], thus not being able for us to get them here?
     
  2. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Well, it would all depend on the actual language of whatever treaty was passed, and how it was interpreted by the ratifying countries. I don't believe anything in the treaty actually spoke at all to sale of commercially produced handguns to lawful civilian owners.

    There is an issue regarding end user certificates, and whether that becomes some form of registration with some entity (foreign or domestic), but again, that would have to be ratified, interpreted, and applied in just that way to be a concern. And it is astoundingly unlikely that we would indeed even ratify it.

    Actually, it seems pretty darned unlikely that anyone of consequence will.
     
  3. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,655
    Location:
    NC
    My concern is that even though our Senate will not pass it for it to be law here, that other countries that did sign it will abide by it (whatever "it" is). My question is, if a country we presently import from signs the treaty and it becomes law in that country, will they be unable to export arms to the U.S.? (e.g. CZ, Caracal, Austria, S.A., etc). Also, does it prohibit the sale of small arms ammo? I know it's all guessing now but the intent of the "treaty" is to disarm all the citizens of the world. I seriously doubt it will ever pass here but we import boatloads of small arms and ammo.
     
  4. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    A) I don't believe there is now or will be a Pinko Weenie 2/3 majority in the Senate. This treaty will not be ratified.
    B) If it were ratified and used for domestic 2A restrictions, I would expect the legal challenge to be immediate, vehement, robust, and successful. No treaty ratified by Congress can override the Bill of Rights. This is a fairly settled point of law, I believe.
    C) If the treaty were ratified and used to end all import of firearms and ammunition from foreign countries, it would in effect give an absolute protectionist monopoly to American gun & ammo manufacturers, for whom the continuance of an unfettered civilian market is a matter of existential importance. The amount of money poured out of our pockets into the PACs of pro-2A politicians via gun companies would be EPIC. Any anti-2A political hack with half a brain will rightly view it as political suicide.

    I expect nothing will come of this ... but of it does, I say BRING IT ON.
     
  5. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    IMO: Whatever the fine print says.

    It will not be good for the shooting sports in the USA.

    rc
     
  6. 1SOW

    1SOW Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    4,108
    Location:
    South Texas
    The fact that an "International body" could put any restrictions on ammo, firearms, magazines or whatever that the USA is expected to adhere to, is a step toward losing our indepence and all constitutional rights.
     
  7. mrvco

    mrvco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    697
    Location:
    Colorado
    i.e. basically losing our sovereignty ala the EU's subject countries.
     
  8. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,655
    Location:
    NC
    The fact that B.O. and Hillary would even consider signing this treaty is mind-boggling. How can educated people, in high power, not understand the cornerstones of our nation? We are the greatest nation in the world for a reason and these 2 wish to throw it all away. For what? Their egos? What other possible reason can there be? They wish to be like EU? How many times have we saved them with our lives and money? Who would save us, China?
     
  9. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    793
    Yes.
     
  10. jim243

    jim243 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    I would think it's all about money! An American handgun overseas sells for a lot more than just the MSRP plus import taxes. The only decent one's they have are FNH, Beretta, CZ and Steoger. Everything else is made outside the EU.

    Or so I think
    Jim
     
  11. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,973
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    Sam1911: Some of you guys made me feel better about this threat.
    I had wondered for a while about the protectionist angle, as Texan Scott described quite well.
    Maybe this is one of the long-term reasons why either Walther or Sig-Sauer produce handguns under license in the US.

    In the last few years when it dried up, the idea of stockpiles of Brit .303 (not POF), NATO 7.62 existing in other countries but inaccessible to us has been enticing, or maybe what academics call tantalizing. Apparently, at least the Swiss still have huge amounts of 7.5 GP-11. Fairly recently, an Italian guy on either "Gunboards" or "Surplusrifle" heard this from a Swiss friend.

    The UN and Brit/Euro Arms Control groups have paid numerous countries to destroy much of it(?), and not just the guns, dating back to obsolescent WW2 bolt-actions:(.
    The UN Arms Control website has a long pdf description about how to destroy ammo stockpiles. Sure, some of it is grenades, mines, mortars, cannon rounds etc, but not all of it.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2013
  12. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Again, I don't see that it would. The treaty doesn't make exporting firearms illegal.

    Again, no. It isn't a "NO GUNS" treaty. It is aimed at increasing accountability so various nations might be limited in their under-the-table trafficking in arms to groups like the LRA, guerrillas of various flavors, terrorist groups, etc. It doesn't really do much to harm legitimate, above-board sales of firearms or ammunition to lawful owners/users. That I've seen, anyway.

    The issues I do see are the need for end-user certificates being both a hassle for civilian sales, and also potentially being a registration of sales to US citizens, but I've not the proposed treaty in full, or in a few months.

    It is? I mean, you could read that into it, of course, but it doesn't necessarily do that.
     
  13. Davek1977

    Davek1977 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,570
    I'm of course not in favor of the treaty, but I share Sam's feelings on the issue. There's a lot of "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!" going on in regards to this. Realistically, as I understand it, most of us would be wholly unaware if the treaty passed, as far as real world impact on US gun owners. But, don't tell that to many of my friends and acquaintances. Some, for whatever reason, think the day or month after the treaty is ratified, UN troops will be knocking on their doors asking about guns. WHY people believe this, I have no clue. I guess some people aren't concerned with facts, and would much rather stress themselves out worrying about things that aren't likely to ever occur.
     
  14. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Like you, I oppose the treaty. My concerns though are small-scale issues like what if it does cause additional bureaucracy, and so extra cost, in getting the (already dwindling, of course) piles of surplus guns and ammo from eastern Europe, Russia, etc. into the US? Or for some reason of the treaty's verbiage, actually stop former military items from being sold to citizens here? That would suck. Wouldn't cause any catastrophic damage to US gun ownership, of course, but I like surplus stuff and cheap ammo and losing those resources would be a shame.

    But the blue helmets aren't coming, and a UN treaty doesn't supersede the US Constitution.
     
  15. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    The U.S. is one of the last places on the planet where private ownership of firearms is still common and, by comparison to many places, relatively free of restriction. (Oh yes, we deal with infringements, but that's another thread.)

    Our current administration does not appreciate this and similar "freedom" differences between the U.S. and the rest of the world, and wants to close the gap. Most of the US Senate will toe his line because the Senators fear media admonishment if they oppose him.

    The details of the UN small arms treaty don't matter very much; our rulers will apply it broadly and to their advantage no matter what it actually says, all the while telling us via their mass media collaborators that it's good for America. They'll assert that a person or group expressing opposition to the treaty could only do so by at the same time supporting gunfights in our streets and lots more SH-style mass killings of children.

    So don't bother learning the treaty's details. The anti gunners won't, nor will they stand for the actual words of the treaty to interfere with their using it to push their agenda.
     
  16. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    I'll agree that some in the government would certainly like to use it that way. But it seems almost vanishingly unlikely that they'll ever get the chance to do more that point to it as something they wish we'd signed, and wish we'd ratified, and wish they could enforce.
     
  17. TarDevil

    TarDevil Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,655
    Location:
    NC Coast
    ^^This
     
  18. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    793
    Pretty much it. And the current administrtion is no friend to that, so they wouldn't care about that. I'm actually watching BBC world news right now, and they have a 'special' about OUR 'gun problem' in the U.S. It sickens me. That's all we need, other countries trying to help us.
     
  19. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Hmmm, I'm vaguely curious what they think our "gun problem" is? I'd imagine it's an expose on the ammo shortage that's got so many people worked up...
     
  20. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    793
    No, it was actually a tiny hit piece on gun violence in LA. Just enough to keep the anti fires stoked all over the place. It's like a war of attrition. It never stops, so neither can we.
     
  21. Highland Ranger

    Highland Ranger Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2003
    Messages:
    2,299
    Location:
    New Jersey Highlands
    When you look at how ineffective the UN is, hard to get concerned about this.

    Good for NRA fundraising though . . . .
     
  22. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    793
    True, I would hate to see an efficient UN. That would be real trouble.
     
  23. CZguy

    CZguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,976
    Location:
    Missouri
    I think that we're pretty safe there.
     
  24. Piratesailor

    Piratesailor Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    Houston
    I wouldn't count on it...
     
  25. CatManDo

    CatManDo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2012
    Messages:
    158
    Location:
    SE KS
    Well, it would all depend on the actual language of whatever treaty was passed, and how it was interpreted by the ratifying countries. I don't believe anything in the treaty actually spoke at all to sale of commercially produced handguns to lawful civilian owners.

    There is an issue regarding end user certificates, and whether that becomes some form of registration with some entity (foreign or domestic), but again, that would have to be ratified, interpreted, and applied in just that way to be a concern. And it is astoundingly unlikely that we would indeed even ratify it.

    Actually, it seems pretty darned unlikely that anyone of consequence will.
    __________________
    -- Sam

    That's what they said about ObummerCare....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice