My Response to the UN Arms Treaty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hondo 60

Hondo 60

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
6,533
Location
Freeport, IL
Today I rec'd a packet from the NRA about the UN Arms Treaty.
There were 2 post cards in the envelope.
One for each of my Senators.
I decided they didn't quite reflect the outrage I felt, so I wrote my own response to them.


Dear Senator,
In 1978, when I joined the military, I took an oath to defend the Constitution (and it's Amendments) "against ALL enemies foreign & domestic". You also took an oath that included that same statement.

I hereby request that you vote no to the UN Arms Treaty as it would cause an Amendment to our Constitution to be null & void.

I personally would view a "no" vote as merely living up to that oath. Conversely, a "Yea" vote would be construed as an act of treason. I would therefore be required, by my oath, to pursue impeachment proceedings.

I do NOT wish to seem unreasonable, but this issue is so anti-American, that no other stand can even be considered. I sincerely hope you agree.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey


"Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom".


I beg of you to contact your senators as well.
 
Last edited:
Conversely, a "Yea" vote would be construed as an act of treason. I would therefore be required, by my oath, to pursue impeachment proceedings.
Click to expand...

With that last you caused them to disregard your letter as coming from a crank. You as an individual can't do anything about impeachment. The legislative branch impeaches elected officials. Citizens do not. Threatening anything other than working for or against the election of an elected official has no power behind it.

The UN Small Arms Control treaty can't affect the U.S. Constitution. We've had several threads on it here in Activism and in Legal explaining what it can and, more importantly, can not do. The current watered down version that was ratified by the UN amounts to tracking and "tattling" on countries that engage in illegal arms trade. It would impact exporters who sell to outlaw or rebel organizations and not to us. It would have no impact within the U.S. It is all bark and no bite (and a mighty weak bark at that).
 
Not to mention, "treason" is very narrowly defined in the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Click to expand...
 
The NRA has been running "UN Arms Treaty" up the flagpole since the 1980s, that I remember.

I've taken the time to look some of them up. At any given time there are usually several proposals. The ones mentioning small arms are usually about end-user certification of exports; i.e., not sending shiploads of guns to both sides in civil wars, etc. The rest is usually about bombs, aircraft, and heavy weapons.

Let's see... this looks like a likely URL: http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410 12-01 PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21

The .pdf doesn't seem to contain text, just page images. The part you're probably interested in begins on page 22. It's another export control treaty, The United States already has *much* more severe controls and restrictions in place than the treaty calls for. Look up "ITAR".

If this treaty is signed and ratified, nothing would change.

Do you have a URL for a different treaty that the NRA might be warning us about?
 
bdickens said:
Not to mention, "treason" is very narrowly defined in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source on that?


Also HSO, technically Americans can start a citizens initiative and force a recall election like is happening in CO, not the same as impeachment but not far off. :D
 
"end-user certification of exports" of exports is already in place under ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations).

That limitation is not where international arms control activists like IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms) have tried to take UN arms restrictions.

IANSA "campaigned for a complete ban on civilian gun sales in Brazil."

IANSA lobbied against the repeal of Canada's national registry of rifles and shotguns.

In a debate at Kings College London on UN small arms limitations, IANSA spokesperson Rebecca Peters argued for restricting American gun owners to single shot firearms.
 
Carl,

IANSA isn't the UN and the current treaty under discussion isn't what IANSA wanted. Why is IANSA relevant to a discussion of what is in the current U.N. small arms treaty and NRA's campaign focusing on it (and our actions with respect to our elected officials)?

It is important for us to understand what the actual issues are in both general (IANSA and other groups wanting to remove firearms ownership from everyone) and the specific pressure point being applied, but the specific point is what this is about.
 
I'll agree the opening post may have gone overboard. But I will not pretend that groups like IANSA and AI (registered as NGOs non-government organizations to lobby the UN) have not been lobbying the UN to push their arms control agenda. (As a member since 1991, I agree with some of AIs positions but not all.) IANSA lobbied UN to extend SALT to privately owned guns; AI lobbied UN to extend ATT to "dual use" weapons.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/hopes-raised-strong-arms-trade-treaty-2012-07-27
Amnesty International
Hopes raised for strong Arms Trade Treaty
Slide show: "Can you spot any real difference?"

In promoting the current Arms Trade Treaty, Amnesty International pointed out that there is no "real difference" between an armored vehicle for police use, and a military armored vehicle (just a paint job*); or between a civilian long-range target rifle, and a military/police sniper rifle; or between a civilian deerslayer slug gun, and the military/police riot control/combat shotgun; therefore, they all had to be treated the same.

By my knowledge on restricted or controlled military weapons, international import/export controls (end user certificates) are pointless without national internal controls. Starting in 1945, machine guns certified as deactivated war trophies taken by war veterans could be kept. During the 1955-1958 DEWAT program, machineguns could be commercially imported into the US, be certified as Deactivated War Trophies, sold commercially as non-guns and drop off the paper trail. Those DEWATS were not personal war trophies. CIA set up dummy companies, imported machineguns, certified them as DEWATs, then covertly exported them to groups supported by CIA. That was stopped and DEWATs since 1958 have been subject to NFA registration. (Revenue Procedure 58-8 http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/rp_588.txt ) There was an amnesty with the 1968 Gun Control Act to allow unregistered DEWATs to be entered on the NFA registry. What killed the DEWAT program was that military weapons were re-entering international trade without the customary end-user certficate because there was no registration.

Now maybe the NGOs' points of view will not be imposed via the UN small arms and light weapons SALT or arms trade treaty ATT, and deer slug shot guns and long range target rifles won't require internal controls like DEWATs to prevent them from entering international trade as restricted military weapons. But they lobbied for it and I am going to keep tabs on it. I don't want to wake up and find I have to get NFA registration on my pump shotgun or long range rifle.

___________________________
*(There is a local group of armored vehicle enthusiasts "Tired Iron" who showed up at Fun Fest and the airshows with exhibits of military vehicles in military paint schemes. The airshow also included privately owned aircraft including P-51 Mustang and Mig-15.)
 
OK, so I may not have worded it perfectly.

None the less, my view has been sent to my Senators, and I ask everyone to contact your senators as well.
 
The basis for it is incorrect so exactly what are we supposed to contact our Senators about?
 
We seem to be going in a circle. There's nothing in the current treaty that affects us in spite of what the NRA is putting out so why ask politicians to do anything about it one way or the other? Just because the NRA says it is a threat? That's not what we've seen in dissecting the actual document.

Perhaps it would be better to insist they be vigilant for creep in the treaties since we're aware that organizations like the IANSA are trying to use the UN to remove private firearms ownership.
 
Last edited:
I'm a reluctant NRA member and BS like this is why. Anyone that actually looks at the treaty will see nothing remotely threatening to American citizen's rights. It's just a smoke screen, a bogey man the NRA trots out to pump up the base when they want money.

If you disagree I invite you to investigate the proposed treaty for yourself. And no, that doesn't mean ask the NRA about it. I'm talking about actual facts.
 
It's hard for me to ignore what supporters (like Amnesty International) have said in support of it. I would ask my senator or congressman to be be careful, not kill it outright. Keeping "a warlord from arming child soldiers to kill and die for his benefit" by controlling arms trade is noble. Just watch what you actually sign on to.
 
Ryanxia said:
Do you have a source on that?


Also HSO, technically Americans can start a citizens initiative and force a recall election like is happening in CO, not the same as impeachment but not far off. :D
Click to expand...
Do I have a source on that?

Really?

Are you serious?
 
I agree that the treaty may be nothing but why in the world is the NRA wasting time and resources fighting it and petitioning against it when there is nothing to it? In my email today I didn't get any request for money. All that was in the email was a request for me to sign a petition against it. So, either they are just wasting their time because they are bored or they must know something we don't or it is simply about wanting more money without asking for it LOL. And this is why I am on the fence about the NRA.
 
Or they're taking the "toe in the door" attitude and opposing anything that might some day give an opening or inspiration for some other restriction.
 
My basic and I do mean basic understanding is that the UN Arms Treaty will not effect us citizens but that it will generate a noticable increase in burocracy for manufacturers that export ammo and arms.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
 
Our congressman and representatives already sign things without reading them(Obamacare). So the UN et al gets the Congress used to signing their treaty til they slip in the part about the US relinquishing all private arms. For those of you fence sitting about the NRA shame on you JOIN. Who else is known by the media and politicians and feared? It is a shame that less than 5% of gun owners are members of any organization supporting the 2 A.
ll
 
Phaedrus/69 said:
Anyone that actually looks at the treaty will see nothing remotely threatening to American citizen's rights. It's just a smoke screen, a bogey man ....
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Many of the countries that would be bound by export restrictions are currently countries from which we receive firearms related products, such as ammunition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top