What the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) Does

[Craig_AR]

The first thread on the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) went off track and was closed, but the moderator noted that the original topic is valid for THR discussion. Here is some information on content of the ATT that may help members understand why the US is better off without ratifying the ATT.

Here are the sources for this post:

1. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) ATT site.
2. Arms Control Association: The Arms Trade Treaty At a Glance
3. UNODA: The Arms Trade Treaty text.

The basic purpose of the ATT is to require each participating nations to establish controls and registries to control the import and export of weapons, classified in 8 categories:
(a) Battle tanks;
(b) Armoured combat vehicles;
(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d) Combat aircraft;
(e) Attack helicopters;
(f) Warships;
(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h) Small arms and light weapons.
(Source, Reference 3, Article 2)

For the purposes of THR members, our focus is on category H, Small arms and light weapons (SA.LW). That category covers pretty much all firearms individuals may own and use.
The ITI defines SA/LW as follows:
(a) ‘Small arms’ are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for individual use. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self‐loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub‐machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns;
(b) ‘Light weapons’ are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for use by two or three persons serving as a crew, although some may be carried and used by a single person. They include, inter alia, heavy machine guns, hand‐held under‐barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti‐aircraft guns, portable anti‐tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti‐tank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti‐ aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a calibre of less than 100 millimetres.”
(Source, UNODA ATT Implémentation Toolkit, Page 4, Para 1.2)

One of the requirements is to establish a national registry of imports of all 8 categories. The UNODA ATT implementation Tooolkit provides this guidance for the content of the registry, citing Article 12 (3) of the ATT:
Record‐keeping of imports
The records should include:
1. Quantity; 2. Value; 3. Model/type/serial number; 4. Authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under the scope of the ATT; 5. Conventional arms actually transferred; 6. Details of exporting State(s), transit and trans‐shipment State(s); 7. End‐users.
(Source,s UNODA ATT Implémentation Toolkit, Page 15, Para 2.2 *& ATT 12(3))

The crux of this provision is the push (note "should" in the language) to maintain a national registry of all end y users of imported firearms. A similar requirement falls in the sections on export controls. If both the exporting and importing nations choose to include end users in their registries, the result would be a database with each purchaser of an imported Glock Taurus, or pick your own favorite firearm manufactured in another country.

THIS is why the UN ATT must not become part of U.S. law, The Anti's would leap on that provision to create the national registries that we all abhor.

 

[murf]

glad we are out!

murf

 

[LRDGCO]

Ratification of a treaty does not alter US law and a treaty cannot override the Constitution. Dicky Morris and the tinfoil hat brigade got their panties all in a twist over this treaty. The treaty has NO impact on US law and would have zero impact on THR members.

The threat, and the reason that we should appreciate the President withdrawing US assent to the treaty, is that once ratified, a future Democrat controlled Senate would only need a few weak sisters of the Susan Collins variety in the GOP to roll-over on implementing legislation that could further infringe on our Second Amendment rights, using treaty compliance as an excuse.

Ratification of the treaty itself, not a current threat, would have no direct impact whatsoever. This move by the President is prophylactic but, based on what we see in the House, should be welcomed nonetheless.

 

[Craig_AR]

Ratification of a treaty does not alter US law and a treaty cannot override the Constitution....

The threat, and the reason that we should appreciate the President withdrawing US assent to the treaty, is that once ratified, a future Democrat controlled Senate would only need a few weak sisters of the Susan Collins variety in the GOP to roll-over on implementing legislation that could further infringe on our Second Amendment rights, using treaty compliance as an excuse.

Ratification of the treaty itself, not a current threat, would have no direct impact whatsoever. This move by the President is prophylactic but, based on what we see in the House, should be welcomed nonetheless.

Actually, a ratified treaty does have the full power of a law. See Article VI, Section 2, of the Constitution:
"2: 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
LRDGCO is correct, however, that a ratified treaty cannot alter the Constitution itself; that requires the full amendment process. A treaty may, however, result in changes to previously enacted laws.

Some treaties do have provisions that have the full effect of enacted laws once ratified. In the case of the UNATT the situation is a bit different. Signator nations to the ATT are required to establish laws and procedures to carry out the provisions of the treaty. Thus, LRDGCO is also correction saying that the danger of the ATT to us is that a future gun-control oriented Congress and Administration could well set up the national registry to include recording all end users of the imported guns.

 

[LRDGCO]

You are incorrect. Treaty ratification neither changes, nor creates US law. Any changes or new laws required by a treaty must be passed by Congress in the normal fashion through implementing legislation. Ratification binds the country to a treaty but it neither changes nor creates new law.

And ratification of a treaty does not and cannot annul any part of the Constitution.

This announcement by the President is 90% political theatre. There was no risk of ratification by the current Senate and ratification would have no impact on the gun rights of U.S. citizens. The 10% material impact of the announcement, as I explained, was prophylactic. It diminishes the ability of a future Senate to use implementing legislation to comply with the treaty as an excuse.

 

[KNO3]

Thanks for you synopsis. Having read many articles/opinions on how this was a "back door" attempt to destroy our RTBA, nothing I read leads me to believe this was a threat to our 2A, . I'm so sick and tired of the politics of fear, it's one of the main reasons I not a member of the NRA.