What's so bad about the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)

[v35]

Please help me formulate a few counterpoints for those who might not appreciate today's announcement of US intent to withdraw from the ATT.

From a cursory reading, the ATT seems to imply that signatory nations would be required to (among other things) "designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms ..."

On its face the ATT appears to seek implementing controls or restrictions on international trade, but the above seems to imply extending its authority to within a state. Such a "control system" seems limitless to me and would easily imply establishing a national database. Am I wrong?

A "a national control list" is mentioned too, and also potentially limitless in its scope. By the way that list would be available worldwide.

By the way its definition of "arms" is also very broad. At first it discusses things like armored tanks, ships, and attack aircraft, but "small arms and light weapons" are included by definition. Conceivably that could include pellet guns or whatever else might be considered a weapon. Surely that would include knives. Are baseball bats next?

Before you dismiss that question as absurd rhetoric, bear in mind that couldn't even bring a twelve ounce can of shave cream on an airplane the other day because it might be considered a weapon.

Also, a separate paragraph includes gun parts and ammunition in its scope. Conceivably "ammunition" could include reloading components, no? Primers? Bullets? Lead shot from Peru?

I've already made my opinion but I am wondering if I'm reading too much into it, or not enough. It's overly broad, vague, overreaching, and just sounds like a bad idea to me.

How can I convince others it's a bad idea too?

https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/treaty-text.html

 

[BigBore44]

If they are into firearms or self protection at all, should be pretty simple using the information you just used. It’s not by chance that the terms are so broad.

 

[skeeterfogger]

Anything that even remotely implies governance of a country or countries other than that country by a nongoverningbody of that country is globalisation and wholely unacceptable.

 

[<*(((><]

Anything that even remotely implies governance of a country or countries other than that country by a nongoverningbody of that country is globalisation and wholely unacceptable.

About sums up my thoughts on the matter. Sovereignty pass it along...

 

[skeeterfogger]

About sums up my thoughts on the matter. Sovereignty pass it along...

U N needs to be evicted. This, lack of better term, treaty is so broad that it could easily lead to foreign countries voting/dictating our rights. I have no doubt they would even go as far as to attempt to bring in UN forces. That would be a deadly mistake. Some say it's far fetched but it is fact they have sent them other places. That's the buisness of those countries. Here? No way in hell. The UN had their days of use but now they are a sad joke of bums with their hand out with an agenda.

 

[AlexanderA]

On its face the ATT appears to seek implementing controls or restrictions on international trade, but the above seems to imply extending its authority to within a state. Such a "control system" seems limitless to me and would easily imply establishing a national database. Am I wrong?

A treaty can be ratified by the Senate with "reservations." These reservations have the force of law, the same as the treaty itself. As far as I can recall, this UN arms treaty would come with a Senate proviso that nothing in it would contravene the 2nd Amendment, or any U.S. domestic gun laws. Otherwise, it would be a complete non-starter. The U.S. is not about to cede its sovereignty in this way, no matter who is President.

 

[skeeterfogger]

A treaty can be ratified by the Senate with "reservations." These reservations have the force of law, the same as the treaty itself. As far as I can recall, this UN arms treaty would come with a Senate proviso that nothing in it would contravene the 2nd Amendment, or any U.S. domestic gun laws. Otherwise, it would be a complete non-starter. The U.S. is not about to cede its sovereignty in this way, no matter who is President.

With the assclowns up there now are you sure you want to trust them with that?

 

[Craig_AR]

See my post in a separate thread:
What the UN ATT Does
The required national registries of imports and exports "should" include listings of all "end users."
THAT is the dangerous part of the ATT.

 

[BSA1]

It is easy to pass "arms control" treaties when someone else will do all of fighting for you (hint...think W.W.1, W.W.2 and the Cold War) and your country does not have a history of individual right to own firearms.

 

[DoubleMag]

And Congress approval as a whole is WHAT extra low number? Take that number and divide it by 2,381% and THAT is what we as citizens should allow to be given to the UN re: 2A ....anything

 

[Spats McGee]

Maybe I'm being silly, but I have some very serious issues with a treaty that by its very terms would require the US to develop a national gun owner registry, and to provide it to other countries or entities. I haven't read the ATT in a while, but I seem to recall that's what it does.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

It does do that. And as I recall does several other things regarding additional layers of approvals required for importation.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I read an article promoted by Amnesty International on the Arms Trade Treaty that advocated international arms controls imposed on:
_ long range target rifles because they are identical in form and function to military sniper rifles,
_ deerslayer or slug shotguns or police riot guns because they are identical in form and function to military combat shotguns,
_ police utility vehicles (think SWAT vans) that are identical in form and function to military combat cars or scout cars.

I think subjecting target rifles, or slug guns, or police utility vehicles within the US to international regulations like end user certificate controls is a bit much.

Things like inflatable boats with outboard motors are used for military assaults. The Toyota pickup truck (especially with a diesel engine) is highly prized world wide by insurgents and established militaries as a weapons platform or generaul utility vehicle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)

 

[KnightHawk]

It's my feeling that anything the UN wants is to be opposed. I am interested in US sovereignty period. Get rid of the UN and George Soros.

 

[Christopher 761]

The biggest problem with the Treaty is that 98 people from other countries and two appointed gun haters from the US could vote 100-0 that the mere possession of firearms by citizens is a threat under Chapter 7, Article 39, and then the 2nd Amendment would be superseded by the treaty. For example, they could state, "Look at the gun violence in Chicago...." And use that to eliminate all firearm sales to and within the entire US, except to law enforcement or military.

Currently, there are very few countries that allow citizens to have arms for personal defense.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . mere possession of firearms by citizens is a threat under Chapter 7, Article 39, and then the 2nd Amendment would be superseded by the treaty. . . . .

It's been a while since I really looked into the law surrounding treaties, but I don't believe a treaty can supersede the Constitution. Now, that's in theory. In practice, the antigunners would have to show that the 2A doesn't protect X, Y or Z, and then the treaty wouldn't be superseding it . . . . .

 

[Craig_AR]

It's been a while since I really looked into the law surrounding treaties, but I don't believe a treaty can supersede the Constitution. Now, that's in theory. In practice, the antigunners would have to show that the 2A doesn't protect X, Y or Z, and then the treaty wouldn't be superseding it . . . . .

My simple logic, non-lawyer reading of Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution leads me to believe that a ratified treaty holds the same force of law as enacted legislation. That is, laws and treaties can supplement the Constitution, but not change it. Any change to the Constitution must be by use of the Amendment process under Article V.
The implication of Articles V and Vi taken together is that a ratified treaty has the same status as enacted law, which cannot override or modify the Constitution itself.

Article VI, Section 2, is pretty straightforward, defining the Constitution, laws, and treaties together as the supreme Law of the Land:

"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."

That said, I agree with Spats that we could see laws that restrict a right guaranteed by the Constitution in such a way the there are legitimate legal disagreements over whether the restriction is allowable or infringes on the right. Some of the language in the Heller opinion seems to open the door for such laws. We have had, for decades, the National Firearms Act (NFA)that so far has been in the category of Constitutionally acceptable restriction. It seems a similar argument might be made for treaty provisions that similarly restrict without infringing.

 

[Twiki357]

The ATT was created by the UN which is infested with anti-American countries and/or countries that prohibit or severely restrict private firearms ownership. That in itself makes anything the UN does suspicious. And, YES, it can be construed as requiring signatory countries to create a national registration of guns and/or gun owners.


I’m not sure about what Trump is withdrawing from. Obama signed the ATT treaty which is meaningless without approval by the Senate. And the Senate has never approved it. Therefore, it is a meaningless piece of paper. I guess that he is just revoking Obamas signature.

 

[boom boom]

Both Spats and Craig_VA have the right of it. Treaties do not override the Constitution and Congress must pass regular statutes to enforce them on individuals or states. The Treaty obligation directly only affects the government that ratified it because only sovereign states can be official parties to an international treaty (it gets a little weird with NGO's and the like which I remember less about).

Twiki357, the problem with even an unratified US treaty is that international law is set by treaties but customary law can be assumed if there is a critical mass of states that have ratified a treaty. Thus, you can have issues like the U.S. being sued in the World Court for violating customary international law contained in the treaty. Depending on the treaty, some may be enforced by international organizations or by the UN itself which could affect international shipping of such things as parts, empty brass, etc. and negatively affect U.S. firearms companies in their exports.

Also, unratified obligations have often had the U.S. President agree to follow an treaty's terms regardless of Senate ratification which is similar to executive agreements with other countries except it is with multiple countries. That, of course, would only be binding until another President decides to do it or not.

 

[v35]

Anything that even remotely implies governance of a country or countries other than that country by a nongoverningbody of that country is globalisation and wholely unacceptable.

It's my feeling that anything the UN wants is to be opposed. I am interested in US sovereignty period. Get rid of the UN and George Soros.

Those are simple arguments, but it captures the essence of the disagreement I have with those in favor of ATT. The illusion of "one big happy world" under the control of some benevolent omniscient overseer like the UN is a concept that appeals to them. Needless to say I don't harbor those illusions. To me, borders keep nations and their interests separate for a reason. The differences among various US states is enough for me to be willing to reside in certain ones but not others.

Or, perhaps I'm just too simple-minded to understand.

So far I have failed to find an argument that convinces them otherwise. It always devolves into saying the US is responsible for a lot of harm and things don't go well from there.

 

[KnightHawk]

So far I have failed to find an argument that convinces them otherwise. It always devolves into saying the US is responsible for a lot of harm and things don't go well from there.

Anybody that says the US does more harm then good is delusional. The US is not perfect, but, if we are so bad, why does everybody want to come here.
Remember, fences make good neighbors.

 

[boom boom]

Those are simple arguments, but it captures the essence of the disagreement I have with those in favor of ATT. The illusion of "one big happy world" under the control of some benevolent omniscient overseer like the UN is a concept that appeals to them. Needless to say I don't harbor those illusions. To me, borders keep nations and their interests separate for a reason. The differences among various US states is enough for me to be willing to reside in certain ones but not others.

Or, perhaps I'm just too simple-minded to understand.

So far I have failed to find an argument that convinces them otherwise. It always devolves into saying the US is responsible for a lot of harm and things don't go well from there.

No, you are not being simple minded, actual functioning democracies are a minority of those represented at the UN and even fewer have the sort of Bill of Rights that the U.S. does.

 

[bk42261]

A treaty can be ratified by the Senate with "reservations." These reservations have the force of law, the same as the treaty itself. As far as I can recall, this UN arms treaty would come with a Senate proviso that nothing in it would contravene the 2nd Amendment, or any U.S. domestic gun laws. Otherwise, it would be a complete non-starter. The U.S. is not about to cede its sovereignty in this way, no matter who is President.

 

[bk42261]

Maybe ten years ago, but today? Do you seriously not think that the "Left" would not allow the U.N. to implement their agenda? Open your eyes, man.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Maybe ten years ago, but today? Do you seriously not think that the "Left" would not allow the U.N. to implement their agenda? Open your eyes, man.

You can bet your ass, hat, and housecat they would, and have already voiced their opinion as such, much to the delight of probably half of America.

I'm for kicking the UN out of America, emptying the UN building, and turning it into a Trump Tower. Would that ever be a slap across the face of Globalism!