Un arms treaty text

Status
Not open for further replies.
The AP just published a story about the treaty and reactions both for and against. A fairly well-balanced read.

FACT CHECK: Treaty unlikely to curb US gun rights

By TOM RAUM
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Negotiators at the United Nations are working to put final touches on a treaty cracking down on the global, $60 billion business of illicit trading in small arms, a move aimed at curbing violence in some of the most troubled corners of the world. In the United States, gun activists denounce it as an end run around their constitutional right to bear arms.

"Without apology, the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms," National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told the U.N. this month. "Any treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership in its scope will be met with the NRA's greatest force of opposition."

And treaty opponent John Bolton, who was President George W. Bush's ambassador to the U.N., wrote that gun-control advocates "hope to use restrictions on international gun sales to control gun sales at home."

But what both ignore is a well-enshrined legal principle that says no treaty can override the Constitution or U.S. laws.
.
.
.
The [court] also has ruled separately that treaty obligations may not infringe on individual constitutional protections and rights within U.S. borders. This goes back at least to a 1920 ruling that a migratory bird treaty with Canada, which prohibited the hunting or capturing of certain birds, was an unconstitutional interference with states' rights under the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Entire story here: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/fact-check-treaty-unlikely-1485720.html
 
Read and discuss.
Click to expand...

If you aren't willing to, then why should anyone else?

It is yet another treaty. Somebody will proclaim that Obama will agree to it by executive order. Horrors will arise from the fear of the UN overriding 2A rights even with k-frames timely article to the contrary.
 
thanks some really scary stuff in there. But what can be done toavoid it?
 
Okay, there /IS/ a threat to the RKBA here, and it's a pretty big one. BUT:

NO international treaty, UN or otherwise, supercedes the constitution of the USA.

A treaty, even ratified (unlikely in this case), is equal to a federal law. No more, no less. It supercedes STATE (as in, the 50 individual states that we have in our country, not nation-state) constitutions, but not the constitution of the USA.

The main threat here is OTHER nations who sign and ratify the treaty, that export weapons to the US market. For example, if Italy signs the treaty.

Let's say you walk into the gun store to buy a Beretta pistol. The FFL gives you the 4473 to fill out, but then gives you an End User Certificate that he tells you he CAN'T sell you the Beretta if you don't fill out. You see, he received the shipment of Berettas under the condition that all his buyers fill out an End User Certificate, which has to be faxed or emailed back to Italy, to be put into a permanent gun registry. If he refuses to do that, he gets no more Berettas to sell.

How about Austria signing it? Glocks and Steyrs now come with that certificate too.

And so on and so forth...

(edited to add)

Oh and if the FFL does agree to sell you one of these guns without the End User Certificate? Well, if he ever sets foot outside of the USA, he can be picked up and tried as a gun smuggler. You see, just because the US senate won't RATIFY the treaty, doesn't mean the UN doesn't hold you to that standard as a SIGNATORY.

The UN treats this as 'customary law', which basically means silence = consent: Unless the US specifically enacts a federal law STATING that the treaty is null and void, even if not ratified, the UN still considers it enforceable upon US citizens.
 
Last edited:
The Arms treaty is dead until late Fall or perhaps after the Presidential election. 51 Senators wrote a letter to the President.... no chance of ratification any time soon. So Hillary is not signing it as advertised this month.
 
The UN treats this as 'customary law', which basically means silence = consent: Unless the US specifically enacts a federal law STATING that the treaty is null and void, even if not ratified, the UN still considers it enforceable upon US citizens.
Click to expand...

LOL... I'm trying to imagine blue helmets making an amphibious landing at Galveston, to march inland... and failing. Mainly because after getting lost somewhere near Katy, they'll flee back toward their dug-in positions on the beach when some very freindly, but uncouth, smelly men reeking of pulled pork BBQ frighten them with a barbeque fork and tongs.
I dunno, boys... I'm really sweatin' this one!
 
22-rimfire has it right. It collapsed. As soon as the U.S. asked for 'more time to consider' China and Russia (see also: biggest worldwide arms exporters) backed out. Sometimes I think they were waiting to see how this would play out with our current administration/opposition before they acted, giggling up their sleeves the whole time.
 
The UN is just a bad and impotent organization. They have stood and watched and at times participated in mass rapes, genocide, starvation and displacement of millions and somehow they are expected to effectively regulate small arms.
No sanctions have ever been effective under the UN largely because large member states do workarounds right under their noses.
The US pumps money into it at alarming rates and tin pot dictators line their pockets and fund their own repressive regimes with the same money.
The only reason the the admin backed out was the ruckus that pro 2A orgs have risen, if he wins the election you can bet this will be back on the front burner.
 
I got a chuckle out of your post, Texan Scott. Texas would be a particularly bad place for the UN to attempt this.

For those saying this is effectively dead, don't let your guard down just yet. This is a power grab, pure and simple. I don't think we've heard the last of it, unfortunately.
 
And RX-178 has it right - if the rest of the world signs on to this it can create serious disruptions in the legitimate international arms trade that we all benefit from.

Is every gun in your safe marked "Made in the U.S.A."? If not, this will be a threat.

Unless, of course, the reaction is a huge growth in investment in U.S. firearms design and manufacture! Wouldn't that be wonderful!
 
I think that any type of agreement like this is bad for us, as gun enthusiasts, simply because it opens a door. It takes some of our control away, no matter how insignificant an amount at first. We all know things can be changed and amended.
 
hso said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...l-arms-trade/2012/07/27/gJQAkli2EX_story.html

Dead in conference because they couldn't sort out all the disagreements in time.
Click to expand...

"This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line," said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "It's a staggering abdication of leadership by the world's largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough."
Click to expand...

So . . . She would NOT be our friend?

 
I don't know why the Obama administration even entertained discussing the small arms treaty at all. I guess they keep hoping that American public support for 2A rights will decrease and they can implement legislation that they would like to.

Yes, she's our friend. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top