Shooting Sports News

U.S. Firearms Community Raises Concerns about International Arms Trade Treaty

800px-United_Nations_HQ

As of Tuesday, final deliberations have begun on the fate of the world’s first global and legally binding treaty to regulate the international conventional arms trade, and it has some firearms enthusiasts and advocacy groups in the United States raising alarms.

The United Nations (U.N.) has been working on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) since 2006, and after positive feedback from member states’ governments, including that of the United States, the group is looking to pass the measure following a four-week diplomatic conference to discuss the matter in New York from July 2-27.

The treaty is ostensibly designed to prevent the top-down trickle (and oftentimes outright trade) of small and heavy arms from U.N. member states to dictators, terrorists, and other human rights violators throughout the world. As Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon stated in the opening of the conference:

Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence. It is ambitious, but it is achievable.

Or, in the legal terms laid out by the latest report by the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty:

This Treaty will seek to:

1.  Promote the goals and objectives of the United Nations Charter;
2.  Establish the highest possible common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms;
3.  Prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit transfer, illicit production and illicit brokering of conventional arms and their diversion into the illicit market, including for use in transnational organized crime and terrorism;
4.  Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability by preventing international transfers of conventional arms that contribute to or facilitate: human suffering, serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, violations of United Nations Security Council sanctions and arms embargoes and other international obligations, armed conflict, the displacement of people, transnational organized crime, and terrorist acts, and thereby undermine peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable social and economic development;
5.  Promote transparency and accountability in import, export, and transfers of conventional arms;
6.  Be universal in its application.

The scope of arms covered by the treaty will include tanks, military helicopters and other aircraft, missiles, and small arms (such as rifles, handguns, shotguns, etc. of all calibers and types), among others.

The treaty is drawing a massive amount of flak from concerned citizens and shooting sports advocacy organizations in the United States, primarily because the existence of such international influence on firearms raises fears of outside interests restricting the United States’ firearm ownership rights. President Bush’s administration voted against even beginning the process to draft an arms trade treaty in 2006, stating that national controls were more effective. Last week a group of 130 senators sent a letter to President Obama (who overturned the Bush decision) stating that the ATT was “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Steve Sanetti on ATT negotiations:

The National Rifle Assocation’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has also brought up what is now a rallying point for many opponents of the treaty, a U.N. pre-conference position paper titled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the U.N.” Language in the paper reportedly reads:

United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been…misused by lawful owners, and …arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.

How, ask many, is that going to be implemented without quashing U.S. Second Amendment rights?

The answer, according to some sources, is that it won’t be implemented at all. The document quoted above was a “position” paper, not in any way part of the treaty or legally binding, but more of a presentation of numerous ideas from member states as to what sort of final agreements and language should comprise the treaty. On top of that, it’s extraordinarily difficult to find a copy of this document, and the quote that is being so widely presented uses a remarkable number of ellipses, which, when combined with the fact that readers are viewing this quote in a “void” (i.e. without the context of the rest of the paper), means that it would be very easy to misconstrue its original intended meaning.

That doesn’t, however, necessarily entail that the meaning of the quote actually has been skewed, as according to NRA-ILA, gun control advocates worldwide have been trying to exert their influence on the ATT for years:

For many years, international anti-gun groups have attempted to make the ATT a vehicle for numerous gun-control schemes.  Among other things, proposals have been made for the treaty to impose stringent registration requirements, gun bans, and the tracking of ammunition, along with mandating new permits for traveling international hunters and sport shooters, and the creation of a U.N. gun control bureaucracy.

Simultaneously, proponents of the treaty in the U.S. and abroad are quick to say that the current and final draft of the treaty will have no effect on domestic, civilian small arms trade. According to the current U.S. administration, “There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.” The draft treaty itself contains pointed language to this end in its Preamble: “6. Recognizing further the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership,” and according to the U.N. website on the ATT:

The ATT will not:

  • Interfere with the domestic arms trade and the way a country regulates civilian possession
  • Ban, or prohibit the export of, any type of weapons
  • Impair States’ legitimate right to self-defence
  • Lower arms regulation standards in countries where these are already at a high level.

The joint statement released by the People’s Republic of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States last year also suggests support from these nations will only come about if domestic firearms laws are left alone:

Our countries agree that our document is not a disarmament treaty nor should it affect the legitimate arms trade or a state’s legitimate right to self-defence. The decision to transfer arms is an exercise in national sovereignty, and any instrument in this field must keep this principle at its core.

The treaty is also claimed to be unlikely to have a large impact on First World nations with adequate rule of law, as Sweden noted in their opinion of the draft treaty’s wording:

It is important to note that these criteria commonly occur in the already well-established control systems of major exporting countries. Their inclusion in an arms trade treaty is therefore not expected to have much overall impact on current legal trade.

Regardless, rhetoric from both sides of the aisle has been intense, and the NRA and other groups are making their presence known at the conference in New York and have been lobbying Senators (the only U.S. government body with the power to ratify a treaty, requiring a 2/3 majority vote) to drop support for the ATT. The question, of course, is will the ATT, which is expected to be approved by the U.N. with little challenge, have a major effect on the U.S.? The NRA-ILA Executive Vide President Wayne LaPierre claims that yes, it will:

The U.N. hides its intentions behind impenetrable labyrinths of bureaucracy, paperwork, regulations and elite-speak. They soften their schemes through slow, mind-numbing processes, committees and concessions. Behind every program is a buffet of government encroachment tools: tracking, tracing, restriction, regulation, surveillance, microstamping and more. But that’s just the start. If we give even an inch to the U.N.’s one-world gun-banners, an unimpeachable global bureaucracy will spring up to enforce every new rule, and we’ll never regain our lost freedoms.

Or, is it really just as simple as an attempt curtail blatant abuses of the arms trade? As the joint statement from China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S. in 2011 put it:

An effective [treaty] would help curb the illicit trade in conventional weapons that is undermining security and prosperity. All states share responsibilities to ensure that weapons transferred are not diverted for illicit purposes or illicit activities.

It’s up to every concerned citizen and gun enthusiast alike to reach their own conclusions. For those interested in reading more on the issue, see the following documents and statements linked below:

  • The most recent report from the U.N. Preparatory Committee (containing language from the draft treaty) can be found here.
  • The most recent compilation of individual nations’ views on the ATT can be found here.
  • The joint statement from China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S. from 2011 can be found here.
  • Wayne LaPierre’s Statement can be found here.
  • All other U.N. documents related to the ATT can be found at http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/documents/.

Image from public domain

Any views or opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect those of OutdoorHub. Comments on this article reflect the sole opinions of their writers.
  • Scornful Law

    This is likely the most inane legal argument I have ever read, and it is the stuff of a conspiracy theorist’s wildest dreams. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all other laws — even treaties — are subordinate to it.

    The US Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment is an incorporated personal right in the Heller and McDonald decisions, and as such, the federal and state governments may only regulate firearms ownership, not prohibit it. Now, while you may not be able to own certain specialty weapons, such as destructive devices, without a license, all commonly-used firearms are freely owned and deviseable. Certainly, you cannot carry them in a manner prohibited by law, but the state cannot forbid their possession, ownership, or sale. This is established law, and no treaty can undermine it.

    This article is disingenuous in its scare tactics.

    • what

      What now? This article sure is a bit long and maybe overly wordy, but I’d say it does a pretty alright job of presenting both sides of the “issue” (if you would call it that) as it is, without reverting to scare tactics.

      • Scornful Law

        The article makes basic assumptions about the law that are manifestly incorrect and feeds into fears of gun-grabbing that do not and cannot exist under the US Constitution. What it is positing is a possible outcome in an alternate universe where our Constitution either doesn’t exist or can be subsumed by a treaty. It does no more than excite the unsophisticated an uninformed who believe the government is somehow engaged in a vast, international conspiracy to undermine their firearms rights. Had the author at least mentioned the law regarding gun ownership in the US, that may be one thing, but here, we have quite another. A reader who doesn’t understand the Supremacy Doctrine might well think, “Oh my God, now NATO is coming for my guns!”

        That is not and cannot be the case. The treaty serves to regulate international weapons sales by arms dealers and governments. Additionally, although the President can enter into such treaties, the Senate must ratify them. Only executive agreements need not have Senate approval.

        This article is much-ado about nothing to the individual gun owner and those who do not sell firearms to foreign countries and armies. I’ll proffer that Joe Sixpack and his AR-15 have nothing about which to be concerned — but after reading this article and the ramblings put forth by various private concerns, he will be VERY worried.

        There is no “issue” that affects American gun-owners.

      • what

        We are in agreement that the “issue” is in fact a non-issue for American gun owners. I believe the author provides ample evidence for the counterpoint to private interests’ point that it is, in fact, an issue. One can arrive at that counterpoint conclusion with the information presented without a deeply specific mention of the United States’ Supremacy Clause – the author has simply chosen to take a much broader approach to all countries’ intent with and the specific draft provisions of the treaty instead of specifically examining United States constitutional law and judicial opinion (which is indeed very dynamic with regard to the Second Amendment, some have argued that the Heller and McDonald opinions mark a pointed change in SCOTUS opinion:
        http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/opinion/etzioni-guns/index.html).

      • Scornful Law

        The issue remains that this proposed treaty can NEVER affect Americans’ firearms rights. Yes, the Heller and McDonald decisions solidified Second Amendment jurisprudence by stating the Second Amendment is a personal right (Heller) and an incorporated right (McDonald), but it is now the law of the land, and under res judicata, SCOTUS is bound by its own decisions. There is no appeal, and under the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution trumps all treaties and laws.

        This article gives us a red herring argument. It states a specific American firearms group fears for American gun rights, when in fact, no such rights can ever be jeopardized by ANY treaty or domestic law. It’s a nullity proposed as a possibility, and either the author is ignorant of Constitutional law, or he is avoiding the issue. I find it ironic that we gun-owners have Constitutional validation of our Second Amendment rights, but people are still acting there is a governmental conspiracy to deny us of those rights, and that simply CANNOT happen without a Constitutional amendment passed by 3/4 of the House and Senate, and approved by the President. It’s simply never going to happen in the USA.

      • Scornful Law

        Responsible journalism investigates issues and educates the public about them so readers can make informed opinions. This author has either not done his homework — the basic premise of the article and its title is that this treaty has caused fear among American citizens that the UN and/or US are seeking to curtail their gun rights. Yet that fear is unfounded and has no legal premise. Instead, the author casts a wide net and discusses international issues as if they apply to American citizens, which the treaty does not.

        Again, a nullity that serves only to scare the unsophisticated.

        Good discussion, but I doubt many others will read it, and if they do, they will likely dismiss it and respond emotionally (read: fearfully), which is exactly how these issues remain pervasive in our culture.

      • Scornful Law

        Read klittlefir’s post for an example of what I’m stating.

      • what

        And I’ll of course agree with you that going into detail about Heller and McDonald would have only strengthened the “it’s a non-issue” position.

  • Bernie

    The question is what type of punishment will be implemented for those who break any of the laws if this happens to go through? They mention all the rules and details but what about the consequences for those who don’t comply? Sounds to much like more government regulations that seem to go nowhere.

  • klittlefire

    the important point is our rights, not what penalties will be imposed. the un has NO business meddling in our affairs, stay out of our affairs or watch for the pointed end coming at you!

    • Scornful Law

      Please read my posts below: This has NOTHING to do with US citizens’ gun-rights. [Sigh.]

      • Just Sayin’

        @dc92e6be06a165dfebdd611bba142ed4:disqus

        Are you even reading the damn article?

        It reports that there are fears surrounding this treaty in the firearms community and apparently in the U.S. legislature, and it explains some possible origins for them, then spends half of its length gradually dispelling these shadowy terrors by presenting a litany of counterpoints and information from the treaty and who have been involved in its creation. Still, even if these fears are irrational and you think it’s a non-issue, if the NRA is complaining so loudly about it, a group with a huge number of membership, influence, and resources, there are probably quite a few people in the shooting community who want to hear about these concerns without having them dismissed off-hand.

        Simply because the author didn’t use your (admittedly well-founded) political argument to make the case does not make it any less correct. You say, “This author has either not done his homework — the basic premise of the article and its title is that this treaty has caused fear among American citizens that the UN and/or US are seeking to curtail their gun rights. Yet that fear is unfounded and has no legal premise.” BINGO. THAT’S WHAT HE JUST PROVED IN THE ARTICLE WHILE STILL GIVING VOICE TO BOTH SIDES.

        You argue a cross-point to the article as if you’re some great scholar, act haughty about how few will read your enlightened comments and “truly understand,” and then fail to really read or understand the article at all.

        Pathetic.

      • Scornful Law

        You are operating under a misapprehension: Mine is not a political argument. It is Constitutional law, and settled Constitutional law at that. No treaty can undermine the Constitution; therefore, yes, this is a non-issue, and the alleged point and counter-point do nothing to explain an issue if there IS no issue. It’s called a “created controversy,” or more simply put, a red herring argument.

        One need not practice law to understand the basic concept that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that it’s Supremacy Clause controls the issue. If the treat does not affect American gun-owners’ rights (and it cannot due to the incorporation of the Second amendment — making it both a personal and inalienable right (and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment), then the entire article’s premise falls apart, since it is about the fears of American gun-owners having their guns seized. This would be akin to me telling a three year old who fears the monster under her bed about all the real monsters in the world and NOT telling her their is no monster is under the bed. Instead, this article addresses the possibility of said monster, but doesn’t tell its readers no such monster can ever exist in the US.

        So, yes, I read the entire article, and I fail to understand why you seemingly think the fears of the uninformed give the non-issue any merit whatsoever. The three year old who fears the monster under her bed doesn’t make the monster real.

        Insofar as my being “haughty,” I group that statement with those that equate knowledge with some sort of insidious evil. Please note, too, that I’m not making a personal attack, and ad hominem attacks rarely, if ever, do anything to further a debate. School children do such things — name-calling is in their limited means of expression — but adults should be able to converse and debate rationally with resorting to such tactics.

        This, again, is not politics. It’s law, and here, the Constitution controls, not politics, no matter who is afraid of the bogeyman, and that includes politicians who should know better, but apparently either do not or are using this made-up controversy to excite their base.

      • Just Sayin’

        …And now you’ve just indirectly compared Outdoor Hub readers
        and, in fact, the NRA and Steven Sanetti of the NSSF, to 3-year-olds.
        You’ve also managed to call many gun owners “unsophisticated” below,
        and while that may be the case at times, it doesn’t help perception of your
        argument. It’s not your knowledge (hardly, because legally you’re correct),
        but your less-than-subtle jabs at sections of the shooting community. Even your little “[Sigh.]” to
        klittlefire of implied exasperation appears to be condescending, regardless of
        intent.

        You said earlier, “I find it ironic that we gun-owners have
        Constitutional validation of our Second Amendment rights, but people are still
        acting there is a governmental conspiracy to deny us of those rights, and that
        simply CANNOT happen without a Constitutional amendment passed by 3/4 of the
        House and Senate, and approved by the President. It’s simply never going to
        happen in the USA.”

        An amendment is unlikely
        to happen, true. Then again, it’s
        not unheard of for it to happen for sillier reasons in the interest of
        protecting the masses (a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol,
        anyone?). Cases that raise huge
        support for gun control occur frequently, and it’s yet to be seen whether each
        will be forgotten quickly or if they will have a cumulative effect on public
        opinion. Unlikely is not equivalent
        to impossible.

        To touch on another point of your argument, it’s not as if
        McDonald and Heller cases were cleanly decided either.

        McDonald v. Chicago, for instance, was decided by one
        vote. One. It was that razor thin of a decision,
        hardly a ringing endorsement for the application of Second Amendment rights to
        the states. As Justice Stephen
        Breyer of the dissenting opinion said, “In sum, the Framers did not write the
        Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.
        There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’”
        The dissent by Justice Stevens in District of Columbia vs. Heller (also a close
        5-4 decision) argued that the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment
        is not expressly stated in the Constitution and that it would have been had the framers wanted it to be so. Instead, Stevens states that it
        was intended to relate to state militia service only, and that the decisions of
        lower courts to take it as an individual right now constituted stare decisis, which makes it more
        difficult (but certainly still not impossible) to change today.

        Is there a governmental conspiracy? I highly doubt it, but there are plenty
        of human beings in positions of power who, for one reason or another, are
        strong gun control advocates looking to make a major impact in their own way. This is how currently unconstitutionally
        restrictive firearms laws come about that require lawsuits to challenge and
        overturn them. How long do
        people have to live with them before the Supreme Court overturns them? Sometimes, a very long time
        indeed. But, as noted, the Supreme
        Court, despite stare decisis, can
        overturn its own rulings with later decisions anyway.

        Now, does this apply to the article itself? Only tangentially, but the hope was to
        illustrate that despite the “finality” of the Supreme Court decisions, Second
        Amendment rights in this country, while very broad, are still shaky and prone
        to wildly different interpretations, even by the Supreme Court. Hence, many have fears of the ways in
        which a treaty might affect their rights indirectly, perhaps as a psychological
        influence upon lawmakers or by setting an unofficial precedent for the
        direction of gun policy.

        I do agree with you now that the Supremacy Clause
        should at least have been mentioned in the article here (which is already
        really quite long and involved for most Outdoor Hub articles), but I would
        still proffer the point that user “what” brought up was true, “One can arrive
        at that counterpoint conclusion with the information presented without a deeply
        specific mention of the United States’ Supremacy Clause – the author has simply
        chosen to take a much broader approach to all countries’ intent with and the
        specific draft provisions of the treaty instead of specifically examining
        United States constitutional law and judicial opinion”

        I also noticed what I think is the author trying to show readers his hand at the end of the article. Notice how the two last quotes range from nutball conspiracy theory from the NRA to a carefully worded appeal to responsibility from the five countries in favor of the ATT? Somehow, I don’t think that was coincidence. :P Anywho, have a good day, sir.

      • Just Sayin’

        Whoa, I had a slight issue with the comment system there… My bad.

      • Just Sayin’

        …And now you’ve just indirectly compared Outdoor Hub readers
        and, in fact, the NRA and Steven Sanetti of the NSSF, to 3-year-olds.
        You’ve also managed to call many gun owners “unsophisticated” below,
        and while that may be the case at times, it doesn’t help perception of your
        argument. It’s not your knowledge (hardly, because legally you’re correct),
        but your less-than-subtle jabs at sections of the shooting community. Even your little “[Sigh.]” to
        klittlefire of implied exasperation appears to be condescending, regardless of
        intent.

        You said earlier, “I find it ironic that we gun-owners have
        Constitutional validation of our Second Amendment rights, but people are still
        acting there is a governmental conspiracy to deny us of those rights, and that
        simply CANNOT happen without a Constitutional amendment passed by 3/4 of the
        House and Senate, and approved by the President. It’s simply never going to
        happen in the USA.”

        An amendment is unlikely
        to happen, true. Then again, it’s
        not unheard of for it to happen for sillier reasons in the interest of
        protecting the masses (a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol,
        anyone?). Cases that raise huge
        support for gun control occur frequently, and it’s yet to be seen whether each
        will be forgotten quickly or if they will have a cumulative effect on public
        opinion. Unlikely is not equivalent
        to impossible.

        To touch on another point of your argument, it’s not as if
        McDonald and Heller cases were cleanly decided either.

        McDonald v. Chicago, for instance, was decided by one
        vote. One. It was that razor thin of a decision,
        hardly a ringing endorsement for the application of Second Amendment rights to
        the states. As Justice Stephen
        Breyer of the dissenting opinion said, “In sum, the Framers did not write the
        Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.
        There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’”
        The dissent by Justice Stevens in District of Columbia vs. Heller (also a close
        5-4 decision) argued that the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment
        is not expressly stated in the Constitution and that it would have been had the framers wanted it to be so. Instead, Stevens states that it
        was intended to relate to state militia service only, and that the decisions of
        lower courts to take it as an individual right now constituted stare decisis, which makes it more
        difficult (but certainly still not impossible) to change today.

        Is there a governmental conspiracy? I highly doubt it, but there are plenty
        of human beings in positions of power who, for one reason or another, are
        strong gun control advocates looking to make a major impact in their own way. This is how currently unconstitutionally
        restrictive firearms laws come about that require lawsuits to challenge and
        overturn them. How long do
        people have to live with them before the Supreme Court overturns them? Sometimes, a very long time
        indeed. But, as noted, the Supreme
        Court, despite stare decisis, can
        overturn its own rulings with later decisions anyway.

        Now, does this apply to the article itself? Only tangentially, but the hope was to
        illustrate that despite the “finality” of the Supreme Court decisions, Second
        Amendment rights in this country, while very broad, are still shaky and prone
        to wildly different interpretations, even by the Supreme Court. Hence, many have fears of the ways in
        which a treaty might affect their rights indirectly, perhaps as a psychological
        influence upon lawmakers or by setting an unofficial precedent for the
        direction of gun policy.

        I do agree with you now that the Supremacy Clause
        should at least have been mentioned in the article here (which is already
        really quite long and involved for most Outdoor Hub articles), but I would
        still proffer the point that user “what” brought up was true, “One can arrive
        at that counterpoint conclusion with the information presented without a deeply
        specific mention of the United States’ Supremacy Clause – the author has simply
        chosen to take a much broader approach to all countries’ intent with and the
        specific draft provisions of the treaty instead of specifically examining
        United States constitutional law and judicial opinion”

        I also noticed what I think is the author trying to
        show readers his hand at the end of the article. Notice how the two
        last quotes range from nutball conspiracy theory from the NRA to a
        carefully worded appeal to responsibility from the five countries in
        favor of the ATT? Somehow, I don’t think that was coincidence. :P
        Anywho, have a good day, sir.

      • wonkshikpe

        so what does all this blither mean in gringo?

      • Scornful Law

        I’m unsure what you are asking, my friend. What don’t you understand?

      • 9Spoon9

        Just Sayin,
        It appears you’ve written the better part of a small book on this site, and my response is also a bit long in the tooth. There’s one thing I’d like to point out about this statement you wrote:. “No treaty can undermine the Constitution; therefore, yes, this is a non-issue,…”

        May I suggest you re-read the Constitution regarding the making of Treaties. See para [ 2 ] of Article VI.. “A Treaty shall be the supreme law of the land…”.

        Every state, judge and citizen is compelled to obey or follow said treaties. There’s little doubt in my mind that this section of the US Constitution affirms the import and ramifications any and all duly made treaties, whether or not the Senate fully endorses it or not. We’re (Americans) are tied-into obeying Treaties above all else upon their execution by and with the affixation of the President’s signature. The exception being one of extreme prejudice for those of us that have the integrity to stand for what is right. Self-defense is a God-granted right of all animals upon this earth. Legal possession of a firearm is the “great equalizer” that puts the weaker or afflicted person on a more level ground with any attacker. Japan’s Emperor was keenly aware that law-abiding citizens, with their possession and ability to use their weapons, construed the largest “army” on planet Earth. Deterrence goes beyond Hiro Ito as crime statistics show. We do not want to digress from this posture, now or ever nor for any reason!

        “It is very imprudent to deprive America of any of her privileges. If her commerce and friendship are of any importance to you, they are to be had on no other terms than leaving her in the full enjoyment of her rights.” Benjamin Franklin, Political Observations

        Mr Franklin wasn’t directing the above comment toward individual freedoms or rights, but our government is want to dismantle America, one step at a time, if need be. This is yet another paving stone to aid them their road to meet that end.

        “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…” Saint George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D {reference: http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d13000.htm ]

        This is where the 2nd Amendment comes in. It’s our last resort to detest our elected officials. History has shown that millions upon millions have people across the globe have been slaughtered after they were disarmed.

        “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;…” Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

        Giving way to that sacred keystone to all liberties and freedoms is purely intolerable, especially with dictates will be coming from outside sources.

        “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. ‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world. ”
        George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

        Check it out and let me know where you believe the allegations about this treaty fits in. If is smells like a skunk, is furry and striped like a skunk… it’s a skunk. The American people do not need the odor cast about or upon us.

        The entire notion of subterfuge and sabotage by this or any Administration is contrary to the foundations of America as determined, defined and scripted into the almost timeless documents we commonly call the Constitution of These United States and the subsequent amendments known as “The Bill of Rights”.

        Food 4 thought…Good Day!

        Jon Weatherspoon USAF Ret
        Rural Missouri

      • Scornful Law

        Yes, treaties take precedent over state and preceding federal laws (those that came before the treat), but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the Constitution that grants all powers within it. Furthermore, a federal law enacted AFTER a treaty is supreme over a treaty. It is a first in time proposition.

        Therefore, no treaty can supersede or subsume the Constitution. A treaty has the effect of a federal law, but no federal law can overpower the Constitution.

      • 9Spoon9

        I hope your 100% on this, but I still don’t trust the crooked folks “on the Hill”.
        They haven’t adhered to the Constitution and no one has nailed anyone else to a cross for it. I do know and am aware that literally dozens of suits have been filed against Obama by members of the Legislature, yet the MSM somehow seems to omit their mention. They must assume it might lessen our confidence in the Offal Office? What confidence, the man’s a noted liar and has committed acts deserving of corporal punishment if not capital punishment.
        Thanks for the comment.
        Spoon

      • wonkshikpe

        talk all you want. be eloquent. be creative. be what ever you can. un out of america. no more wasted money on the un .

  • Bob

    http://www.poa-iss.org/mge/documents/topics/undp_salw_legislation.pdf

    Check out Chapter 3: Regulating arms in the Hands of Civilians

    Regulating the sale and possession of certain types of [light arms] by civilians.
    Regulating the sale and possession of ammunition.
    Safety devices
    Registering firearms
    Keeping records

    Good reason for possession / genuine need: Licence applicants may be required to provide a good reason, justifying why they need to possess a firearm.

    Restrictions / prohibitions of the possession of firearms in specified locations:
    The carrying of firearms in public by civilians should be restricted

    • Scornful Law

      You do realize, I hope, that this 2008 document is meant for developing countries rife with violence and anarchy, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the United States?

      It is not meant to be a policy-making model; rather, it’s purpose is to provide guidance to countries that have never had the benefit of our Constitution and stability.

      As I stated in other posts, our Constitution forbids infringement of the right to bear arms, although it can be reasonably regulated, and foreign policies (or manuals, which is ALL this document is) have no effect here.

      This is a non-issue and nothing about which to be excited.

      • wonkshikpe

        stop talking now while your ahead. saying any more will remove al dought. but i am remaining open minded.

      • truthtoday

        you are kidding right? You really said that? Nah…

      • Mozgiem

        Foreign policy may influence domestic policy. That’s the issue here. This will be just another argument to put further restrictions on ownership.

  • Big D

    The reason the U.S firearms communities are railing against, and sending out the rally cry, is because it makes them money. Much of the time the NRA talks up a storm is in fact to scare the membership into donating.
    Before you call me names, I am a NRA member and a multi-firearm owner, but I’m not an idiot and can see that nonsense a mile away.

    • Scornful Law

      I concur. This is both a political and economic ploy to manipulate the unsophisticated and frighten them into throwing their support to politicians and special interest groups.

    • guest

      ….. uummm yeah … okay …. and BarryCare ain’t a Tax, a Law nor an infringement …. it’s like Fed Income Tax, voluntary … right ?

      Jump in at the behest of DNC ?

      • Scornful Law

        How ridiculous. Why bring in irrelevant issues and attack Big D’s factual statements? The Heller and McDonald decisions took away a large amount of the NRA’s reason for existence — their push for incorporation of the Second Amendment is over and firearms possession is now deemed an inalienable right — and the NRA and other special interest groups NEED controversies to make money.

        I was an NRA member too, but they no longer require my support, and I won’t put my political and monetary support behind a group that creates false controversies like this one or “serialized ammunition,” etc.

        The phrase “follow the money” is extremely apt here. Money will flow into the NRA’s coffers and the NRA will declare victory over a non-issue, all the while making themselves richer.

  • Todd Spink

    The U.N. needs to be disbanned and evicted from America. Buldoze the building and revoke all diplomatic imunity in America PERIOD. This organization is ALL ABOUT CONTROL! These are sick and twisted people heel bent on total control of the planet and all of its resources. Look up UN agenda 21, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3qW2XJZdSA&list=PLED0B7F553327C5A0&index=34&feature=plpp_video Codex Alimentarious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ9jHCmb4j8&list=PLED0B7F553327C5A0&index=32&feature=plpp_video The LOST treaty gives them power over ALL salt water, and mayjor rivers, also to include the Great Lakes. HOW ABSURD! This is all about destruction of soverignty, One World Government, and the New World Order! Wake up! When you know more about these people you will be less likely to “Play Ball” with them at all. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. Know your enemy. “For evil to thrive, it only requires good people do nothing”!

    • Scornful Law

      Really? What about the UN’s contributions to third-world countries during times of war, famine, and natural disasters? How about its assistance to economic development? It’s contributions to world peace?

      This post is more of the conspiracy cult’s paranoid musings about any organization other than those of which it agrees. This cult sees evil at every turn, and if the Girl Scouts came out against handguns, the Girl Scouts would join the cult’s imaginary Legion of Doom, hell-bent on destroying their imaginary god and taking their guns.

      There is no “New Word Order,” shadowy conspiracy, or gun-grabbing treaties. You have more to fear from WalMart than any other organization.

      • wonkshikpe

        good deal be benevelent as you want. stay out of my country and we will be fine. stick your ugly face in here and we will not get along well.

  • jonny canuck

    It’s about time the yankee gun wackos were reined in. The “right to bear arms” argument is the nuttiest thing I have ever heard. Shoot first…ask questions later….the American way of life!!!

    • wonkshikpe

      run your mouth some where else. these united states borders are nothing fore people ( nose pickers)( like you to even coment on.

    • Woody

      Stay in Canada you have nothing to worry about.. We down south will save your bloody behinds again….

  • Woody

    Law of the land is only good if we have a system that will enforce it. This means a president, congress and court system. Lately they have been scary…..!

  • Canada Grey wolf

    jonny canuck does NOT speak for us canadians ! the ATT is nothing but trouble and needs to be stopped ! period don’t give an inch !