U.N. ratifies Arms Trade Treaty on April 2, 2013

Previously on Who Wants to Enrage The People of the Gun, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney promised that his boss will sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) before the end of August. Well, here we are. And here Congress ain’t. They’re on vacation until September. Coincidence? I think not. The gun rights groups are already starting to foam at the mouth at the prospect of Obama putting his John Hancock on the document—which has a snowball’s chance in hell of passage in the Senate. Which is required for its official implementation. That said, the Administration can sign-us-up and then modify regulations and policy to abide by the ATT’s terms and conditions without Senate ratification. Click here to read the U.N.’s step-by-step guide to full and partial ratification. And while you’re at it, click here to read the Treaty. ‘Cause here’s the thing . . .

The Treaty has plenty of language aimed at assuaging the fears of American citizens worried that the UN will compromise their gun rights, as protected by their Constitution. For example, the Preamble contains these two qualifiers . . .

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system, . . .

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law, . . .

Under Principles, we get this ditty:

Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State in accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations;

I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. The ATT’s purpose is to impose controls on the shipment of arms and ammunition to which the United States already adheres. Or at least pretends to adhere to. (Fast and Furious anyone?) End used certificates. Accounting procedures. Stuff like that.

Yes, the ATT wraps that up in a bunch of politically correct humanitarian-speak that’s inherently scary in a Big Brother sort of way. And yes, the Treaty could be abused by U.S. lawmakers to curtail your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. But these are not the drones you’re looking for.

Blue helmeted goons from, say, Cameroon, are not going to show up at your door to confiscate your AR-15s. As New Yorker gun owners facing full implementation of the SAFE Act know, that job will fall to local, state and federal forces. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bob Adams—these are not U.N. ops. And never will be.

But hey, I said Obama wouldn’t come for your guns. And by God, he did. So what do I know? I know that the ATT has a provision for getting out of the ATT:

Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty. It shall give notification of such withdrawal to the Depositary, which shall notify all other States Parties. The notification of withdrawal may include an explanation of the reasons for its withdrawal. The notice of withdrawal shall take effect ninety days after the receipt of the notification of withdrawal by the Depositary, unless the notification of withdrawal specifies a later date.

Opposing the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is an easy sell for any and all gun rights groups. Although the ATT’s aimed specifically at international arms and ammunition trade, any possibility that it could be used against American gun rights is a possibility too many for The People of the Gun—who hate the U.N. generally. Who won’t read the treaty.

Fair enough. My position on gun control is well-established: I’m against it. Full stop. Every human on planet earth has the right to armed self-defense. The U.N. has done nothing to change the fact that millions of defenseless people are raped, beaten, tortured, denied their natural rights and murdered by agents of evil governments. The ATT will do nothing to alleviate that “problem” and, perhaps, much to increase it (by keeping weapons out of the hands of oppressed peoples).

But we must pick and choose our battles. We cannot save everyone. We must save ourselves. Our way of life. Our children’s future. And in that sense, Obama signing the ATT will help. It will help [further] raise the alarm about the serious threats to our gun rights right here at home. Sometimes you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone. Or think it might be going.

130 Responses to President Obama to Sign U.N. Arms Trade Treaty This Month

    • While UN thugs won’t show up at your doorstep, the treaty can be used in ways to ban, or eliminate through trade certain types of firearms. I don’t like the treaty, and don’t think we should hand any of our sovereignty over to the UN. So there ya go easy…

      • If it’s blue helmeted UN thugs that do the collecting, it’ll make resisting easier…as local police are our neighbors and many I call friend. UN guys are nothing but foreign invaders…

        • Which is exactly why they won’t do it that way. They’re not nearly as stupid as you stupidly believe they are.

  1. We need to get rid of the import restrictions we already have not sign on for some open ended bullshit and come on Robert just stop commenting on this issue you failed to succesfully predict its progression every single dam time you opened your mouth

  2. “Every human on planet earth has the right to armed self-defense.”

    I “mostly” agree with this. At what point, though, are those rights stripped? Under what circumstances? We don’t give firearms to prisoners/convicts or to radical Islamist jihadists (unless you’re the Obama administration).

    • And that’s the $50,000 question. Where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line at all? The 2A makes no exceptions to the RKBA – it merely states it shall not be infringed. There are those who have no problems giving guns to convicts who have “paid their debt to society” despite the fact that it doesn’t take a genius to see that people who have committed crimes with guns in the past are more likely than non-convicts to use a gun in a crime in the future. The basic problem is that while many people agree that a line must be drawn, there is no agreement as to where to draw that line.

      • I think the problem lies more in government’s inability to fairly apply the rule of law than with concerns over where to draw the line with the individual.

        Ideally, convictions on three incidents of violence in one’s life would earn the death penalty, but, as we’ve seen, we can’t trust government with that level of power because it often prosecutes someone for violence or murder when that person was obviously acting solely in self defense.

      • “…no problems giving guns to convicts who have “paid their debt to society” despite the fact that it doesn’t take a genius to see that people who have committed crimes with guns in the past are more likely than non-convicts to use a gun in a crime in the future”

        And laws prohibiting them arms will prevent those convicts from getting them again, right?

        • Exactly. Legally prohibiting convicts from possessing firearms only serves to make people more comfortable about letting them back into society, without doing anything,
          ANYTHING,
          ANY-THING
          to actually prevent them from obtaining firearms. Allowing convicts to legally possess firearms would force people to deal with the reality that the law did nothing to prevent them from commiting their first crime, and will do nothing to stop it in the future. The only thing preventing a convict from repeating their violent behaviors is themselves. Perhaps we wouldn’t be letting people out with a slap on the wrist if they knew there’s nothing to stop them from getting another gun and doing it again.

          AKA, real life, regardless of the laws on the books now, or further laws.

          Shall Not Be Infringed. Do not fill in the margins with exceptions, the 2nd is fine the way it is.

      • no, you don’t have to draw any sort of line. a gouvernment regulating guns is a far greater thread than any individual with a gun could ever be.

      • Not all convicts are created equally.

        What about people convicted of non-violent crimes?
        Or people convicted of statuary rape when they’re 18 or 19?
        Or people who’s significant other decided to lie about domestic abuse or child abuse and got a court order on them?

        While I’m all for background checks, beyond keeping guns from parolees and people on bail and probation, applying the checks fairly is never going to happen.

        • “and people on bail” ??? Bail is set to assure people show up in court, thought our legal system provided for innocent until proven guilty, as determined at trial. No doubt would have to turn over any weapon that used in an alleged crime, but all your weapons? Not sure it works that way. Any thoughts?

      • The line is drawn in the text : “… the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        In old English usage a “felon” (the word comes from the old German for “whipped” — as in “driven out”) was outlawed — formally put beyond the protection of any law and could be killed with impunity by any man. A social form of death rather than necessarily becoming the actual kind.

        Such a person ceased to be of “the People” whose laws he had forsaken. Such a person had no right to anything of the People who had outlawed him. In contrast a “misdemeanor” means merely (and literally) “misbehavior” and is subject to remedial punishments rather than complete civil disability.

        So the line is really quite easy to draw — any person who betrays the fundamental laws of his People — or is their declared enemy in word or deed — is not entitled, if he ever was — to bear arms and live peaceably among them or enjoy any other right of a free man of that People.

        We’ve dressed it up with courts and statutes and sentences and prisons and so forth — but the basic principle remains the same — we drive the felon out of our society — and in lieu of making him outlawed — we imprison him to keep him out of our society for as long as it may seem necessary before we decide if and when we might to re-admit him among us.

        • I would agree GR, if it weren’t for the fact that in the US a great number of victimless and even absurd acts are called felonies. Consider that merely expressing rights ensconced in the constitution can be called felonies even where no one is harmed. If we reduced felonies those found in English common law then perhaps this is workable, but when it’s a felony to go armed, to posses certain plant matter, to engage in certain types of trade and to do or even not do many things that have no basis in common law then common law no longer applies and some other standard must be found.

      • To me, the line should not exist. People who are released from prison should be welcomed back to society. If they are shunned away, they recognize that they are not a part of society but a part of the Ex-convict society who are second rate citizens with limited rights and limited opportunities. After spending 20 some years in prison etc, and seeing that their debt isn’t paid, they might as well just stab someone in the face and go back to maxing and relaxing in the slammer. People should impose stricter sentences on criminals who victimize others and anyone released should be welcomed back to society. Victimless crimes in my opinion are ridiculous crap ejected from politician’s facial anus’s. It is too bad that I popped out of my mother’s womb and opened my eyes to find the presence of such idiotic sh!t everywhere. If I am minding my own business and not bothering anyone then what is the problem?? Be it smoking a joint, owning an unregistered suppressed full auto glock 17, or owning and operating an ethanol still for fuel consumption it really shouldn’t matter.

    • All rights, properly understood, are moral claims (i.e. not the physical ability, but rather an affirmation that it is just to do X). There is a whole lot of debate in right theory. But I think the best way of answering your question is to look at the proximate end of a right. I have a right to life. I have a right to defend that life. I have a right to reasonable means to defend that life. And so on.

      Now someone, by his bad acts, can vitiate the basis for these claims. To use an analogy. Parents have the right to educate their children, know where they are, punish them, etc. So normally (according to “common law” as the medievalists called it) one could not hide the location of a child from that parent. But certainly if the parent were drunk and violent and would likely injure the child, you would. That is because the rights parents have over children are predicated upon the parents duty to safeguard the good of the child. Actions against that end vitiate the rights predicated on it.

      Now certainly the positive law (like the constitution) may recognize a broader field for a right. I would say that, morally, there is no right to a lot of speech (bigotry, lies, rash judgment) but Our Founders recognized that were the state empowered to determine what is good or bad in speech, this would just as quickly be abused and it is better to tolerate abuse of speech in order to safeguard the true right to speech than to infringe the moral right for the sake of uprooting abuse.

      But clearly it is not that simple yet. We all recognize that an individual, duly charged and convicted of a crime, can be deprived of his rights, even his right to life (if you do not agree morally with the death penalty, it remains that the Founders certainly saw it was a legitimate instrument and so our legal system). I see no problem, in se, in attaching certain deprivations for life or for a longer term than just a prison sentence. We have gotten rather provincial in our punishments for criminals (jail time, more or less, for all crimes). The problem with current law is that it is unreasonably broad in depriving people of 2nd amendment rights. It could be just to prohibit someone who forcibly raped or committed murder from own specific types of arms, otherwise covered by the right to arms, beyond his term in prison but not someone who committed bank fraud. The punishment must fit the crime and be specifically laid out as punishment and sentence for that crime. His act must clearly be one that is proportionate to being deprived a specific right. This would be part of the punishment, or due, itself.

    • The American populace no longer gives a flying fvck because they are getting what they want… legalized pot, abortion, gay marraige. Fvck our rights, only theirs matter.

      • The tyranny of the majority. I live with it every day in California. I have no problem with legal pot, I support it in fact. Gay marriege is just extending rights to all Americans. The problem is that people are working overtime to remove my rights and who’s supporting me? Very frustrating to live in a state that seems to want to honor all rights for all individuals, except People of the Gun.

        • Precisely my point. Once they are done eroding away at the second amendment, what’s to stop them from going after any other? Whether or not I agree with what other people do or say, I’ll support their right to do it. Too bad many people think that it’ll never happen to what they hold dear, and in thinking that way, don’t care about something they feel isn’t about them specifically

        • Same here Jwm. I dont have a problem with thoes things. But once the people who actually want them get it, they will just keep voting for thoes that gave it to them. Thats not wrong per say except thoes people and politicians who want thoes rights generally dont care about or are against others. Overall, pot amd gay marraige dosnt matter to me.

        • pot, and especially homosexuality being embraced is part of our downfall.
          do what you want behind closed doors, but embracing some of the things our country does will certainly decide our fate.

        • There is a serious difference between ’embracing’ and ‘ensuring’ someones choices. I only embrace my own, and to a certain extent those of my family. I ensure that the rights to make choices of others are protected, but they are their choices and not necessarily embraced by me… I am not a particularly religious man, but I do remember my bible/Sunday schooling – and one the one thing that always gets me is this: John 8-7:

          “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

          So I ask you, when you say it is the downfall of society, who are YOU to judge?

        • How would you “assure” the rights of others, with a magic wand?

          If you have one, can I rent it for a week?

          Maybe you said, “ensure”; I can’t find your post, but it’s a half of one and six dozen of the other.

    • to answer your question Eric L, i think around 27. 1 of them is far gone, 2 more are for sure in immediate danger.

  3. Does the SALW/ATT not require that member nations establish an internal registry and control system for arms used within the same nation,for later record and transmittance to the UN?

    Seems like a transparent way to justify a national gun registry in direct violation of congress.Indeed, strategically speaking this treaty can be used as justification for the Feds to bulldoze the 2nd Amendment.

    “Well see the FOPA says we can’t arrest people in transit ,but the UN ATT says we can,so you’re going downtown Mr.Gun Owner.”

    • You’ll just have to read the treaty to see. Don’t just take Alex Jones’ word for it. Find the reference and read it yourself. I think that is part of Robert’s point. Don’t get riled up about what people say the treaty has in it. Get riled up (or don’t) about what is actually present.

      Furthermore, you cannot be prosecuted by any court in the country for violating an “internationally codified” law. If the what you are doing does not violate a specific chapter and verse of a Federal, State, or Local law, you can’t be charged nor can a U.S. court try you.

      For the ATT to have any effect, U.S. laws would have to be changed to accommodate the International standards.

      • Damn that Alex Jones. I’m sure the treaty is nothing to get riled about. Now get back to work, you lazy skunks.

      • Jim, the US never ratified the Declaration to the Hague Convention that banned hollow point bullets in conflicts between the signatories. And yet, our soldiers can’t use them on the battlefield against insurgents who never signed it either.

        Even unratified treaties have deadly implications.

        • That’s also why we don’t just stand nonuniformed combatants against the nearest vertical surface and shoot them.

          The Taliban wouldn’t have fared so well against the military leadership that we had in place during WW2.

        • Ralph,

          Actually our soldiers can’t use them on the battlefield period irrespective of the foe. The US. Decided to honor this convention even though itvwas not formally ratified because that is how you fight a “civilized” war. The taliban aren’t using hollow points either despite the fact that they did not sign for the simple reason that they can’t get them beacuase no one makes large stocks of hollowpoint ammo available to theaters of war.

          One could argue that the US is being smart- we honor the convention until we decide not to. We can change our practice any time we want without worrying about a treaty violation.

          On top of that, I’m not so sure how much more effective hollowpoint ammo would be in our standard issue rifles. Modern ammo is designed to yaw and tumble which does a fair amount of damage.

          I would think that if hollowpoint is so effective in rifles, we would see it for sale here in the US and to the best of my knowlege, I’ve never seen any hollowpoint in major military rifle calibers.

        • Jim,

          Ballistic Tip ammo is the rifle caliber equivalent of hollow point ammo. Some match grade rifle ammo is hollow point – but that has to do with moving the center of gravity rearward to increase accuracy, not wounding. If the military were to use prohibited ammo (which there really isn’t a reason for) you’d see something like Hornady SST or Nosler Ballistic Tips being used.

          Most military ammo is developed more with barrier penetration in mind than wound ballistics on soft targets.

        • DJ. – Be careful what you wish for on WW2 leadership. MacArthur and Patton had no qualms about using violence to put down domestic protesters. Patton’s philosophy was that rioters should be shot. Look up the Hooverville incident when MacArthur ordered troops to run men, women, and children out of DC during a peaceful protest by WWI vets who only wanted the stipend promised them by the Gov’t.

        • Actually our soldiers can’t use them on the battlefield period irrespective of the foe.

          Uh, Jim, that’s what I said.

        • Jim,

          That’s a great point. I just finished Balko’s book, and he mentions McArthur’s dispersal of the veteran’s march on DC.

          On the other hand, I left the military because it was apparent we aren’t (and have no intention of) fighting to win.

          DJ

      • Alex Jones has a way of twisting the simple and obvious into something sinister.

        It all starts with the phrase “What if . . . “, or “How do you know . . .”

    • How much per fax, $4.50? That’s a pretty typical wallet-lift from those thieves. You can call their office in Washington for free. In many areas, they maintain several local offices within your state you can also call – by that I mean your own senator. The others do not want to hear from you in the first place.

  4. I also didn’t think it was going anywhere, but I will say this: some months ago, when DiFi and crew were in the middle of their full court press, I witnessed a couple of Fudds panic buying shotgun shells (at a time when that was about all we had around here) because “the UN was outlawing our guns”. Frankly, I wanted to mosey over to the baseball equipment, find a nice bat, and start wailing on the morons while screaming “YOU STUPID S**TS, CONGRESS WILL DISARM YOU LONG BEFORE THE UN WILL, WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN?!?!”. But I suppose, in retrospect, anything that gets Fudds to realize that its their fight too because they do want “your guns”, helps the pro rights cause. Not that I wouldn’t trade that for getting rid of this treaty.

      • I can honestly say I have never listened to Alex Jones. I did’t even know who he was until he waded into the gun control debate, and even then I never watched any of his appearances on Piers Morgan’s show.

  5. We ignore treaties and treat the UN like a red-headed step-child all the time and always have.

    I don’t think that’s going to change because of this thing.

    • I’ll remember that, when compliance with the treaty is the reason given for stopping all imports of arms and ammunition into the U.S. (except for the Mil/Leo community, of course).

      • I’ve been crying this for about 2-3 years, both to family and on the internet. Given a chance, Agent Zero (BHO) will stop the importation of:
        Ammo (all)
        Primers
        Firearms (handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc)
        Optics and scopes
        Component parts (firing pins, BCG, whatever is not made in the USA)

        • “I’ve been crying this for about 2-3 years,”

          Sounds like SOMEBODY needs a trip to the circus!

    • It’s Theater of the Absurd. President War Criminal has been pushing this hard, all the while heading the government of the largest arms exporter on the planet.

      Treaty, MY ASS!

  6. The senate already voted to not to enter the treaty or abide by it.

    Some say it was political posturing for show and has no validity.

    I say they are wrong. The way I see it is it was a Gongressional order of pre-emption. If the president signs it he is overstepping his constitutional bounds and commiting, once again, Treason.

    • That’s what these progressive statist Democrats do. They do it here in CA all day long; throw ever increasing restrictive crap at the 2A wall to see what sticks, whether it can pass Constitutional muster or not.

      At least at the national level there is no Democratic super majority to railroad things through Congress for the Prez. But that won’t stop Obama from trying to go around. Regulatory powers will be his tool.

      • The word treason is so overused. Treason is working against your nation on behalf of a hostile foreign power. Violating the law or the constitution for your own profit or power may be a crime but is not treason.

        • I think it could be very reasonably argued that Barry is certainly working with a foreign nation, or nations, to bring about the destruction of the United States of America.

          That said, perhaps I’m pulling out the term Treason a bit prematurely. Either way, he is most definitely working towards the destruction of the United States as we know it.

        • The Democrats, and not just Obama, have been working to turn the US into a one party Fascist dictatorship for a generation for entirely domestic reasons. Like almost all Fascist movements this one is motivated from internal not extetnal politics.

        • Treason is defined as “The betrayal of one’s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.”

          Let’s see. We’re funding the Muslim brotherhood, fomenting rebellion in Syria, and purposefully trying to sell America on the idea that the Muslim world is generally peaceful and loves the west. We’ve cut off aid to Governments friendly to the US, and we’re threatening to cut off all aid to Egypt if the Egyptian military (with the support of a majority of it’s citizens) doesn’t stop arresting members of the Muslim Brotherhood. You know. That group that’s part of the same club as Hamas? Because how dare the Military and the people of Egypt NOT live under a traditional Muslim theocratic tyrant?

          All of which to say, I’d say Obama’s consciously AND purposely aiding our enemies.

    • That was just a resolution which Barry defied. They will have 3 basic options. Table if for years or decades, reject it (will need 51 votes to reject), or ratify it (it will take 67 votes to ratify it).

    • This is far from the first time that a President has signed a treaty that has not been approved by the Senate. What does that mean? That the signature has no force of law. It’s meaningless, nothing more than an empty gesture designed to look good to his gun grabbing constituency. Political theater. Ignore it.

      • It has been very rare that the Senate passed a resolution in opposition to a treaty. Not only did Barry say he would sign it, he made great efforts to save the treaty from the trash heap with help from the Mexican Government. Barry is a punk. I can’t even think of another President I would even consider a punk.

        • Yeah, I believe “punk” is a totally viable description, all right. Certain factions clearly brought him along to be POTUS someday; certainly by his grad school days, perhaps earlier. He was raised to be King.

          No doubt at all in my mind about that. Ordinary pols don’t rise through the ranks like that guy did.

    • That’s only because they believe they are standing on the crest of their wave in history. To quote myself, “HAW HAW HAW HAW!”

      And they need to look up the meaning of “crest”.

  7. Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities

    Gee, I don’t see the phrase “self defense” anywhere, do you? I’m sure that it was left out through pure inadvertence. The UN and this administration would certainly never try to take away anyone’s natural right to self defense, would they? I mean, would they?

        • Actually, copper isn’t necessarily all that safe either. Various copper compounds have been used for years for pressure-treated lumber. Some of them have been identified as a public safety risk that requires special practices when removing said lumber. Still other substances use copper in small amounts for similar effect – keeping insects from eating wood – and there is some real contention regarding whether these are truly safe vs. dangerous for people.

        • Yes Seriously…

          Copper is toxic in various ways. I make note of two instances for now Copper Sulfate is used in root kill products for in septic systems. Excess copper in humans blood stream/bodies causes developmental issues in children. I cite my younger brothers earlier days and resolved problem with that.

          So YES seriously copper CAN be toxic.

        • If copper was as bad as you say, don’t you guys think they wouldn’t allow it to be used in the water pipes of, oh, virtually every structure built since lead pipes went the way of the dodo?

          The dangerous chemical in the pressure treated wood was the arsenic, not the copper.

        • Lead is clearly far more toxic than copper, though both are toxic. My point, perhaps poorly stated, was that those who want to outlaw lead in bullets in favor of copper are either ignorant or coy about the toxicity of copper, because they don’t generally mention it.

          And yes, it’s true about the arsenic in a lot of treated lumber. Were you talking to someone else? I’m not clear on that!

        • Well, my comment was originally intended for 505 and Denny, because I missed the sarcasm of your comment. So in answer to that and your most recent comment, I was not saying that copper is completely non-toxic. As far as “vs lead,” the difference as I understand it is that lead is persistent in the environment, and that lead exposure (like ingestion by animals) is both cumulative over lifespan as well as persistent, in that small amounts over time add up and do not really go away, leading to poisoning of the animal, and of whatever eats that animal. Those things are not true (or at least not nearly as true) for copper. Copper does not stick around, either in the environment or in tissue, the same way lead does.

          Similarly, while the copper in modern pressure treated wood is not completely non-toxic, the toxicity is infinitesimal compared to the old stuff. You basically have to be licking the wood on a regular basis to have issues now, whereas with the old chromated copper arsenic formula, the arsenic was the poisonous part, and you could get issues just from regular handling of that older stuff.

  8. [The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…

    • anyway, FYI, the president signs a treaty first, then it goes to the Senate. Yes, it’s bass ackwards, and confuses people, but him singing it means nothing unless the Senate ‘consents’.

      • Well, unless they reject it, it sits there waiting for a more favorable Senate to sign off on it. It creates opportunities for those who are playing a long-term game. Never know what seed might sprout later if you plant enough of them.

  9. If Obama signs does he have to prosecute high ranking members of his own administration for violating this for supplying arms to drug cartels and Mexico and later running missiles through Libya to Syrian rebels?

    The federal governments power is rather dubious to begin with, why would I chose to recognize any show of authority from the UN? Who the hell are they?

    • No. Under our present system, that prosecutorial duty is for the next Republican administration to shirk.

  10. This is the one fight I would genuinely look forward to. I don’t want to fight my countrymen, regardless of their uniform. But an invading army of “peacekeepers?”

    I’ma go Red Dawn on their ass. 1984 Red Dawn, not the modern emo version.

  11. Having read the entire treaty several times, I don’t see it as a threat to civilian gun rights in the US.

    I do see it as a useless, money-sucking make-work project for the useless nephews of UN diplomats. Lacking any enforcement mechanism, it basically means everybody keeps doing exactly what they want, and a new UN bureaucracy is created (with us paying for most of it) to write lengthy reports on how everybody is still doing whatever they want.

      • From the U.S. Department of State:

        “The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.

        “Null and void”? Maybe not……

  12. I can see that it will be used first to stop imports of guns, ammo, parts, that comes down to more shortages, back door gun controls, and forget ever going hunting out of the USA, and look for gun bans on private planes or boats! And the News media as you are now seeing has Mrs. H. Clinton already Elected .

  13. How about we all just agree to work against this treaty in the senate on principle alone? It’s one more defeat we can hand barry and slow joe.

  14. This will meet the same fate in the Senate as did the Kyoto Treaty and many others promoted and signed by the Left to keep the base happy and smug. It’s just maintenance and self-affirmation for the comrades of the Left.

  15. We should not sign and nor enter into this treaty for several reasons but the one I will talk about here is that the treaty will accomplish NOTHING today. There are only three prohibitions in the treaty (read Article 6). The summay of the prohibitions are:

    Don’t export if:

    1 – The export violats any UN arms embargo. So if we don’t agree with the UN we have to follow them anyway.

    2 – It violates any arms trafficking agreement you have already agreeded to. (Duh, you already agreed to this so it accomplishes nothing).

    3 – You know the arms will be used for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. If you know it is going to be used for those purposes, either you are moral and don’t do the transfer becase of that, with or without the treaty. or you or your state are immoral and you the transfer anyway and ignore the treaty so it has done nothing.

    Like the vast majority of recencently proposed and enacted national and state legistlation this is just feel good legislation that will accomplish nothing today. But it will open the door to further prohibitions in the future. Incremental steps are the plan on the state, national and international level.

    • 1 – The export violats any UN arms embargo. So if we don’t agree with the UN we have to follow them anyway.

      The U.S. has a permanent seat on the Security Council, which comes with veto power. The UN doesn’t enact any embargo we don’t agree with.

  16. I will not comply, nor go quietly into the night. And I certainly not help those people to disarm others. As Spock would say “Go to Hell”.

  17. “Although the ATT’s aimed specifically at international arms and ammunition trade”

    Consumers in the US get a LOT of arms and ammunition from other countries. If this treaty was twisted in a way to prevent arms and ammo from being imported into the US, prices would skyrocket for the stuff that is made domestically.

    • On the up side, domestic production would ramp up to meet demand, with more jobs for Americans. I don’t know if this would get us back down to the prices with have now, or how long it would take to ramp up production. Of course, the antis would do everything they could to slow the process down.

  18. The upside of this mess is that the treaty may prevent the US from shipping guns to future emeny groups overseas. See point 3 above. It sucks that it will be signed while Congress is schmoozing at home.

    • “The upside of this mess is that the treaty may prevent the US from shipping guns to future emeny groups overseas.”

      HAW HAW HAW HAW! Those laws are for THEE, not for ME!!!

  19. It seems to me that the authors and supporters of this treaty have the same failing as the left in the US. They just can’t conceive that passing a law against something won’t necessarily stop that thing from happening. It’s a stupid and useless law that certainly doesn’t do the POTG any good. I say an all out blitz against it sends the right message; we will not tolerate anything that even smells like more gun control.

  20. Couldn’t they use this to restrict Russian imported ammunition? They could say Russia does not abide the treaty because they sell weapons to Syria or some other country and then sanction them by banning import of their products? Is this feasible or not?

    • It’s certainly an unlikely scenario, at best. All Russia need do is point out the U.S.’s arms sales to Syrian rebels, more popularly known as al-Queda.

      • My impression is that the USA has maintained some degree of plausible deniability on that front by running them through Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This would be a domestic move, exploiting the treaty in the name of Russophobia. I agree it is unlikely, but the first ever Olympic Games in modern Russia is coming up and they are going all out. They are pushing their gay agenda on Russia and I believe that Snowden is actually a phony leaker sent by Obama to lay the groundwork for a future op. Call me paranoid, but I really wonder if they wouldn’t love to get rid of affordable Russian ammunition?

        • Basically I understand and agree with both parts of your statement, though so far it’s appeared as though the arms funnel has been mostly Turkey, so far as is known. That could change, for sure.

          As for the Olympics, I haven’t “caught the fever” yet, but isn’t Russia only hosting the Winter Olympics in 2014? I’m much more a Winter Olympics fan than the other kind, but aside from the figure skating fanatics, somewhat less attention is given the Winter Olympics in America and much of the world. Though I will be catching every hockey game I can, as well as Biathlon, the People of the Gun’s winter sport. Maybe a TTAG’er can do a Biathlon piece.

          As for Snowden being a plant, a hummer, a jive turkey or however you want to put it, you have company in that belief, but it doesn’t resonate with me. Not that I haven’t been looking. I just don’t see it.

    • I learned that if TTAG doesn’t accept your comments it doesn’t tell you – it rather pretends you didn’t submit them and clears the comment box. Then you get to write it all over again. Great. However, I refuse to write it again.

      • That’s why if I write more than a couple sentences, I’m in the habit of hitting [Ctrl]-A and [Ctrl]-C to copy my text to the clipboard, just in case that happens.

        Although, if it recycled the page but didn’t post your comment, and there’s a “/#comment-1225307” type thing at the end of your URL bar, then that means you got spam filtered. Sorry.

      • The irascible spam filter simply got it, so chill, Bozo. If a comment doesn’t appear within a few minutes, the filter got it. You don’t get a certified letter in your mailbox. Take a lesson and copy your post before you send it. Then, if it doesn’t get through, paste and send again. The spam filter might gulp it every time you send it. Take a pill and contact Sr. Administrator.

  21. From the NRA-ILA:

    Article 8 Section 1 implores importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including “end use or end user documentation.” Article 12 urges states to keep records of end users “for a minimum of ten years.” Regardless of any attempt to sell the treaty to the American people, data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a registry, which is unacceptable. But worse, the treaty could force that information into the hands of foreign governments, whose records on privacy may be even more questionable than that of the U.S.

    Article 5 Section 2, which demands “Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order implement provisions of this treaty.” This is followed by Section 3, which states “Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.” And Article 10 on “Brokering” requires “Each State Party shall take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms.” Such provisions could lead to a system of firearm registration and significant additional burdens being placed on the firearms industry as well as the millions of American gun owners who occasionally trade and sell firearms out of their own personal collections.

    n arguing in favor of the treaty, the American Bar Association openly admitted that the treaty could have an adverse effect on the ability of Americans to acquire imported firearms, by defending import restrictions as “Constitutionally Valid.”

    The UN Treaty:

    http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf

    • Hmm, if the American Bar Association supports the treaty, that’s a major point against it right there. For me, an automatic reject of anything Bar Association wants puts me on the right side of the issue about 90% of the time. Add to this that Obama and most of the UN want it, and that would pretty much decide it, even if I knew nothing else.

  22. “…use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities…”

    Notice nothing is said about self-defense or resistance to government tyranny. The reason all of the UN governments are so eager to pass this thing is that it will enshrine, in international law, their complete monopoly on force. Disarmed peasants are a LOT easier to control.

  23. While Im usually pretty reserved when things like this pop up…………yah right.
    If Congress doesn’t when it gets back.
    Kick this to the curb resoundingly.
    And let “O” know to FOAD!!!!!!!!!!

    I might …..will make a ton of noise…………..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *