Question of the Day: Who Cares About the U.N. Small Arms Treaty?

Some say that the NRA welcomes the dead-in-the-water U.N. Small Arms Treaty; fears of a U.N. gun grab are a money spinner for the gun rights group. Yes well, the NRA has plenty o’ cash as it is. Anyone who doesn’t believe that the NRA stands solidly against anything that erodes Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms hasn’t spent two hours in a cigar bar with one its execs. Still . . . is the NRA “over-selling” the Treaty’s dangers to feather its nest, as prospect.org maintains? Who cares about the U.N. Small Arms Trade Treaty anyway?

comments

  1. avatar Matt in FL says:

    I think there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with being vigilant. However, I am under no illusion that the NRA is above using this (or anything else like it) to its own full advantage. I mean, who knows, we could go the next six months without anything obviously anti-gun happening, and where would their revenue come from then? Gotta make hay while the sun shines.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The NRA and other guns right orgs are facing the bottomless pockets of Kapo bloomberg and the hollywood elite and the free support of the msm against gun owners. I don not blame them for trying to ratchet up support and fill their coffers.

      1. avatar EagleScout87 says:

        Agreed.

  2. avatar ST says:

    The problem is twofold.

    One,Obama could use the UN ATT as legal justification for executive actions against gun rights.Stopping him would require a drawn out and expensive legal showdown.

    Two, the treatys been signed but not ratified-yet.We get a different,liberal minded legislature someday and it’s back to square one.

    1. avatar Brad says:

      Executive orders are NOT law, no matter what Obama thinks! Even if this happens; they still have to TRY to enforce it. 80 million LEGAL gun owners in this country … Has Britain forgotten what happened LAST TIME they tried to take our guns?

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Great and meaningless point. Obumer has violated the law many times in the last 5 years and what have been the repercussion? NONE. See also the Supreme Court, US Senate, various executive branch agencies. The Dems and RINOS will let him do very near ANYTHING he lifes as “he won”.

        1. avatar peirsonb says:

          At this point we can just hope the senate maintains the level of backbone they displayed when Kerry signed it. They stated they would not allow for any executive action that tries to enforce the treaty prior to official ratification.

          Still, the immortal words apply: “I have a bad feeling about this”

      2. avatar Mike says:

        The UK never came for your guns. The War of Independence was not about guns – don`t revise history.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          At Concord and Lexington the minute men stood against regular British troops. The Brits were there to seize arms and ammunition from the armories in those towns.

  3. avatar flboots says:

    The UN isnt my gov. Their laws don’t mead squat. If the UN wants to march into America I do believe there are a lot of VETS and Americans behind every blade of grass and tree to make their lives miserable.

    1. avatar jwestham says:

      +1 that commemt

    2. avatar Geoge says:

      To all of you making comments like: the UN isn’t my goverment… Next time the US decides to go to war or pressure other countries over chemical weapons or WMDs or human rights violations remember that the UN is not their goverment either. Please take off the tin foil hats take your meds and stop freaking out about the UN takeover of your country, at worst this treaty will only affect imports to the US (a good thing for your domestic industry) The UN is an effort to find common ground on an international level instead of having a bunch of countries acting like even bigger dicks than they are now and has made a possitive net impact on the world to this point.

      1. avatar OldBenTurninginGrave says:

        I always thought the UN was a forum for people to bitch loudly about how horrible the USA is until the USA gives them some more money.

        1. avatar IdahoPete says:

          The UN is “a forum for people to bitch loudly about how horrible the USA is” while funded by taxpayer dollars. There – a minor correction …

  4. avatar Craig says:

    In all honesty, probably just a percentage of the gun rights community. When the treaty was signed, I didn’t see one headline about it. I saw it on TTAG and had to google for a news article from Fox. The ATT has been argued over for years, and what it means to America is vague at best. If get gets implemented, will we see an overturning of Federal and state bans on registries (i.e. FOPA, RI’s 11-47-41)? I don’t think anyone, pro or anti gun, knows exactly how things would happen if the treaty is approved by the Senate. We and they can plan, but…

    However this ambiguity is exactly why we need to remain vigilant in our efforts.

    1. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

      The reason the so-called Main-Stream Media didn’t cover it is the obverse of why they don’t cover situations where guns in the hands of citizens are used to protect people and property.

      It’s all part of the ‘Plan’.

  5. avatar dwb says:

    Well, maybe they are using it for a fundraiser, but the joyce foundation uses dead children for a fundraiser and props. Moreover, if they stop caring, it’ll sneak through the Senate. Can’t really ever be complacent.

  6. avatar gloomhound says:

    How could this effect imported ammo?

    1. avatar Hobbez says:

      As I read it, it will impose more paperwork and licenses on importers. Basically, imported ammo from large manufacturers will get more expensive and ammo from small manufacturers will likely not be available anymore. Small companies will likely just skip the extra cost to export and only sell locally.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        That is my interpretation as well regarding the increases in costs for imported ammo. If there is anything we don’t need, it is additional increases on ammo prices and the turning away of international ammo distributors. .22 LR is still difficult to find, and prices on .223 / 5.56 have gone way up.

        I look at it this way: Obamacare was sold to the American public as a way to cut medical costs. In essence, it is a hugely bloated and complicate government program which is such a bastard law that congress has exempted themselves from it. Let us also not forget that Obamacare raises 23 new additional taxes, and is constantly being modified.

        The vague language of the ATT gives government officials lots of leeway for future gun control measures. Obama wants more gun control, as well as more control over the US populace via government. The ATT will likely give him that.

        The UN statue of the twisted revolver should be pretty indicative of their feelings towards guns.

  7. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I think we’re going to have to wait and see what effect this has on us as POTG.
    If the NRA uses this to build a war chest, I’m OK with that. I think a war chest is a good thing.

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    The US never agreed to be bound by the protocol to the Hague Convention that “banned” expanding ammo in battle. However, the US doesn’t normally use expanding ammo in battle because it’s “banned.”

    The fact that it was only banned in conflicts between signatories — the war between the US and the Taliban wouldn’t be covered even if we had approved the so-called ban — and the fact that the US wasn’t a signatory doesn’t seem to matter. Neither does the fact that our guys die because of it.

    Just because the treaty isn’t ratified does not mean that the current pack of Democrat jackals won’t enforce every bit of it that they can.

    1. avatar OldBenTurninginGrave says:

      Truth. Unfortunately.

  9. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    I can’t help but think that the U.N. is nothing more than a paper tiger. SHOULD we be concerned? My worry is that OUR government could use it as a pretext for 2A degradation…

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Count on it.

  10. avatar JAS says:

    If the treaty was accepted by congress it would affect all of us. Import and export sales of arms and ammunition would be restricted or in certain instances prohibited. Firearm and ammo manufacturers would suffer financial loss. People would lose jobs. Prices for ammunition would skyrocket. If you think we have a short supply now wait till the Chinese and Europeans can’t sell us ammo.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Word. Although the foreign ammo I’d miss most is S. Korean PMC X-Tac.

      1. avatar VBS says:

        Yep, same here. PMC is gold, at least for the price.

    2. avatar Anders A says:

      The Chinese can’t sell us ammo anyway- one reason why our prices are so high.

  11. avatar Kvjavs says:

    The U.N. is dumb, but not THAT dumb. They know that walking into America to confiscate guns would be a blood bath. Way too many gun owners, state defense forces and militias.

    This entire treaty is a political stunt to make it look like they’re doing something, but in reality, nothing will come out of it.

  12. avatar DamDoc says:

    NRA raising money goes strongly to the pro-gun cause.. any way they raise money is great, and a good cause.. better there than the 25% health care premium my provider infomed me of today… $1400/ month for $5000 deductible catistropic insurance now.. think of the guns i could have bought… all praise to the one for the “affordable” health care law and the UN treaty.. what could go wrong?

  13. avatar Fug says:

    Personally I think the most likely way this will be used is to restrict the importation of Russian ammunition, components and long guns if we get into a proxy spat with them. That is something they could do with minimal public outcry to hurt the Russians and consumers who don’t necessarily support a Russophobic, liberal administration.

  14. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: Robert Farago, et al.
    RE: This ‘Treaty’

    I’m confident that this administration will—given a ratification of the treaty—do it’s level-worst to use it to disarm Americans.

    There are just too many ‘indicators’ showing up on the radar to not be very concerned about it and all the other items of late.

    • The UN Treaty
    • The militarization of the police, e.g., SWAT teams to retrieve stolen XBox toys.
    • The purchase and distribution to police of MRAPs
    • The purchase of over ONE BILLION rounds of ammo that is not intended for the military
    • The push in government to disarm Americans, e.g., state level gun laws that restrict ownership
    • The report, recently published here, that indicates combat and combat support units of the National Guard have been ordered to conduct Civil Disorder training during their annual two-week training period.
    • And today, two reports that the US might be on the verge of pulling a Cypriot/Poland seizure of personal bank accounts/mutual funds and other monetary instruments in order to defray the $16 TRILLION national debt.

    If the latter does take place, then THERE WILL BE BLOOD in the streets.

    The only reason that Cyprus and Poland got away with it is because their citizens do not possess firearms. Their governments can ride roughshod over them.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [If you’re not paranoid, it’s because you’re not paying attention.]

    P.S. Be Prepared…..

    P.P.S. Watch for Reichstag Fires…

  15. avatar Dave357 says:

    OK, so the NRA opposes the treaty just to fill its coffers. Then why did the Brady center support it? So that the NRA could fill its coffers opposing this treaty? Or because they think it will be useful in pursuing gun control?

    1. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

      Good point, that….about how the Brady Bunch supports the treaty.

      An excellent ‘indicator’…..

  16. avatar JoshtheViking says:

    As much as I hate the thought of a meltdown, it would at least give us a chance to start over. The early years of our revolution looked pretty bleak. Most Americans didn’t support the war and Howe (I think) had the continental army on the run. A few years later, we had kicked the Brits and the Toris out and were on our way to founding the greatest nation in the history of man. Be strong and keep your powder dry friends.

  17. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

    Whoa boy. Give some sources regarding the seizure of personal bank accounts.

    I wouldn’t be surprised…but I want to see the evidence.

    1. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

      TO: (Formerly) MN MATT
      RE: Sources on Bank ‘Haircuts’

      Whoa boy. Give some sources regarding the seizure of personal bank accounts. — (Formerly) MN MATT

      Here ya go:

      • Instapundit — http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/176676/ [NOTE: Follow the link to Zero Hedge.]

      • WorldNetDaily — http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/americans-warned-bank-bail-ins-coming/

      Enjoy,

      Chuck(le)
      [No man’s life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session. — Benjamin Franklin]

      P.S. From my regular workstation…not the iPad that I tried to send from earlier….

      1. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

        Well. There it is.

        1. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

          Don’t you just LOVE IT when a ‘Plan’ comes together?

      2. avatar DanS. says:

        Seizure of bank accounts is provided for in the Dodd-Frank legislation. We need to repeal Dodd-Frank and reinstitute Glass-Stegall.

        1. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

          It’s LEGAL??!??!!

          Please give me the title of the law that Dodd-Frank had passed.

  18. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

    THIS DAMNED SYSTEM STINKS…when it comes to working it via an iPad.

    I had the message almost completed, but the damned system, when I came back from getting the second link had trashed all the material I provided earlier.

    FIX THIS CR@P, BOB!

  19. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Funny how a boy’s club of dictators deems it necessary to track the movement of small arms that could land in the hands of their subjects.

  20. avatar DJ says:

    All the Dems need to do is get a supermajority in the Senate in 2014 and this will get ratified.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      Maybe, but even then, I think they’d be running a risk. They saw what just happened in Colorado and the Democrats themselves played a big role in killing the background check legislation.

  21. avatar Bob says:

    Some of you who haven’t read all of the Constitution for awhile may have forgotten this information:

    Treaties do not get voted on in BOTH houses of the Legislative. Treaties are only voted on by The Senate. Treaties also have a lot of power as law in this country.

    … and the Senate is controlled by the Democrats right now. If Obama and Reid use their power of political influence, this treaty could be ratified in the Senate, even though they have already stated that they oppose it. Best for our lobbying representatives (the NRA) and us to remain very vigilant, continually reminding our Senators that a Yes vote on ATT ratification will mean the end of their political career.

    The NRA is not just using this to grow their funding. This is a very important issue that we need to be aware of.

  22. avatar Rikoshay says:

    If it wasn’t for the NRA the 2A would probably already be gone. I’d rather they got all the money that comes out of my checks then the government. Our elected officials suck. They can’t even realize that they have sold out the very soul of what this country founded on. Its way beyond anything that will EVER be able to be repaid. And this Obamacare thing is like pouring gas with the match already lite. The people of the gun should exercise the 2A to its fullest extent and open carry their asses out from the position of power before they are able to show their true tyrannical agenda. That’s just my opinion anyway

  23. avatar Andy says:

    NRA member,can tell you that they won’t get me to register anything,or give up anything without a fight,and yes I will fight the tyranny no matter where it comes from!I hope that when that time comes I am not alone,because we have to get this country back to what it is supposed to be,and never let the communists try to gain control over us like they are doing now.Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

  24. avatar Mark N. says:

    I don’t see why anyone cares what happens to the ATT. It has nothing to do with domestic laws regarding firearms, and cannot be used as a pretext for changes in domestic laws to “comply” with provisions of the ATT. The ATT is intended to regulate the international arms trade as engaged in by the signatory governments–much of it illegal anyway, and the rest purely political–as a way of reducing civil unrest in unstable third world countries. The US government already has the authority to restrict the importation of foreign arms for the domestic market-and it has done so. The US government already has the authority to restrict the importation of ammunition–and it has done so. It doesn’t need the ATT–and no provision of the ATT applies to such restrictions anyway–to do what it is doing, has done, and will do in the future.

    1. avatar john says:

      There’s language in the treaty that requires signatory countries to take steps to prevent unlawful gun exports. It’s up to the countries to determine what those steps are. Those steps will probably include/end with outrght gun bans in violation of the Constitution.

      That’s why you should care.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Nonsense. Your hat is on too tight. I personally am not going to be illegally exporting weapons–you have to be a real criminal to export enough to make it worth your while. The most you can do is clamp down on straw purchaser transactions–which should be done any way. Doesn’t need some international treaty to do that, or to prosecute what is already a crime here. Your suggestion is unreasonable. And it would violate the Second Amendment. No international treaty supersedes national law.

  25. avatar Cubby123 says:

    This stupid administration does whatever it wants without permission from US citizens.I don’t remember Voting on whether or not the US should sign that thing.Wash DC does whatever it wants without permission from the “we the people”Hey Colorado,how about some help with the Wash DC recall election!

    1. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

      Here, in Colorado, our state constitution only allows for the recall of state-level and lower, e.g., city council, elected officials, e.g., Morse and Giron.

  26. avatar Michael Marriam says:

    Anyone who thinks there is no way the Republican membU.S. Senate

  27. avatar Paul McCain says:

    The National Rifle Association has done more to defend our Second Amendment rights than any other organization. The constant sniping at the NRA gets ridiculous. Yes, of course, they must constantly be raising money. Do you have any idea how much it costs to get involved in court cases and stick with them all the way up to the Supreme Court level?

    Criticize the NRA all you want, but if you are not supporting their work, you are just a useless critic.

    1. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

      No.

      They are not ‘useless critics’.

      They are something much, MUCH WORSE!

  28. avatar Anthony says:

    I may be wrong, but I’m fairly sure that article 5 section 2 Of the treaty is about creating a gun registery. It is how it sounds by the wording… But who knows for sure? Apparently, also according to the treaty, interpetation is between two states that disagree, and have resovle the conflict through mediation…

    So, for example, if England doesn’t like how Americans interpret and abide by the treaty, there wouls have to be UN controlled mediation, and then a compromise? Is that the jist, or am I wrong?

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email