UN Arms Treaty Update

[LeadSled1]

Take a look at the UN site:

http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/

ISACS International Small Arms Control Standards


SERIES 02 - Small arms and light weapons control in context

02.10 Small arms and light weapons control in the context of preventing armed violence

02.20 Small arms and light weapons control in the context of Security Sector Reform

02.30 Small arms and light weapons control in the context of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration


Of course, none of those are open for viewing yet. But found below that is 05.40 Collection of illicit and unwanted small arms and light weapons

Contains collection under:
have undergone legislative reform restricting the access of civilians to small arms.

 

[eruby]

I don't see how anyone can see this as innocuous, given the wholesale disregard of the law by the current administration. Literally every agency of the government, down to the Department of Agriculture, has been perverted to support the candidate of one party. How can anyone not see this as an outrage?

Zippy has had far to few comeuppances in the courts. They come too little and too late to have any effect. You do realize that he just created the Dream Act by fiat, don't you? He has effectively created amnesty by decree. You know that, don't you?

How can you think that he won't take this as authority to do whatever the hell he pleases? This is the gun control argument all over again. The antis say pass more laws, we need more laws. We say if you don't pay any attention to the laws we already have, what makes you think that new laws will have any more effect? If Zippy has disregarded major principles of our republic with reckless abandon at every turn, what makes anyone think he'll suddenly see the light and stop here?

 

[alzoom85]

Wtf the first link on the page to view the text of the treaty is in arabic

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

 

[aray]

The same document contains the treaty in multiple languages. The English text begins on page 21. This link will get you to where you want to go faster:

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410 12-01 PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21

 

[aray]

Take a look at the UN site:

http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/

ISACS International Small Arms Control Standards


SERIES 02 - Small arms and light weapons control in context

02.10 Small arms and light weapons control in the context of preventing armed violence

02.20 Small arms and light weapons control in the context of Security Sector Reform

02.30 Small arms and light weapons control in the context of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration


Of course, none of those are open for viewing yet. But found below that is 05.40 Collection of illicit and unwanted small arms and light weapons

Contains collection under:
have undergone legislative reform restricting the access of civilians to small arms.

And don't forget:

03.30 National controls over the access of civilians to small arms and light weapons

 

[niftyvt]

Yeah that's another aspect I haven't even touched upon yet, that many others have also articulated: the treaty covers ammunition as well. Many fear it could prohibit the export/import of surplus ammunition since again the same restrictions (registration & controls of end-users to avoid diversion) are in place here as well.

I saw someone else make a very apropos quote in relation to this treaty that I repeat here: "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." - President Lydon Johnson (and I think that's the first time I've ever quoted LBJ! )

At first I figured I had a couple of months to collect ammo once I pay off the Oct 1 purchases bec I still have 4-6 months to wait for my AKs to come in. . . then this crap treaty BS came around and my credit card was thrust into round 2.

 

[Sev89]

Just a thought, but if the SoS doesn't have the authority (someone correct me if I'm wrong please) to sign treaties, then shouldn't that mean it's null 'n void? If it's not signed by POTUS, it doesn't mean squat. If that is the case, then it needs to be hammered home to every critter on the hill that this administrations attempts to implement any part of this atrocity, are pretty much (even though the word illegal doesn't mean squat for this admin. )illegal.

 

[40-Cal-Polymer]

Just a thought, but if the SoS doesn't have the authority (someone correct me if I'm wrong please) to sign treaties, then shouldn't that mean it's null 'n void? If it's not signed by POTUS, it doesn't mean squat. If that is the case, then it needs to be hammered home to every critter on the hill that this administrations attempts to implement any part of this atrocity, are pretty much (even though the word illegal doesn't mean squat for this admin. )illegal.

IMHO, Obama and his administration have probably commited more acts of treason then other presidency in history. I think a large part of why he's still in office, is because of his race and religion. Most democrats agree with him and stand in his favor, along side of a few rinos. If they were to impeach him? The media would call EVERY white gop mebers and "old, white, racist" and could effectively hurt the republican image. because I have no idea, why else these men and women currently in power haven't been arrested and executed.

 

[Dave MP]

IMHO, Obama and his administration have probably commited more acts of treason then other presidency in history. I think a large part of why he's still in office, is because of his race and religion. Most democrats agree with him and stand in his favor, along side of a few rinos. If they were to impeach him? The media would call EVERY white gop mebers and "old, white, racist" and could effectively hurt the republican image. because I have no idea, why else these men and women currently in power haven't been arrested and executed.

As if they haven't damaged it enough on their own.

 

[pcfixer]

OATH KEEPERS MOLON LABE PLEDGE




We will never disarm. We will never surrender our military pattern, semi-automatic rifles and the full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition that go with them. Thefundamental purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of We the People so we will have effective means to resist tyranny. Regardless of what unholy, unconstitutional filth issues from the mouths of oath breakers in “Mordor on the Potomac” our answer is MOLON LABE.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”- Patrick Henry

We will not allow our children to be disarmed. We will pass on those military pattern rifles, magazines, and ammunition to our children and our children’s children.

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tench Coxe, 1788

We will die in battle before we give up our arms and leave our children in slavery.

We will not register ourselves or our arms. Registration is the prerequisite to confiscation, which is the prerequisite to dictatorship and extermination. We will NOT be photographed, finger-printed, tracked, and subjected to psych-evaluations like convicted sex-offenders just for owning semi-automatic rifles. Doing so is itself an act of surrender and submission, taking the mark of the slave (it is akin to taking the mark of the Beast).

We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people or compel registration

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. It was an act of war, and our forefathers fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. Those of us who are still current serving will not enforce any attempt to register either gun owners or guns, or to ban the sale, possession, or transfer of any semi-automatic rifles, handguns, or full capacity ammunition magazines, which are precisely the kinds of weapons the American people need to defend their lives and liberty.

We will interpose ourselves between the people and the oath breakers and traitors who try to disarm them.

We will step in between the people in our communities and any oath breaker who attempts to carry out such orders, regardless of their title, their office, their uniform, or who sent them. When they step outside the law – outside the Constitution – they are no better than violent street criminals and we will protect the people from them.

We will keep the oaths we swore to almighty God to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath does not expire until we do. American patriots, Oath Keepers, what say you? Will you pledge the same?

Sign the pledge here:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/pledge/?p=1

Name*
Real Name, Online Handle, Anonymous
Your Email*

 

[jpk1md]

For the record, you open with “No offense but” <offending insult immediately follows>

You’re better than that.

And thanks but my reading comprehension is just fine. The first article IS about this treaty,

The entire first article is less than a page......and except for mentioning it in the first and second to last par's with no details the article doesn't discuss the ATT

Here are the first couple of par's

CLEARLY the article is about treaties in GENERAL not the ATT treaty and what ATT will do.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/24/arms-trade-treaty-media-need-an-advanced-class-on-treaties/
In answering media questions on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), I have found that hosts frequently state, as a matter of fact, that treaties require a two-thirds Senate majority, and if they don’t get it, they have no legal effect. Like all things, it’s not that simple. Here’s a short primer on when and how treaties can have legal effect.

In order of complexity:

Treaties 101: According to the Constitution, the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Today, this normally means 67 votes.

Treaties 201: But treaties fall into two categories: self-executing and non-self-executing. Self-executing treaties have immediate legal effect in the U.S. after Senate ratification. Non-self-executing treaties take legal effect at the international level upon entry into force for the U.S., following Senate consent and ratification. But they have limited domestic legal effect until Congress passes, and the President signs, implementing legislation. Thus, the House of Representatives has an important role to play in our treaty process. Treaties are normally presumed to be non-self-executing unless they are explicitly self-executing. The most significant case on this subject was Medellin v. Texas (2008), won by Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz.

And yes I have read the ATT. I’m far from alone in being concerned about its implications. Most major gun-rights groups have expressed the same concerns as have I.

The biggest fear is that arms (and the ATT defines arms as even down to small arms) could be subject to registration, in particular to preclude the possibility of “diversion” for unintended purposes. Much like Obama wants a national registry to track diversion of firearms into the criminal community, many argue that this treaty gives him the legal authorization to establish a national control or registration system to ensure diversion of firearms into all illegal areas: not just normal crime, but also domestic violence, and civil insurrection. Got “molon labe” in your signature file? Claim that you’re a member of “the militia” as we know it was originally defined by the Founders in the 2A (but rejected by current politicians)? Guess what – you may qualify. Only one way to be sure of course: set up a national registration system.

Here are some excerpts from the document. I encourage people to read the document and make up their own minds. But keep in mind, it won’t be interpreted in the way that you & I might chose to interpret it. No, the language will be interpreted by an Administration that has adequately demonstrated what it thinks about your rights, and the clear danger that you present to a safe society. So in that light, here are just a few of the juicy bits; more available in the full draft:

Article I. The object of this Treaty is to: … prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion

Article 2
Scope
1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:
(h) Small arms and light weapons.

Article 4 requires a “national control system” for all “parts and components” where you can “assemble the conventional arms” for export. So the government of the US may be required to inform the government of Italy of the end-users for Italian made Beretta parts imported into the US, as one example.

Article 5 again speaks of a “national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.”

continuing:

5.3 “Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of the Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”

5.4 lists to be shared with the UN and with other States

7.4 States to “take account the risks of the conventional arms” … “to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children.”

12.4 registration records to be kept for a minimum of 10 years

Article 23 says that Articles 6 & 7 may be self-executing “at the time of signature”. Subsequent ratification is an OR and is NOT an essential prerequisite to enforcement for those portions.

FINALLY

Someone actually references the treaty........only took four ****ing pages.

Context is important.

I completely agree that its possible to read this 17 different ways and come up with 100 different outcomes

First is the Objective.

What does it say?

It basically says that the objective is to regulate INTERNATIONAL trade in firearms/reduce/eliminate illicite arms dealing.

Basically the entire treaty operates on the individuate states (Countries).

This isn't about you or I or any other individual and the treaty actually defers to the laws of each sovereign country.

Art 3 pertains to EXPORT of ammo

Art 4 pertains to EXPORT of parts/components

etc etc etc

We can let our imaginations run wild with this but if you sit down and read the treaty carefully you'll realize that it would be pretty much impossible for Oblahblah to use any of it to infringe on an individuals rights.......and even if it WERE to be ratified by the senate it STILL is subject to our own laws

Current laws prohibit info collected on a 4473 to be retained by Gov.

Current laws also prohibit DB's from being created of gun owners.

Its a HORRIBLY written treaty that there is HUGE opposition to in the senage already.......but as written the President would have to overtly break our laws to infringe upon anyone rights

 

[DarthZed]

Why is everyone STILL up in arms over this? It has been covered in MULTIPLE posts (I've posted links to primary source material that disproves all these conspiracy theories before).

The UN Arms Treaty deals with international arms sales. The treaty will have no effect on US arms sales (except perhaps importation of certain foreign firearms, which could be bypassed with US based manufacturing). The treaty (as with almost all UN treaties) has no impact or authority over the internal law/regulations within any given country. UN treaties (except in rare cases) deal with how countries get along with each other, not how they run their internal affairs.

So why is everyone running around spouting nonsense about "the Gov'ment coming to take our guns". We signed the Kyoto Treaty on CO2 emissions too, but it wasn't ratified, and we are technically not bound by it. This treaty won't be ratified either, and will join the 10 or so treaties that the US has agreed to, but congress refused to support.

My God, stop being lead around by rhetoric put forth by politicians and right-wing groups trying to keep everyone whipped into a frenzy. Everyone just take a deep breath, and C A L M down.

 

[pcfixer]

Why is everyone STILL up in arms over this? It has been covered in MULTIPLE posts (I've posted links to primary source material that disproves all these conspiracy theories before).

The UN Arms Treaty deals with international arms sales. The treaty will have no effect on US arms sales (except perhaps importation of certain foreign firearms, which could be bypassed with US based manufacturing). The treaty (as with almost all UN treaties) has no impact or authority over the internal law/regulations within any given country. UN treaties (except in rare cases) deal with how countries get along with each other, not how they run their internal affairs.

So why is everyone running around spouting nonsense about "the Gov'ment coming to take our guns". We signed the Kyoto Treaty on CO2 emissions too, but it wasn't ratified, and we are technically not bound by it. This treaty won't be ratified either, and will join the 10 or so treaties that the US has agreed to, but congress refused to support.

My God, stop being lead around by rhetoric put forth by politicians and right-wing groups trying to keep everyone whipped into a frenzy. Everyone just take a deep breath, and C A L M down.

read this...
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/n...n-signs-united-nations-arms-trade-treaty.aspx

Notably, the ATT includes "small arms and light weapons" within its scope, which covers firearms owned by law-abiding citizens. Further, the treaty urges recordkeeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including “end use or end user documentation” for a “minimum of ten years.” Each country is to “take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms.” Data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a de-facto registry of law-abiding firearms owners, which is a violation of federal law. Even worse, the ATT could be construed to require such a registry to be made available to foreign governments.

 

[jpk1md]

read this...
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/n...n-signs-united-nations-arms-trade-treaty.aspx

Notably, the ATT includes "small arms and light weapons" within its scope, which covers firearms owned by law-abiding citizens. Further, the treaty urges recordkeeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including “end use or end user documentation” for a “minimum of ten years.” Each country is to “take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms.” Data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a de-facto registry of law-abiding firearms owners, which is a violation of federal law. Even worse, the ATT could be construed to require such a registry to be made available to foreign governments.

You missed the part of the treaty that states that the treaty is subject to the laws of the sovereign country that signs it........

US law doesn't allow for collection/retention by fed gov of any info in the 4473 nor does it allow for the creation of databases of gun owner info etc etc etc....

Is it a crap treaty? Hell yes

Is the treaty as written going to allow the fed gov to collect info on you or your purchases let alone share that info with another country? Hell NO.

 

[briwayjones]

While a treaty can trump federal law, it cannot legally trump the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land period.

 

[pjd832]

While a treaty can trump federal law, it cannot legally trump the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land period.

several recent/current examples show "they" dont hold youre last line true

 

[PowPow]

...
We can let our imaginations run wild with this but if you sit down and read the treaty carefully you'll realize that it would be pretty much impossible for Oblahblah to use any of it to infringe on an individuals rights.......and even if it WERE to be ratified by the senate it STILL is subject to our own laws

Current laws prohibit info collected on a 4473 to be retained by Gov.

Current laws also prohibit DB's from being created of gun owners.

Its a HORRIBLY written treaty that there is HUGE opposition to in the senage already.......but as written the President would have to overtly break our laws to infringe upon anyone rights

I've read that harmless looking treaty about 7 times but only in one of the languages available (English).

I'm not worried about the seemingly innocent language in the text.

I'm a little concerned about the opening reasons and rationale for said treaty; little of that is settled as fact.

BUT, I'm very concerned that this treaty could be a device used to subvert our constitutional rights and ultimately endanger our republic's survival. We have an executive branch that is all too willing to legislate by issuing new regulations and executive orders. Their mantra is "Forget about law. The courts might catch up someday, but by then our ends have truly justified our means!" I wish I could say otherwise.

What possible good could come about as a result of the United States being a signatory of this treaty? As I see it, there is only potential on the downside to negatively impact every single law-abiding gun owner or future one in this country. I ask again, why do we think it's okay to sign this and rationalize that it's harmless?

Wake up, America! Our country is under attack (from the inside). God save us.

 

[aray]

The entire first article is less than a page......and except for mentioning it in the first and second to last par's with no details the article doesn't discuss the ATT

Volume of words is not the right metric. I already pointed out the author spends considerable time citing examples of other non-ratified treaties that the US, nevertheless, honors as if they were ratified. To that end, the more examples he cites the stronger his case. The general proves the specific. The author himself believes this about the ATT and he said so himself. That's good enough for me and I suspect for most other readers.

I completely agree that its possible to read this 17 different ways and come up with 100 different outcomes

...

It basically says that the objective is to regulate INTERNATIONAL trade in firearms/reduce/eliminate illicite arms dealing.

...and even if it WERE to be ratified by the senate it STILL is subject to our own laws

...

Its a HORRIBLY written treaty that there is HUGE opposition to in the senage already.......but as written the President would have to overtly break our laws to infringe upon anyone rights

Your comments are on target so far as they go but that isn't the whole story. First the treaty goes into great detail about registration and control schemes to prevent "diversion" (and therein lies a big loophole), suggests States apply them in the broadest possible way, and makes it clear it applies to small arms as well. And, as was shown in the supporting documentation on the related web pages, it calls out for control of civilian arms as well.

It is not a stretch to believe that a POTUS of the philosophy of Obama would attempt to apply these controls to our firearms claiming such is required under the treaty to prevent diversion.

But that leaves conflicts with our own laws which you correctly point out. But herein lies the dilemma: what happens when US law conflicts with a treaty? Which takes precedence? This POTUS I'm confident would say this treaty. Someone would sue. The SCOTUS would decide. Given the current make-up of the Court (hence my reference to Justice Ginsburg) I'm not sure how that would turn out. But certainly if/when Obama appoints another Justice, I think we can remove all doubt.

That's one of the reasons why the Bush Administration would not support the treaty (there were other reasons as well). UN Ambassador John Bolton tried to get explicit language in there that would preclude such an interpretation. He was unsuccessful, and the Bush Administration never supported ATT. That all changed under Obama, and now the US not only supported the ATT (without that clarifying language) but as we now know has gone further and signed it as well.

It very much reminds me of ObamaCare & abortion. While ObamaCare was being debated, its proponents insisted it had nothing to do with abortion, and would in no way increase nor fund abortion. Well sadly the AFC passed, and now the government requires all plans to be compliant, and that compliance means family planning services up to and including abortion coverage.

If Obama wanted this exclusion, he would have insisted on it being explicit, as was done under Bush. He did not. To me that speaks volumes.

 

[JailHouseLiar]

While a treaty can trump federal law, it cannot legally trump the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land period.

Exactly correct. It can say whatever it likes and they can sign anything they care to; it matters not.

Besides, NATO troops on US Soil? They can't defeat goat herders living in mud huts, running around in man-jammies.

 

[briwayjones]

several recent/current examples show "they" dont hold youre last line true

That's why I say "legally". They may use the treaty to ignore and go against the Constitution, but it's not legal.