For over 15 years, the NRA has been warning us about a global anti-gun treaty and in July 2012, the United Nations is meeting to write such a treaty. The idea of an international arms control treaty between the members or States of the United Nations came from a group of Nobel Peace prizewinners in 2003. The group was led by Oscar Arias Sanchez former president of Costa Rica and 1987 Nobel Peace Prize winner. On December 6, 2006, the U.N. adopted the resolution towards an Arms Trade Treaty calling it 61/89. Resolution 61/89 is the UN’s official recognition that there is a lack of regulated control of international weapons transfers. The U.N. Secretary-General released a report questioning the feasibility of a global Arms Trade Treaty.
Outside the United Nations Headquarters in New York.
Originally, the United States opposed such a treaty, but on October 14, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on behalf of the Obama Administration, issued a statement in support of the treaty:
The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons. We look forward to this negotiation as the continuation of the process that began in the UN with the 2008 UN Group of Governmental Experts on the ATT and continued with the 2009 UN Open-Ended Working Group on ATT. (www.state.gov.)
In 2008 and 2009, 28 States representatives met to discuss the Arms Trade Treaty. This committee settled on a creating a conference in order to finalize the treaty document. The U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty meets at U.N. headquarters in New York July 2 through 27, 2012. The point of the conference is to create a “legally binding instrument” to control weapons transfers “establishing common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms.” There is no international law that regulates the transfer of weapons. Since the United Nations was established to maintain “international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights” (www.un.org) the treaty is supposed to regulate the transfer of arms so that said arms do not get into the hands of terrorist, rebels, insurgents, organized crime cartels, and human rights violators. One hundred fifty three U.N. members have written in support of the treaty. China, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen refused to vote during the first committee meetings.
I wonder if the UN Peacekeepers would be able to keep their weapons.
During the 2009 meetings of the States, a perimeter was set down that the United States’ right to bear arms would be unaffected by the treaty. The draft says, “Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory.” (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. 64/48. The arms trade treaty.) However, many experts disagree. Potentially the treaty will create an international firearms registry, ban certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, add more laws domestically, barriers to trade weapons internationally, and completely stop hunting in other countries, such as Africa and Canada. As well as affecting United States ally protection. Currently there is a movement from Taiwan to oppose the treaty. Former President Ronald Reagan promised our continued support to Taiwan in 1982. Since Taiwan is not a member of the United States, the Arms Trade Treaty may prohibit the United States from selling and exporting weapons to countries at risk from hostile countries.
The arms industry in the United States is a $35 billion industry, employing over 350,000 people. Globally, the arms industry is worth $55 billion. Many countries, such as China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, as well as the United States depend on this revenue. Such a treaty puts this revenue and the jobs the arms industry provides at risk.
If the United States signs the treaty, the U.S. Senate will have to approve. However, in July 2011, 58 members of the Senate signed a letter stating their disapproval of the treaty. Further, in the 1957 landmark case Reid v. Covert, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States cannot enter into a treaty that violates the Constitution.
Arizona Representative Benjamin Quayle, with co-sponsor Todd Akin from Missouri have introduced the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012, H.R. 5846, that would not let our current administration use “federal funds to voice, vote, and influence during Arms Trade Treaty negotiations” in order to protect our 2ndAmendment rights. (http://akin.house.gov) Introduced on May 18, 2012, the bill sits in referral to committee. As of this writing, it has not gotten any further. GovTrack.us gives H.R. 5846 a two percent chance of passing.
Photo courtesy of Oleg Volk.
July 2 through the 27, 2012, 193 members of the U.N., along with non-government organizations, the NRA, public interest groups, and firearms and other arms industry representatives, along with the media will be attending the Conference. Cheaper Than Dirt will keep you updated as the story progresses.
Like this article? CLICK HERE to get stories like this and others every other week in your e-mail inbox.
The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!’s blog, “The Shooter’s Log,” is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!
It is ironic that Alfred Nobel amassed an enormous fortune from his work in explosives development receiving a patent for the manufacture of dynamite in 1867. Had his work in Stockholm 150 years ago been prohibited my rules, regulations and treaties, Mr. Sanchez from Costa Rica would have received no credibility from receiving the coveted Nobel Peace prize in 1987 because there would be no Nobel Peace prize. It should be clear that prohibitions against any activity merely makes those illegal activities more profitable for those trafficking in same. This treaty, with all the abstaining nations, may be a feel good moment for the signees but will have no effect on keeping arms away from “terrorists, rebels, insurgents, organized crime cartels and human rights violators.” If you could legislate humane behavior, this would be a peaceful world. Sadly, universally humane behavior does not seem very human. Something like 2% of the population at large is criminally pathological. That is not likely to change with the passage of a UN Small Arms Treaty. And the 98% should not have the means to defend themselves withdrawn by a well intentioned but pathetically ineffective law.
Comment by Joe — June 15, 2012 @ 10:30 am
they can take my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!!!
Comment by erin — June 18, 2012 @ 1:16 pm
This is total BS!!
Comment by Jack Palmer — June 18, 2012 @ 1:29 pm
These efforts are the exact reason I’ve decided to “invest” (in Washington-speak) in a couple of my dream firearms over the last week. That way I’ll have them, and they can try to take them away from me, vs. trying to get them in the next couple of months. My Stag’s being built, my Baer will be built by the end of the year (I hope), and my Ed Brown’s on the way. Yeah, I’m name-dropping, but I’m excited, and I’d like to give these guys business when other powers would love to take their livelihoods away. As long as there’s more room in my safe (or my backyard, or anywhere else I can have then available), I’ll get as many as I can.
Comment by Keith Schroeder — June 18, 2012 @ 1:31 pm
If the Obama administration think history portrays the American civil war [concerning slavery and human rights] as being extremely ‘Bloody’…. they should seriously consider the kind of modern civil war that would result if they ever tried to take American’s firearmes in violation of the Second Amendment through some back door international treaty. I believe the ‘people’ would fire upon law enforcement & military if that were to ever happen. I also suspect that there would be mass desertion from the military.
Comment by David — June 18, 2012 @ 1:50 pm
So let me get this straight…an international organization that punishes countries by issuing “sanctions” (legal term for “Stop! or I’ll say Stop again!”) is going to disarm 1/3 of the American population? Good luck.
Comment by Mike — June 18, 2012 @ 3:50 pm
Thank God for The Oathkeepers. Look it up if you have never heard of them..
Comment by Bob — June 18, 2012 @ 3:51 pm
Just watch the LAME DUCK period after the elections when O’dumbass loses. He’ll probably sign every gun banning treaty and executive order he can.
Comment by Allen — June 18, 2012 @ 7:10 pm
They keep f—ing with people’s gun rights and people tell them NO everytime. I’m not giving mine up come Hell or high water.
Comment by Arminius — June 19, 2012 @ 12:36 pm
From my cold dead fingers!
Comment by Jerry — June 19, 2012 @ 1:38 pm
reason I collect them. The Government will only get mine from a dead body, they need to mind their business and do what they were elected to do not change the Constitution. This country was founded on the right to have and bear arms and I will have mine no matter what they say…..
Comment by Jan — June 20, 2012 @ 1:00 am
This doesn’t sound good at all. I’m not sure if anyone touched on the fact that this international registry seems to me like it could be a National Security issue if in the future an opposing Nation attempted to cross our borders and although unlikely would be successful they would know what families to go after if they got their hands on that registry. Why would our leaders who are supposed to be intelligent; give away any chance of successful underground resistance? Is it arrogance? Everyone stated the obvious violation of our Constitution, but I would also like to point out that there seems to be a trend to give the International organizations more and more power. I’m concerned since Interpol now has the authority to enter our Country and carry out their personal agenda without our approval doesn’t anyone else think that this could end up having our rights dictated by the U.N. and Interpol? Just a thought.
Comment by Concerned Citizen — June 20, 2012 @ 6:40 pm
[...] have heard and read a good deal about a UN Convention on Small Arms Trade, a Treaty that some allege could ultimately result in the banning of firearms held by private citizens in the [...]
Pingback by Talk Is Always Cheaper « Mark America — July 5, 2012 @ 9:47 am
to whom it may concern.. just voicing my opinion….if our country takes away the rights for our people to have /own a gun…. then they may as well just shoot us all now! they have taken away God…they have destroyed our education system.. they have taken nearly all of our rights away from us.. they have allowed the youth of today to “Take drugs… in fact usually they document stating ..marijuana will help you, etc., etc… they have allowed the gay rights to do there own thing… and yet the main things in our system, the government ignore’s…what exactly is our government doing to all of us?they need to give back the rights for prayers in our schools, etc.., the rights for children to be corrected, they need to turn things around and correct all that has been destroyed… then the government needs to be made to let the people control it as it was in the beginning…. what on earth have we all allowed our government to do?????????? WE ALL NEED TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND START DOING SOMETHING ABOUT ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS.. BEFORE WE ARE ALL DESTROYED BY THE RIDICULOUS NONSENSE THAT IS BEING ALLOWED….
Comment by sandra stearns-king — July 5, 2012 @ 11:13 am
I appears that most of the posters did not read the article. They missed the part where the article clearly states.
“a perimeter was set down that the United States’ right to bear arms would be unaffected by the treaty. The draft says, “Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory.”
Try doing some actual research on neutral web site about this bill. This is aimed at unregulated foreign arms sales.
No one is taking our guns! All of this false rhetoric gives all gun owners a bad rap. Please, do legitimate research on this topic. A good place to start is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18671461
Comment by JT — July 10, 2012 @ 12:40 am
JT
You really trust the UN? Try doing some historical research into the fate of countries that allowed themselves to be disarmed. The ATT group includes Iran for god sake. Iran has been lying for years to prolong their nuke weapons program. The reason the Union Jack doesn’t fly over the US is because of the Kentucky Long Rifle. And the BBC is as much of a propaganda sewer as the US’s PBC.
You run your country, we’ll run ours
SS
Comment by Sax — July 13, 2012 @ 4:30 pm
If the president signs this UN treaty will he not be committing treason? Treason is defined as “undermining ones own sovereignty” I would have to say that the Bill of Rights is the foundation of our sovereignty, and creating laws that restrain our rights (by a foreign entity no less) would have to be construed as treason. Any thoughts?
Comment by A.J. — July 13, 2012 @ 8:45 pm
Never gonna happen. If you think this is even remotely possible, you need to take some civics classes.
SCOTUS has reaffirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has reaffirmed that Congress and the States cannot ban entire classes of firearms. Congress (I.e. the Senate) cannot enact treaties in direct violation to our constitution. The treaty involving the world court was not signed by the US for this exact reason. Congress or the President cannot ratify a treaty superseding the right to due process, and US citizens cannot be removed from US sovereign territory without said due process. See Milosevic case.
Ratifying this treaty would get the members of Congress and the President who signed it removed from office for violating their oath to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Military coup, anyone?
Comment by Michael — July 18, 2012 @ 2:38 pm
Here is a Dick Morris video where he explains how Obama / Clinton will do their end run around Congress. He may not know what he is talking about.. but he has been in politics a long time and what he says sounds reasonable. Time will tell…if he is right or not!
Hillary’s End Run On Gun Control – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
By Dick Morris on July 17, 2012
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-e…v-lunch-alert/
Comment by David — July 18, 2012 @ 6:28 pm
Bitch can try!
Comment by Po'southernboy — August 10, 2012 @ 7:37 pm