NRA: Obama Admin to Sign UN Arms Trade Treaty

[JohnC]

NRA-ILA | Obama Administration to Sign U.N. Arms Trade Treaty "In the Very Near Future"

As we reported last month, on April 2, the United Nations General Assembly voted 153-4 to pass the Arms Trade Treaty, with the United States voting in favor and several countries abstaining. The vote in the General Assembly pushed the treaty process forward after negotiations twice failed to deliver on the goal of developing the treaty by consensus. The Obama Administration is expected to sign the treaty soon after it is opened for signature on June 3.

According to a May 16 Amnesty International article, a senior US diplomat--Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman--has confirmed the U.S. government will be quick to sign the new treaty. According to the article, Countryman said on Wednesday that the United States would sign the ATT "in the very near future."

If the deeply problematic treaty is signed, the fight will move to the U.S. Senate, where the Obama administration would need to find 67 senators to ratify the treaty.

Of course, anti-gun Amnesty International approves of the treaty and is advocating its signing and ratification. In addition, Amnesty International has gone so far as to claim that the treaty will not affect "domestic gun control regulations."

On the contrary, the ATT does indeed threaten the rights and privacy of American gun owners. Signatories will be encouraged to keep information on the "end users" of arms imported into their territory and supply such information to the exporting country. Exporting nations, nearly all of which have civilian firearm control regimes far harsher than the U.S., will be encouraged to take the firearm control laws of an importing country into account before approving a transfer of arms. And the treaty also encourages states to adopt domestic legislation to facilitate the treaty's onerous requirements.

A majority of senators have already made clear their opposition to ratifying the ATT. On March 23, 53 senators endorsed an amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014, "establish[ing] a deficit neutral fund" to oppose United States entrance into the treaty. Additionally, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kans.), along with 32 cosponsors, has put forth a concurrent resolution expressing the Senate's opposition to the ATT, as it "fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense... and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment."

Unfortunately, once a treaty has been signed, it normally remains available for the Senate to ratify in perpetuity, unless a later president withdraws from it. This means that American gun owners must remain vigilant in ensuring this treaty is never ratified. The NRA will continue to keep gun owners up to date on any movement toward ratification, and will work with our allies in the Senate to ensure the treaty remains ungratified.

[Guest 270win]

I did not think treaties could be in conflict with the Federal Constitution even if signed by the Senate.

[Oh Shoot]

I did not think treaties could be in conflict with the Federal Constitution even if signed by the Senate.

 

Neither could any of our own federal statutes, eh? All those many federal firearms laws aren't infringement at all, I reckon.

 

- OS

[QuietDan]

This will never be ratified. It won't make it through the Senate. It's all posturing.

[Oh Shoot]

This will never be ratified. It won't make it through the Senate. It's all posturing.

 

Maybe not this Senate. But if signed,  can be ratified anytime in the future as I understand it?

 

- OS

[Moped]

Unless a future President pulls out of the treaty, before the Senate can ratify it. 

[RobertNashville]

Let's see...this is the same senate that want's to give amnesty to about 20Mllion criminals...is about to reauthorize billions of dollars for food stamps after being unable to cut ever one half of one percent from projected growth in the program (after food stamps doubled under Bush2 and then doubled again under Obummer)...this is the same senate that couldn't produce a budget for four plus years...

 

Tell me again why this senate won't ratify this treaty and why this is all posturing???

[Guest 270win]

What happens with treaties the Senate ratifies that are directly in conflict with the Constitution?  Let's say the Senate ratified a treaty to outlaw free speech or religion, wouldn't that kind of treaty be void by the Constitution? 

[RobertNashville]

Probably the very same thing that happens when Congress passes laws that are clearly unconstitutional.

 

We have at least arguably unconstitutional laws regarding free speech right now...we know we have unconstitutional laws infringing on the second amendment.

 

The country has an obligation to live up to any treaty it promises to live up to; if we don't then why should any other country expect us to ever live up to any promise we make and if we don't then why should they???

[Spook]

It needs 66 votes. Don't think even this senate has enough support. Another reason though why the 2014 elections are so important.

[Spook]

Probably the very same thing that happens when Congress passes laws that are clearly unconstitutional.
 
We have at least arguably unconstitutional laws regarding free speech right now...we know we have unconstitutional laws infringing on the second amendment.
 
The country has an obligation to live up to any treaty it promises to live up to; if we don't then why should any other country expect us to ever live up to any promise we make and if we don't then why should they???

Agree. That's where the judiciary (theoretically) comes in as a check on the legislative. Supreme Court judge changes on this court could have an immense impact on our future should any sitting judges retire or die during the remainder of Obama's second term. I fear we are in a precarious position on both fronts.

[East_TN_Patriot]

It needs 66 votes. Don't think even this senate has enough support. Another reason though why the 2014 elections are so important.

 

Exactly.  This Senate couldn't even get up enough votes to pass an AWB or high-cap magazine ban.  Why anyone thinks they'd get a 2/3 majority to ratify this treaty is beyond me.

[RobertNashville]

Exactly.  This Senate couldn't even get up enough votes to pass an AWB or high-cap magazine ban.  Why anyone thinks they'd get a 2/3 majority to ratify this treaty is beyond me.

Which could very easily change in 18 months.

 

It's not just "this" senate just like it's not just "this" SCOTUS.

[leroy]

The signing of the UN Arms Treaty baloney is political posturing to give some "red meat" to the sons and daughters of satan that hate us and hate guns; and to have the globalist elites raise their middle finger to us "delightful rustics" to show us that the "best and brightest" sign treaties; not the people in a land supposidely governed " of the people, by the people, and fore the people".....  The treaty has to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the senate.  That aint gonna happen as others have wisely posted.  Additionally, the gubmt cant enter into teaties that usurp the Constitution.

 

I say we should watch this stuff; not obsess over it, and take appropriate action if necessary.   The blue hats aint gonna take anyones guns here in the good ole usa.  They have trouble pushin around and disarming much more "simple" and "pliable" populations.   There have been approximately 46,000 legal gun purchases per day during the obama administration alone (...if ya believe the data from the NCIS...).  Who is gonna collect all them guns??

 

leroy

 

PS--Thanks for posting this to remind us again just how sorry and overbearing this current administration is!!

[RobertNashville]

The signing of the UN Arms Treaty baloney is political posturing to give some "red meat" to the sons and daughters of satan that hate us and hate guns; and to have the globalist elites raise their middle finger to us "delightful rustics" to show us that the "best and brightest" sign treaties; not the people in a land supposidely governed " of the people, by the people, and fore the people".....  The treaty has to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the senate.  That aint gonna happen as others have wisely posted.  Additionally, the gubmt cant enter into teaties that usurp the Constitution.

 

I say we should watch this stuff; not obsess over it, and take appropriate action if necessary.   The blue hats aint gonna take anyones guns here in the good ole usa.  They have trouble pushin around and disarming much more "simple" and "pliable" populations.   There have been approximately 46,000 legal gun purchases per day during the obama administration alone (...if ya believe the data from the NCIS...).  Who is gonna collect all them guns??

 

leroy

 

PS--Thanks for posting this to remind us again just how sorry and overbearing this current administration is!!

I agree with most of what you post but what, precisely, makes you so certain that the U.S. cannot enter into a treaty that usurps our Constitution or, to extend the issue, enforce the tenets of that treaty on citizens?

 

While that would seem to be common sense, I would suggest that if the U.S. does sign and ratify this treaty we will be obligated to follow it; regardless of the Constitution...maybe SCOTUS could overturn that but I don't recall that such has ever been done/tested before.

[leroy]

Robert:____________

 

RE: This ---

I agree with most of what you post but what, precisely, makes you so certain that the U.S. cannot enter into a treaty that usurps our Constitution or, to extend the issue, enforce the tenets of that treaty on citizens?

 

 

I'll admit to a bit of "rose colored glasses" optimism here.  To my knowledge, there has never in the history of this country a treaty agreed to by the political class that usurped the Constitution.  Think about it; can you name on instance when this has gone on? -- i simply cant, and im a junior student of history.  Additionally, i think there is, in fact, a federal law in place addressing this issue (...maybe some of our legal friends can verify this by providing the citation...), as well as court cases backing it up.  The Constitution is, in fact, the supreme law of the land.

 

On a more recent note; the Supreme Court has, in fact, moved to strike down laws (...and treatys, are, in effect, laws...) that were deemed unconstitutional.  I've been pleasantly surprized at some of the more recent rulings.  It seems that when the political class moves against the tennants of the Bill of Rights; they always loose; just as they should.  That's the whole idea of the three branches of government concept that is the genius of our founding documents.

 

Havin said all that; i understand and sympathize with your concern about the rampant "lawlessnes" of some in our government who would make us serfs and slaves; but i simply dont believe that they can do what they dare to dream of; and, in fact, try at times.  They couldnt get a magazine and assault weapons ban thru the senate for fear of political repriasals in the 2014 elections.  

 

The greatest weapon the citizen has against the political class is the vote.  The politicos are afraid of it; and they well should be.  Thats exactly how the system is designed.  Until the political class figures out how to nullify federal elections, i dont see this as a problem.

 

I also dont believe, as some do, that the gubmt has the jack booted thugs that are necessary to kick down mine and your door and collect our guns.  The British tried it and got their collective butts kicked for it.  At the time, they were, in fact, the toughest guys on the block and the world's greatest superpower.

 

I hope and pray my analysis is right.  Your point is well taken.  Always be on watch and act accordingly.

 

leroy

[RobertNashville]

I suppose my pessimism is a result of the 2012 election..."conservatives" have a one vote margin on SCOTUS depending on how the wind is blowing; Obama will almost certainly get a chance to change that and when that happens, any hope we might have is SCOTUS is on very shaky ground.

 

I hear you about the Senate but if there is one thing Democrats are good at it'd buying "Republican" votes with the taxpayer's money so I am not so sure that this treaty can't be ratified (not to mention, as I said, that whether "this" particular Senate does or not we have to remember that any subsequent Senate could do so).

[Guest confidence]

Just wrote to our TN senators asking them to oppose this.

[RED333]

I to sent our Reps a little note and a few faxes.