What To Look Forward To If The UN Arms Treaty Passes

[deadeye74 5]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

 

If this doesn't tick you off, I don't know what will! Makes NJ gun laws look like child's play!! This is much bigger than not owning foreign made guns/ammo!

[johnp 45]

I can't even read that, my blood will boil.

[Candide 0]

Unreal

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Institute for Legislative Action

11250 Waples Mill Road

FAIRFAX, VA 22030

 

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Preparatory Committee – 3rd Session

New York, July 11-15, 2011

 

Statement of the National Rifle Association of America

 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

 

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America’s 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country, In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

 

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We’ve reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We’ve listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as we ll as carefully examined the papers you have produced.

 

We’ve watched, and read…listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

 

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

 

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen – not for the government.

 

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them…but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.

 

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms.” Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and – perhaps most importantly – proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

 

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms.” Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

 

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms.” But then we’re told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

 

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.” Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

 

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy.” Well, that’s exactly what is now being proposed ~ with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

 

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere w i th the l awful international commerce in civilian firearms.” But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

 

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms.” However, he would have to get a so-called “transit permit” merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

 

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned. Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

 

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation – civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

 

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone’s right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

 

Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss if I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.

 

To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate – the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

 

So there is extremely strong resistance to the A TT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this – rejecting a proposed treaty before it’s even submitted for consideration – but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection – infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

 

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

 

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

 

Thank you.

 

Wayne LaPierre

 

For media inquires please contact Andrew Arulanandam at 703-267-3820.For all other inquires please contact Thomas Mason at 503-998-0555.

[shooter28 153]

The little guys in the blue helmets have never won a war. they wouldnt dare start one with us when it came time to collect.

[reloaderguy 30]

What should tick you off even more is that this treaty and the way it is written will supercede the constitution and the 2nd ammendment. In other words the constitutiona and second ammendment are meaningless!

[Nikos 31]

What are the chances of this "treaty" passing the US Senate?

[when_shtf 4]

What are the chances of this "treaty" passing the US Senate?

 

Does it have to pass both Houses? It would never make it through congress. The senate on the other hand is a toss-up.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Does it have to pass both Houses? It would never make it through congress. The senate on the other hand is a toss-up.

 

It's the senate only. It's not a simple majority, but a two-thirds vote necessary to ratify. That speech was written some time ago and the letter that LaPierre references was completed and submitted to Obama. They managed 51 signatures in the senate, which menas they couldn't even muster a simple majority to pass this. I would think that, even allowing for defections and pressure from the white house, we are safe. If this ever did pass - I sincerely think this could be a touchstone for an armed revolution.

 

JMHO

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob<----now on the terrorist watch list for sure

[KramD52 0]

Reading things like this, that our own government would even consider such an attack on OUR constitutional rights is ____ (insert expletive here) _____ unbelievable and frightening!

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the late, great United States.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

The little guys in the blue helmets have never won a war. they wouldnt dare start one with us when it came time to collect.

 

Funny thing is, it would be our own people coming to collect.

[Sixtytwo327 14]

FYI, the article the OP linked to is an OP/ED published in FORBES in June 2011.

 

See below for an article in the Wall Street Journal published July 2, 2012, about the current UN treaty being discussed.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Sixtytwo327

[Sixtytwo327 14]

Apologies, it's behind the pay wall. Here is the article:

 

 

U.N. Pursues a Global Weapons Treaty

 

REUTERS

 

July 2, 2012

 

Delegates from around the world gathered in New York on Monday for the start of monthlong U.N.-hosted negotiations to hammer out the first-ever binding treaty to regulate the global weapons market, valued at more than $60 billion a year.

 

Arms-control campaigners say one person every minute dies as a result of armed violence around the world and that a convention is needed to prevent illicitly traded guns from pouring into conflict zones and fueling wars and atrocities.

 

Most U.N. member states favor a strong treaty. If they get their way, all signatories would be charged with enforcing compliance to any treaty by companies that produce arms and with taking steps to prevent rogue dealers from operating within their borders.

 

They say conflicts in Syria and elsewhere cast a shadow over the talks, reminding delegates of the urgency of the situation.

 

"In Syria, Sudan and the Great Lakes of Africa, the world is now once again bearing witness to the horrific human cost of the reckless and overly secret arms trade,'' said Brian Wood, international arms control and human-rights manager at Amnesty International.

 

"Why should millions more people be killed and lives devastated before leaders wake up and take decisive action to properly control international arms transfers?'' he said.

 

There is no guarantee that the July 2-27 negotiations will produce a treaty, let alone a firm one. In February, preparatory talks on the ground rules for this month's talks nearly collapsed due to procedural wrangling and other disagreements.

 

In the end, the U.S. and other countries succeeded in ensuring the treaty must be approved unanimously, so any one country can effectively veto a deal.

 

But the treaty may not be doomed if that happens. Mr. Wood said nations that support a strong pact could bring a treaty to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopt it with a two-thirds majority vote if there is no consensus in July.

 

There are deep divisions on key issues to be tackled in the treaty negotiations, such as whether human rights should be a mandatory criterion for determining whether governments should permit weapons exports to specific countries.

 

Arms-control advocates say a strong treaty is long overdue. "It is an absurd and deadly reality that there are currently global rules governing the trade of fruit and dinosaur bones, but not ones for the trade of guns and tanks,'' said Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms.

 

Mr. Abramson, Amnesty's Mr. Wood and Anna Macdonald of Oxfam spoke with reporters on Friday about the negotiations. Much of the discussion revolved around Russia's arms supplies to Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad's 16-month assault on an increasingly militarized opposition has killed over 10,000 people. Russia is Assad's top arms supplier.

 

Wood said Russia is not the only culprit in Syria, one of many conflicts fed by unregulated arms deliveries. Western nations have also helped Assad. There are tanks on Syrian streets, Wood said, that come from Slovakia, upgraded by Italy.

 

Oxfam's Macdonald said: ``From Congo to Libya, from Syria to Mali, all have suffered from the unregulated trade in weapons and ammunition allowing those conflicts to cause immeasurable suffering and go on far too long. In the next few weeks, diplomats will either change the world - or fail the world.''

 

One senior Western diplomat said the Syrian conflict has led to a ``polarization'' within the arms trade talks, with Russia becoming increasingly defensive about arms supplies to its ally Damascus that it says have nothing to do with the conflict.

 

The campaigners outlined what they want to see in the treaty. Governments should be required to regulate the sale and transfer of all weapons, arms, munitions and equipment used in military and domestic security activities, ranging from armored vehicles, missiles and aircraft to small arms and ammunition.

 

Governments should also be required to make risk assessments before authorizing arms sales, make public all authorizations and deliveries and track their use. Trading without permission or diverting arms should be made a crime, they said.

 

One of the reasons this month's negotiations are taking place is that the U.S., the world's biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40% of global conventional arms transfers, reversed its policy on the issue after Barack Obama became president and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.

 

But U.S. officials say Washington insisted in February on having the ability to "veto a weak treaty'' if necessary. It also seeks to protect U.S. domestic rights to bear arms, a sensitive issue in the U.S.

 

The other five top arms suppliers are Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. Wood, Macdonald and Abramson said some of the top arms trading countries have been joining other nations in an attempt to weaken the treaty. They said the United States, China, Syria and Egypt were pushing to exclude ammunition.

 

China, they added, wants to exempt small arms, while several Middle East states oppose making compliance with human rights norms a mandatory criterion for allowing arms deliveries.

[raz-0 1,259]

This is jsut election year stumping. Sorry.

 

If there were enough votes in the senate to ratify this, there'd probably be enough votes to amend the 2nd out of existence as well. On top of that, the article sixtytwo327 included, he didn't bold all the pertinent info.

 

In the end, the U.S. and other countries succeeded in ensuring the treaty must be approved unanimously, so any one country can effectively veto a deal.

 

The other five top arms suppliers are Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. Wood, Macdonald and Abramson said some of the top arms trading countries have been joining other nations in an attempt to weaken the treaty. They said the United States, China, Syria and Egypt were pushing to exclude ammunition.

 

China, they added, wants to exempt small arms, while several Middle East states oppose making compliance with human rights norms a mandatory criterion for allowing arms deliveries.

 

It's not really an issue until they go back to the drawing board yet again. Then they STILL have to get the senate to ratify it with a 2/3 majority. If it were a bill in the senate or house, it would be dead in committee right now and a non issue until the committee makeup changes, or you see it revised and issued with a new bill number.

[usnmars 136]

Blue helmets stand out nicely at long distances.......just sayin

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Blue helmets stand out nicely at long distances.......just sayin

 

With our luck, it's your local PD backed by the State Police and the FBI... hopefully those cops will just not show up to work on 'collection day'.

[jermz1987 243]

Which begs the question, What would you do If the local PD aided by the State Police and FBI came to your house to collect firearms? I know a lot of people will claim that they will fight them off and all that, But seriously. Would you hand them over? At home with your family in the house. Would you comply? Its a scary question, But I am truly curious on what you would do.

[deadeye74 5]

Which begs the question, What would you do If the local PD aided by the State Police and FBI came to your house to collect firearms? I know a lot of people will claim that they will fight them off and all that, But seriously. Would you hand them over? At home with your family in the house. Would you comply? Its a scary question, But I am truly curious on what you would do.

 

That is what scares me to death to think about. This treaty passing in theory could start a civil war of sorts. All the little countries around the globe that hate the US would have their victory by watching us battle each other on our own soil.

 

I know it's far fetched thinking on my part. being I plan things for a living and always have to be prepared for a ton of "what ifs" I can't help feel this way!!

[Kaiser7 33]

I think the most concerning thing is that this would even be considered. Here in NJ compliance would be expected, but AZ, TX, NH, and all of the south, you REALLY think they'd allow for that?

 

Remember to send in your blank checks to the NRA!

[Recon Racoon 49]

I think the most concerning thing is that this would even be considered. Here in NJ compliance would be expected, but AZ, TX, NH, and all of the south, you REALLY think they'd allow for that?

 

Remember to send in your blank checks to the NRA!

 

Guess I'll be heading to Florida if that time ever comes then.

 

But really, do I see this passing this year? No. To put it more bluntly, Hell No. The stipulation that ALL countries have to be in agreement is what will kill this thing in the end. Because there will be that one country that says "fugg you!" to the UN, and doesn't vote to pass it. It could be next year, the year after that, hell, it could never get off the ground. But if it does, I expect blood to be shed over it, no doubt about it.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Got my white flag ready

 

 

 

 

[XDJohnTact 49]

Which begs the question, What would you do If the local PD aided by the State Police and FBI came to your house to collect firearms? I know a lot of people will claim that they will fight them off and all that, But seriously. Would you hand them over? At home with your family in the house. Would you comply? Its a scary question, But I am truly curious on what you would do.

 

I believe that is this ever passed, there would be a rash of gun owners who would smash in their doors, ransack their homes and report that all their guns were stolen? Just saying!

[Shawnmoore81 623]

People do get robbed every day. Nothing you can do about that.

[XDJohnTact 49]

Exactly!

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

If confiscation did happen, I'm sure my good stuff would get lost, while my clunkers would find a way to the scrap heap.

 

In the North East, and West Coast, confiscation would happen with little trouble....but the South, Mid West, and Rocky Mountain states? Not so much I'd say.

 

People ask all the time about whether or not this bill would pass the Senate....currently I'd say NO, but if the Dem's get 2/3rds or more in the Senate come November....then all bets are off....that would sail straight through to Obama's desk. So called pro gun Dem's would never stand in the way of Obama's or the DNC platform.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Best part is those assholes put Iran on the council of nations voting on this. The UN is trying to take us down. It's so obvious but put just stand there and act like the UN is the greatest thing going.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/un-arms-treaty-iran/2012/07/10/id/444942?s=al&promo_code=F6DE-1

[pbkid6974 1]

some mentioned civil war. cant we just start one as a preemptive strike? i mean itll only last like a day or two. those antis dont have guns remember? what would they fight with?

 

just sayin.....

[KramD52 0]

Guess I'll be heading to Florida if that time ever comes then.

 

But really, do I see this passing this year? No. To put it more bluntly, Hell No. The stipulation that ALL countries have to be in agreement is what will kill this thing in the end. Because there will be that one country that says "fugg you!" to the UN, and doesn't vote to pass it. It could be next year, the year after that, hell, it could never get off the ground. But if it does, I expect blood to be shed over it, no doubt about it.

I agree, maybe not here in the PR of NJ or Ca, but when they move to the southern and midwest states....watch out, LOL.

 

 

I believe that is this ever passed, there would be a rash of gun owners who would smash in their doors, ransack their homes and report that all their guns were stolen? Just saying!

Ha ha, me included.

 

Best part is those assholes put Iran on the council of nations voting on this. The UN is trying to take us down. It's so obvious but put just stand there and act like the UN is the greatest thing going.

Its unbelievable, Iran of all countries. The UN doesn't work (for the purpose it was founded), and never will. Its a joke and all of the countries know it. Its an exercise in futility (aka circle jerk), plain and simple.

[woodentoe 14]

some mentioned civil war. cant we just start one as a preemptive strike? i mean itll only last like a day or two. those antis dont have guns remember? what would they fight with?

 

just sayin.....

 

Wow. You just made me throw up in my mouth.

 

Just sayin...