Dear Mr. Morris:

 

 

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). I appreciate hearing your view on this important matter and having the opportunity to respond.

 

As you may know, the United Nations voted in favor of working towards an Arms Trade Treaty on October 30, 2009. From July 2nd until July 27th of 2012, the U.N. Member States will work on drafting text for the Treaty at the ATT Conference in New York. Should the United States sign the Treaty, it would then need the approval of two-thirds (66 members) of the U.S. Senate to be ratified.

 

The intent of the ATT is to raise international standards on arms transfers so that no country will allow individuals operating under its jurisdiction to sell arms intended to perpetuate terrorism and fuel atrocities. The ATT would not affect domestic possession or domestic transfer of conventional weapons nor would it act as a legal way around the 2nd Amendment, as it would only deal with the international export, import, and transfer of conventional weapons. To that end, the framework for the Treaty specifically excludes any restrictions on domestic gun sales or ownership by explicitly recognizing, "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."

 

As your United States Senator, I defend the rights of citizens to use firearms responsibly for recreational purposes or to protect one's home and family. At the same time, I support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who seek to disrupt the rule of law. The largely unregulated and often irresponsible trade in conventional weapons is causing a dangerous increase in the trafficking and distribution of weapons to rogue states, terrorist groups, and factions seeking to unsettle regions. In defense of our national security, the United States must continue to support effective action to control the international transfer of arms. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, please be assured that I will continue to monitor the progress of this treaty, and keep your views in mind should the Arms Trade Treaty come before the Senate for consideration.

 

On this, as with any other issue, there are many different views. Rest assured that I will keep your views in mind. I invite you to visit my website (http://menendez.senate.gov) to learn more about how I am standing up for New Jersey families in the United States Senate.

 

 

 

 

 

Wrote to Menendez urging him to not pass the ATT. Mostly, for me, I don't think anyone else should have a say in our country's affairs. This is the response he sent back. What am I missing here? On the surface, it sounds ok. However, I am woefully under-informed on this issue. Thanks and don't flame me too much. I'm just trying to get started in this political thing.

 

Christopher

I would tell him to stick it someplace dark and smelly and ride it straight to Hell.

 

 

No one should flame you because you ask a great question. I'm in the same boat as you. Others, however, see any treaty or UN action as an affront to their freedom and the sovereignty of our nation. Some people think every action taken has at its goal, a way to disarm the American People as a preparation for some sinister New World Order.

"The ATT would not affect domestic possession or domestic transfer of conventional weapons nor would it act as a legal way around the 2nd Amendment, as it would only deal with the international export, import, and transfer of conventional weapons."

 

So does that mean no more Saiga, Glock, Walther, CZ, XD's, etc?

"The ATT would not affect domestic possession or domestic transfer of conventional weapons nor would it act as a legal way around the 2nd Amendment, as it would only deal with the international export, import, and transfer of conventional weapons."

 

So does that mean no more Saiga, Glock, Walther, CZ, XD's, etc?

 

Hard to say. I've never seen the treaty's wording but I doubt it would mean no import or export of firearms to civilians. That would put Glock out of business if they could only sell in Austria.

Hard to say. I've never seen the treaty's wording but I doubt it would mean no import or export of firearms to civilians. That would put Glock out of business if they could only sell in Austria.

It might not outright ban importation or exportation of small arms, but it may place unreasonable restrictions on said acts.

 

It can either way right now. Just have to wait and see the body of the treaty before we take a next step action.

Personally, I think the worse the treaty does is make every country set up some sort of NICS system. That will cut down on those Somalian pirates getting their firearms.

I would tell him to stick it someplace dark and smelly and ride it straight to Hell.

 

Chris?

I really am looking for an education here. I haven't seen the wording of the treaty, but I'm hoping someone on here is up to speed and can fill us in on what this thing means.

 

And yes, I am against it solely (at the moment) because I don't feel like the world should be telling us how to conduct our business. Especially when they make fun of us with our backs turned. Fugg'em.

 

C

I got the exact same letter back from him. Latest news says the treaty will cover small arms but didn't have time to read the article.

I think no one outside of the UN chamber or representing countries heads of state know what the content of the treaty is. Only way we'll find out is when it comes to vote on the floor of the UN, and even then we might not get the whole story.

Hard to say. I've never seen the treaty's wording but I doubt it would mean no import or export of firearms to civilians. That would put Glock out of business if they could only sell in Austria.

 

Exactly, these imported small arms would be in trouble..it would be great for domestic small arms makers their competition could be wiped out in one swoop..

It's a carefully crafted "canned" letter response to everyone in our community. Smoke & mirrors in an election year. He does a great job at saying NOTHING.......

 

Hard to say. I've never seen the treaty's wording but I doubt it would mean no import or export of firearms to civilians. That would put Glock out of business if they could only sell in Austria.

 

Nobody has, they haven't managed to write a draft that hasn't. Been shot down in committee yet. So they decided to end the committee and throw drafts at a vote until they get something that sticks.

 

Btw they haven't even been able to get to the first round of that on time.

Anthony at GFH was nice enough to send me a link that basically said that all the opposition is in regards to the U.S. allowing what amounts to terrorist countries to tell us what to do. It essentially would destroy or undermine the soverignty of our country. Not cool, in my opinion.

 

C