Does anybody know the straight story behind the U.N. Small Arms Treaty?

[bluesea112]

I am wondering if anybody knows the actual true story behind the U.N. Small Arms Treaty? I hear a lot of hype on Facebook, but most of what I hear is coming from "alarmists" or from other conspiracy theorists.

I want to know the facts behind this alleged treaty, and I want to know if there is a real chance that it may be signed by a majority in congress.

I am fully aware that the "sky is falling" and that "The Clinton and Brady gun grabbing machines are paying the top brass at the U.N. to introduce the Small Arms Treaty", so I don't need to hear that information again. Thank you though.

With that said, does anybody have some factual information they can share to put my mind at ease.....or that will give me a full blown heart attack?

Thanks

[petesusn]

From the UN itself. Maybe this will answer some questions.

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
"...strengthening peace and security through disarmament"

I think that statement about says it all.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convar...html/ATT.shtml

Here's another one...http://www.un.org/disarmament/

[Kestral]

Dont know if my problem has any bearing on the UN ideas,but as from the end of 2009,no freight co,shipper.or postal authority will ship any firearms or componants etc from either the UK or the EU to the Channel Islands.If I wish to import a pistol from Germany,which I have done many times in the past, the only way is to go and collect it personally,and in effect escort it back.When you take into account all the paperwork & travel costings its just not on.Its certainly a good way for those in authority to control who has what from now on.

[Trouble 45-70]

bluesea, brace for the heart attack. Most of the nations of the world have signed on.

The Dems. in the Congress are going to be hammered in the next election for voting for one of the current iterations of the Health Care Bill. You can be sure that if it passes they will move on as surely as night into day and grant amnesty in time for the Nov. election, that along with universal registration is the only way they think they can hold onto power.

If they are thrown out I suspect the U.N. Arms Control Treaty will be their parting shot at the electorate as soon as they become lame ducks.

[CMfromIL]

Originally Posted by bluesea112

I am wondering if anybody knows the actual true story behind the U.N. Small Arms Treaty? I hear a lot of hype on Facebook, but most of what I hear is coming from "alarmists" or from other conspiracy theorists.

I want to know the facts behind this alleged treaty, and I want to know if there is a real chance that it may be signed by a majority in congress.

I am fully aware that the "sky is falling" and that "The Clinton and Brady gun grabbing machines are paying the top brass at the U.N. to introduce the Small Arms Treaty", so I don't need to hear that information again. Thank you though.

With that said, does anybody have some factual information they can share to put my mind at ease.....or that will give me a full blown heart attack?

Thanks

Relax it's not going anywhere. Here is some info I pulled for another board.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/int...un-ban-treaty/

And some quotes from the article.

.
International Gun Ban Treaty?


December 5, 2009










Q: Has Obama found a "legal way around the Second Amendment"?
A: The administration’s agreement to talk about writing a United Nations treaty to regulate arms exports and imports is a far cry from banning possession of firearms, which Obama says he doesn’t want to do and the Supreme Court has said can’t be done anyway.


FULL QUESTION
Is this correct?
Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd. Amendment and Uses It. The Full Article Here U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters
Subject: Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏ On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.




FULL ANSWER
We’ve received many queries about this chain e-mail, which refers to a proposed United Nations treaty to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons.
Much of what this e-mail claims is simply false. A "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" isn’t possible under our Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which held just last year that:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 26 June 2008: (T)he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

Furthermore, if an arms trade treaty ever materializes, the administration won’t be able to "bypass" Congress, as the e-mail maintains. All international treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before they are considered ratified and in effect.


In addition, the idea that a treaty necessarily would make U.S. citizens "subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," as the e-mail claims, is wrong. Treaties don’t subject one nations’ citizens to the laws of other nations.


They do commit governments to whatever actions a treaty specifies, such as ceasing to test nuclear weapons, in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (a treaty signed by the U.S., but never ratified by Congress).
As for this particular treaty: First of all, it doesn’t yet exist. What is true is that the Obama administration, reversing the line taken by the Bush White House, has voted to support a process that could, in 2012 at the earliest, result in a treaty.
The idea of achieving an international agreement on trade in conventional arms has long been kicking around, and in 2006 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution titled "Toward an arms trade treaty." The measure instructed the UN secretary-general to get the views of all member states on "the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." A panel of "governmental experts" was tasked with providing advice as well. The resolution was approved 153-1, the only dissenter being the U.S.
Then in 2008, the General Assembly passed another resolution, this one calling for further efforts toward an arms trade treaty (ATT) through a new open-ended working group. Again, the U.S. provided the only vote against the measure.
Since President Obama took office, though, the U.S. has been more receptive to the notion. In mid-October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying: "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." And on Oct. 28, the General Assembly voted 153-1 to move forward in preparation for a United Nations conference on the arms trade treaty in 2012 that could yield a formal document. This time, Zimbabwe was the lone naysayer (19 nations abstained).
Some critics of the concept of an arms trade treaty say they believe, like the author of the e-mail above, that it’s a back-door avenue to gun control. In fact, suspicions that the UN wants to seize Americans’ guns have been circulating since the mid-1990s. Those fears dovetail with trepidations that some have about Obama on this issue. John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, recently told the NRANews:
Bolton, Nov. 6: The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control. After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it … requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.

That’s Bolton’s opinion. The fact is that a provision in the resolution’s preamble – included at the request of the U.S. – explicitly recognizes the right of nations to regulate gun sales and ownership within their borders, including through their constitutions:
UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …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…

Another provision acknowledges that countries have a right to arms for "self-defence and security needs and in order to participate in peace support operations."
Also, two weeks before the General Assembly voted on the measure, Secretary of State Clinton stated a key condition of U.S. approval and made sure the caveat made it into the resolution: The 2012 conference must make its decisions by "consensus," she said. In practical terms, that means every country has veto power on the negotiated agreement, and it won’t go into effect without the approval of all. In short, no treaty will take effect if the U.S. does not agree. (Or any other country for that matter -added CMfromIL)
Despite widespread claims like this one, we’ve seen little or no evidence that the Obama administration is doing much to regulate guns or gun ownership. As a candidate Obama did say that he favored reinstating the "assault weapons ban" and closing the "gun show loophole" (which allows some gun buyers to avoid background checks), while the NRA stirred the fears of gun rights advocates. But he also said he believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms, and that he would "protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."
Furthermore, since taking office, Obama has not pushed any of his promised gun control measures. Asked about assault weapons at a press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in the spring, he said:
Obama, April 16: I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we’ve focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws. …

The only piece of gun legislation he has signed has been an expansion, not a contraction, of gun owners’ rights: In May, the president signed credit card legislation that included a provision allowing loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.
That hasn’t stopped gun rights advocates from believing that Obama is going to implement sweeping anti-firearms policies. Just since he’s been in office, we’ve been asked if Obama was raising the tax on ammunition by 500 percent (no), if he was dropping the program that allows commercial pilots to carry guns (no), if the "Obama regime" was going to require a federal license to own a handgun (no, again), and whether he was behind a move to tax guns and require owners to report their weapons on their federal income tax forms for 2009 (no - that bill died before Obama was even a U.S. senator).
Nevertheless, a Gallup poll in October found that 41 percent of all Americans and 52 percent of gun owners believe that Obama will try to ban the sale of guns. And people are acting on these beliefs: A run on ammunition has created shortages for sport shooters, and FBI background checks, required of most would-be gun purchasers, were up 25 percent in the first five months of 2009 compared with a year earlier.
These claims may keep coming, but they will continue to be unfounded — until and unless Obama takes real steps to regulate firearms, which so far he has not.
-Viveca Novak
Sources

Cam & Company. NRANews. 6 Nov 2009.
Foster, Mary. "Ammo Getting Scarce as Gun Owners Load Up." Associated Press. 24 Sep 2009.
Daly, Matthew. "Govt: Guns barred from national parks until Feb." Associated Press. 22 May 2009.
Newport, Frank. "Many Gun Owners Think Obama Will Try to Ban Gun Sales." Gallup.com. 20 Oct 2009.
"Resolution 61/89: Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." United Nations General Assembly. 18 Dec 2006.
"Resolution 63/389: Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." United Nations General Assembly. 23 Dec 2008.
"Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/REV.1: Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." United Nations General Assembly. 28 Oct 2009.
"Arms Trade Treaty, ‘Nuclear-Weapon-Free World,’ Outer Space Arms Race Among Issues, as General Assembly Adopts 54 First Committee Texts." United Nations General Assembly Department of Public Information. 6 Dec 2006.
"General Assembly Ends Main Part of Sixty-Third Session, Adopting Texts on Human Resources Management, New System for United Nations Administration of Justice." United Nations General Assembly Department of Public Information. 23 Dec 2008.
"Sending Six Drafts to General Assembly, First Committee Calls for International Day for World Free of Nuclear Weapons, Conference on Arms Trade Treaty in 2012." United Nations General Assembly Department of Public Information. 30 Oct 2009.
"U.S. Support for the Arms Trade Treaty". Remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. 14 Oct 2009.
Mohammed, Arshad. "U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade." Reuters. 14 Oct 2009.
Supreme Court of the United States. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (200. 26 Jun 2008.
Brown, Marjorie Ann. "The United Nations and ‘Gun Control‘." Congressional Research Service Report to Congress. 7 April 2005.

Posted by Viveca Novak on Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Filed under Ask FactCheck · Tagged with arms trade treaty, Barack Obama, Guns, NRA, Second Amendment, United Nations


.

Here is some more to chew on. This 'treaty' is to prohibit the sales of arms to various nations. Not to limit domestic consumption of firearms. Meaning, (In my reading) this treaty is designed to stop nations from selling arms to the likes of North Korea, Iran etc.

In my opinion, as gun owners we should concentrate on serious threats to our liberties. This is not one of them.

[Trouble 45-70]

Newshooter, maybe you should look at some of the gun banners websites on this Treaty. They believe the provisions in the Treaty will disarm America and you can bet this administration will push every provision that would disarm the citizens of America. They will start with the registration provisions. Next step, confiscation. Look at England, and Australia.

The NRA/ILA web site points out the dangers of that treaty.

[carver]

UN agendas for the elimination of private ownership of firearms are disguised as calls for international arms control to stem the flow of illicit military weapons. They say a picture is worth a thousand words! Does this look like a military weapon? The UN's signature piece of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel. Donated by Luxembourg ten years ago, this piece was created by the Swede Fredrik Reuterswärd and is called 'Non-Violence'.

[Bobitis]

Get. US. Out.

I'm an American. Not a UNian.
They have no laws that pertain to me.

I do like their shiney blue helmets though.

[CMfromIL]

Originally Posted by Trouble 45-70

Newshooter, maybe you should look at some of the gun banners websites on this Treaty. They believe the provisions in the Treaty will disarm America and you can bet this administration will push every provision that would disarm the citizens of America. They will start with the registration provisions. Next step, confiscation. Look at England, and Australia.

The NRA/ILA web site points out the dangers of that treaty.

Actually, it only points out the possible danger of international treaties. It doesn't specifically address this particular treaty as being any more OR less dangerous than numerous others that have come and gone.

As I said in my post, IMHO I don't see this going anywhere fast. All participating nations are required to be 100% on board. There are 152 nations represented including several active in arms trading. To accept would be cutting their own throat.

Its been written as a showpiece "Oh look we are tough on guns" without any actual hope of passage.

As a gun owner, I think we should concentrate on legislation that has an actual chance of passage. This treaty does not.

[dge479]

Regardless, of what it states, there is no need at all for a treaty with anybody at all for what goes on in the boarders of our country.
we do not need them to tell us what we can/cant do, buy shoot reload or trade with other nations. and this does not end with guns, these people need stay out of all of our affairs, I would like to see them out of this country and us out of them. they have no place in our affairs at all in any way.

[deen_ad]

Problem is that Obama can use his "emergency powers" to sign any treaty WITHOUT Congressional approval. And Clinton has already stated they the U.S. WILL support an arms treaty. You can bet that the Gov. will use a treaty in any way they can to register, limit, or confiscate guns. Look whats happening with Mexico after OB signed an arms treaty while "visiting" there. Gun shows are being blamed for RPGs and automatic weapons in Mexico. Gun owners are being "visited" by BATF agents to ask about what weapons they have just because they live close to the border.

[TimeTraveler]

I will add the following fact:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/s...s/treaties.htm


Article VI of the Constitution is VERY clear on this.
Quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Quote:
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17


TT

[lentz]

Originally Posted by dge479

Regardless, of what it states, there is no need at all for a treaty with anybody at all for what goes on in the boarders of our country.
we do not need them to tell us what we can/cant do, buy shoot reload or trade with other nations. and this does not end with guns, these people need stay out of all of our affairs, I would like to see them out of this country and us out of them. they have no place in our affairs at all in any way.

I agree with you 100%.And I hate Iran,But shouldn't Iran feel the same way about their nuclear program?
JUST A QUESTION

[hogger129]

Billary is anti-gun, but this treaty thing is a myth. Hasn't materialized - yet, and even if it did, as the guy above stated, it does not in any way have an authority over the US Constitution. Laws of self-preservation overrides the laws of obligation in others.

My best advice - vote for anyone but the Democrats any chance you get.

[JLA]

even if something like this does come into effect I hope they are prepared to pry the weapons from lots and lots of cold dead hands over lots and lots of their own cold dead bodies. I can think of about 100 people personally, Myself included, that will absolutely not willingly give up their guns to a tryant government. no matter what lunatic is in charge. I can see such an attempt being the cause of a full scale uprising that would probably cast a huge shadow over the civil war itself. I pray it never comes to this. I pray these bleeding heart libs come to their senses and leave well enough alone, but i fear they do not possess the sense to...

[carver]

I would like to add one more thing to this discussion: Since when has the Constitution ever stopped a determined Demoncrat (Socialist)?

[lentz]

Originally Posted by carver

I would like to add one more thing to this discussion: Since when has the Constitution ever stopped a determined Demoncrat (Socialist)?

Absolutely and in answer to cnfromil's post,nothing obama has done is LEGAL thus far.
IMO!

[JLA]

But you have to ask yourself honestly... Does 'Legal' or 'Illegal'really mean anything to the HNIC???

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by JLA

But you have to ask yourself honestly... Does 'Legal' or 'Illegal'really mean anything to the HNIC???

No it does not mean anything.

With all due respect to whatever politicians or past presidents you guys liked, Richard Nixon said he wasn't a crook. It was pretty obvious he was behind the Watergate burglary.

Or take Bill Clinton. His Assault Weapons Ban technically was unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms does not say WHICH arms you can and can't keep and/or own. It just says we have a right to keep and bear arms. Arms is traditionally thought of as "firearms." Now taking away certain ones all together would be infringing upon the 2nd amendment. The even more boneheaded part of it was that it really did nothing with regards to preventing crime. And many of the supporters had no clue what constituted an "assault weapon," nor did they even know what they were banning. More or less, it was "this gun looks scary and looks like an M16 or an AK47 so let's put it on the banned guns list."

People in the government have this illusion that they are above the law. Like Ollie North. The man should have gone to jail over the Iran-Contra scandal. Now he's got his own show. Bill Clinton should have gone to jail for lying to a Federal Grand Jury over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Never happened. Or J. Edgar Hoover. He was spying on many people including American citizens.

[JLA]

fantastic point hogger