UN Arms treaty response from my senator

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by 1969SS396, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. rcairflr

    rcairflr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,862
    Location:
    Wichita, Ks

    You should have asked him "what about 'Fast and Furious'" Didn't the Obama administration supply arms to criminals?
  2. JohnHenry

    JohnHenry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,637
    Location:
    Livingston county, Michigan
    SS396 .....
    For "our" resident Professional Politicians ( carl levin and debbie stab-me-now ) we can
    thank two groups of people .... the residents of the Detroit, Flint, Lansing and Ann Arbor metro-plex and the folks that didn't bother to get out and vote. In short we have no one but ourselves to blame for the mess that Michigan politics are in .
  3. rcairflr

    rcairflr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,862
    Location:
    Wichita, Ks
    Here's the response I received from my Congressman in Kansas:






    Dear Mark:



    Thank you for contacting me regarding the United Nations (UN) Small Arms Treaty, also known as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me. In order to make sound decisions, it is important for me to hear from Kansans.



    In 2006, the UN adopted a resolution to move toward an ATT, with the purpose of creating a regulatory infrastructure to control international arms trading. After the UN adopted the resolution, the Bush Administration refused to enter negotiations on the matter seeing that it would infringe on Americans' Second Amendment rights. Without the United States involved in the talks, the UN postponed the initial drafting of the ATT. The Obama Administration reversed this decision soon after taking office and is now engaged in negotiations.



    Past UN discussions on arms control have yielded several provisions that raise serious Second Amendment concerns, including: a ban on civilian possession of firearms, a registration or reporting system for all civilian firearms, and heavy restrictions on civilian firearms commerce.



    Given our history as a nation founded on individual freedom and the right to bear arms, I find it offensive that these types of provisions are even being entertained. The founders of our nation crafted the Constitution to protect the inalienable rights of every citizen. To ratify an ATT would put these rights in jeopardy because international treaties enjoy equal status with the Constitution under U.S. law. While the President has the power to negotiate the treaty, the Senate has the final say in its ratification with a 2/3 majority.



    I recently signed a letter, with 130 of my House colleagues, informing the Administration that we expect them to reject any treaty that interferes with any of our Constitutional rights. I have also co-sponsored a House Resolution expressing the sense of the House that the President should not sign the treaty, and if he does, that no funds should be appropriated to enforce it unless the treaty is ratified by the Senate. You may be interested to know that I gave a speech on the House floor last year explaining just a few of the potential dangers of this treaty. You can view this speech on my website at: http://pompeo.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=302353



    Thanks to the grassroots efforts of pro-freedom Americans like you, negotiations on this treaty have been suspended. However, the danger is not over. There will be continued efforts to revive the Arms Trade Treaty. I will continue to stand against any and all efforts to limit the right to keep and bear arms—whether it comes from an international body or from our own government



    If you have any additional concerns, please do not hesitate to call on me or Blake Hollander of my Washington, D.C. staff. It is an honor to serve the people of Kansas in the United States Congress.




    Sincerely,

    Mike Pompeo
    Member of Congress
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  4. al45lc

    al45lc New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,124
    Location:
    colorful colorado
    Now that's a good letter! And a good American.
  5. 01brian

    01brian New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    340
    Location:
    Colorado
    That Kansas letter was refreshing. I quit writing to the dems, they don't give a hoot what I think anyway and are going to do the opposite.
  6. 1969SS396

    1969SS396 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    Messages:
    261
    Location:
    the "Mitten" state
    Makes a guy want to move to Kansas
  7. lonewolf204

    lonewolf204 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Here is the reply from my Oklahoma Senator!



    Dear Mr. Davis,

    Thank you for writing in opposition to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. It is good to hear from you.

    As you may know, in July the United Nations held a conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, with the goal of regulating the global arms trade. The conference did not agree to any treaty, however. If the UN had agreed to a treaty, President Obama would have had the constitutional authority to enter into it, but it could not become binding law until ratified and approved by two-thirds of the Senate.

    I do not believe there are enough senators to ratify a treaty of this nature. In fact, during negotiation of the treaty, 44 senators, including myself, signed a letter distributed by Senator Jerry Moran notifying President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that we would oppose ratification of any treaty that “in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition, and related items.” (http://bit.ly/Q4ZU5G)

    In the letter, we noted our concern with the hostility of previous treaty resolutions’ language regarding private gun ownership, such as the call for the “highest possible standard” of control. We also noted that UN member states have regularly argued that an arms trade treaty, to be effective, would require controls on transfers within states. Such controls could result in unacceptable infringement of Second Amendment rights. We were also concerned the treaty could be overly broad, covering “all types of conventional weapons,” making it unenforceable. Finally, we stated our intention to oppose any treaty that placed the burden of controlling crime on law-abiding U.S. citizens rather than the states who have failed to block trafficking that is already illegal under existing laws and agreements.

    Although the Arms Trade Treaty failed, supporters of the treaty have said they will continue pursuing it. I remained concerned that a UN treaty on the arms trade would compromise U.S. sovereignty and could increase violent crime. Placing restrictions on law-abiding American gun owners will not curtail the brutal violence in other parts of the world. Instead, governments should enforce the laws already in place, secure national borders, and punish those who commit criminal acts.

    I recently became a co-sponsor of the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act (S. 2205) which would prohibit the Administration from using the “voice, vote, and influence” of the United States during the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty negotiations to restrict in any way the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, including regulation of civilian firearms and ammunition.

    Our freedom as a nation depends on our return to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and this cannot be achieved by trampling on the Second Amendment. I will work to ensure the rights of Americans are upheld. I oppose any and all efforts to mandate gun control on law-abiding citizens. As a gun owner myself, I staunchly support gun ownership and firmly believe we have a constitutional right to bear arms. At the federal level, you can be sure I will continue my efforts to strengthen our right to bear arms. Additional gun control laws will do nothing to improve safety or reduce crime. In fact, gun restrictions, no matter how well-intentioned, will simply ensure that only criminals have access to guns. For more information about my efforts to protect the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens, please see my website: http://bit.ly/JesLmE

    Thank you for contacting me about this issue. I will do all that I can to oppose gun control legislation and keep international law out of the U.S. judicial system. Best wishes.

    Sincerely,
    Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
    United States Senator

    TC: cak
  8. Donnie D

    Donnie D New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    324
    Location:
    NE North Carolina
    And another great response from my senator in North Carolina:

    Dear Mr. Lassiter:

    Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I appreciate hearing from you.

    I believe that the Second Ammendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right of law-abiding citizens. Elected officials, and government generally, should not be engaged in efforts to take away individual freedoms that are reserved for the people by our Constitution.

    I have heard from a number of fellow North Carolinians who are concerned about the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which is currently being negotiated. The Obama Administration has parcipitated in the negotiation process, and it was expected that the ATT would be completed by July 27, 2012 at the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in NewYork City

    I am pleased to report, however, that on the final day of the ATT Conference negotiators failed to meet the deadline to reach an agreement and complete the treaty. In order for an agreement to be reached, approval is required by all 193 member states of the United Nations. For this reason negotiations for the ATT have been postponed until later this year.

    As your United States Senator, I believe it is critical that any international arms treaty submited to the Senate ensures that Americans' gun ownership rights are protected and that United States sovereignty is not weakened. I am troubled by UN preparitory committee report language and other documents which seem to favor the creation of a broad, sweeping treaty that would regulate all types of conventional weapons, including small arms, regardless of their purpose.

    For this reason, I joined a bipartisan group of 51 Senators in signing a letter to the President and Secretary Clinton stating that, should the President submit the Treaty to the Senate for approval, I will oppose ratification of the U. N. Arms Trade Treaty if our constitutional right to bear arms is in any way weakened. I believe this letter has sent a strong message to the Administration, as ratification requires a two-thirds majority vote by the United States Senate. Please know that I will oppose any treaty or law that would infringe on the rights of gun owners.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. Should you have any additional questions or comments please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely.
    Richard Burr
    United States Senator



    Donnie D
  9. BlackEagle

    BlackEagle Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,602
    Location:
    UK
    Good letters. Glad to hear that. At least some of the government has retained a sense of patriotism and wants to retain the Constitution.
  10. IRON99

    IRON99 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    4
    From my Senator from Florida

    Dear Mr. Zell,
    Thank you for contacting me regarding the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I'm grateful for your thoughts and for the opportunity to respond.

    As you may know, in October 2009, under the direction of President Obama, the U.S. voted to participate in the negotiation of United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in the United Nations General Assembly. The purpose of this treaty is to create a set of international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, and a conference is currently being held to finalize this agreement. As the process currently stands, I am concerned that the Arms Trade Treaty poses serious dangers to the constitutional rights of Americans. Our Second Amendment rights are not negotiable.

    It is evident to me that certain parts of the treaty challenge our individual freedoms. One clear example is the limitation of the transfer of arms within member states. Additionally, the treaty is also designed to control the transfer of arms from non-state actors, placing the burden of controlling crime on law-abiding citizens instead of on the member states of the U.N. For these reasons, I have co-sponsored the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act (S.2205), a bill which prohibits funding to negotiate a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that restricts the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.


    As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, please know that I am following the development of this treaty process closely. I appreciate your opinions, and I look forward to serving the people of Florida.


    Sincerely,

    Marco Rubio
    United States Senator

    Then from the other one

    Dear Mr. Zell:

    Thank you for sharing your concerns about gun control and the ongoing talks at the United Nations (UN) about a treaty to regulate the illicit trade in small arms. I support the constitutional right to bear arms. I grew up on a ranch in Florida, and have hunted since I was a boy.

    The UN is planning on its Arms Trade Treaty being finalized in 2012. Secretary of State Clinton said that the U.S. would participate in these negotiations in order to prevent terrorist groups and insurgents from receiving illicit arms. As with all treaties, the U.S. Senate must vote ratify any treaty. I would never vote in support of a treaty that would impact the right to bear arms or require regulation of domestic sales of arms. You can be sure that I will keep your thoughts in mind whenever the Senate considers firearms issues.

    Sincerely,
    Bill Nelson
  11. aa1911

    aa1911 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    3,216
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    and another from WA:


    September 7, 2012

    Dear Mr. A,



    Thank you for contacting me about United Nations Small Arms Treaty. It is an honor to represent the people of Southwest Washington, and I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.



    The U.N. Small Arms Treaty seeks to prevent international civil conflicts by regulating the international trade of some guns. I share the concerns many folks have expressed about how this treaty infringes on our constitutional rights. However, as you may know, the Senate must approve the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, not the House.



    I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I intend to fulfill my responsibility. Part of this duty includes ensuring that any actions of the government do not infringe upon our civil liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights. Going forward, I will be working to ensure these rights are protected.



    Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. I invite you to visit my website at www.HerrreraBeutler.house.gov for additional information or to sign up to be kept up to date on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance.






    Sincerely,

    Jaime Herrera Beutler
    Member of Congress
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Arms Treaty Oct 18, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum U.N. Arms treaty Sep 25, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The "NEW" Arms Trade Treaty ..... Jun 20, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum UN adopts arms trade treaty! Apr 3, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Senate Votes, No UN Arms Treaty Mar 24, 2013

Share This Page