What If Obama Signs the UN Arms Trade Treaty?

Freedom Outpost

The UN Arms Treaty is again, rising to the surface. The latest version was  finalized this past March 2013.

It needs to be clearly understood that the United States does not need the  UN. So one might reasonably ask, what is the purpose of America signing any of  the UN-sponsored treaties?

When any country signs onto a UN treaty, that country effectively gives up a  some sovereignty by placing itself under the auspices of the United Nations. In  effect then, certain laws of a particular country could eventually become  infringed or entirely canceled out because of that position.

Even if Obama signs this treaty, it would have to be ratified by the Senate.  There is a good possibility that this would fail ratification attempts. I doubt  that this would mean the Obama administration would give up though. 2014 is  coming.

The  Arms Trade Treaty is thirteen pages (28 articles) detailing the  responsibilities of those countries that sign onto the treaty. Everyone should  download a copy and read it thoroughly.

The stated purpose of the treaty is as follows:

  • Establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating  or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional  arms;
  • Prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent  their diversion;

Like everything else done by the UN, the reasons for the treaty is to  contribute to peace and reduce human suffering. For the record, the UN has never  done anything that has created peace in areas of the world that have been in  conflict. It has also routinely turned a blind eye to human suffering throughout  the world and does so even now.

While the treaty recognizes the rights of the individual “states” (countries  signing on) to continue to do whatever is needed for the protection of their own  borders and people, the treaty attempts to curtail illegal arms sales. Among  other things, each state can remove themselves from the treaty whenever they  wish and becomes effective 90 days after giving written notice. Otherwise, the  treaty lasts forever.

I’m not a lawyer so I cannot comment on every jot and tittle. However, the  treaty reads in a fairly straight forward manner.

There are only two areas where I see potential problems. The first one, under  Article 2, point h concerns, “Small arms and light weapons.” There is no  specific definition of “small arms and light weapons” anywhere in the text that  I could find. However, one paragraph states, “Noting the contribution made by  the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the  Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, as well as the  Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their  Parts and Components and Ammunition.”

The treaty outlines how each state will essentially create an elaborate “national control system” that catalogs all ammunition/munitions as well as  parts/components related to items in Article 2. Moreover, the treaty encourages  this same approach with all conventional weaponry for each state, though the  term “conventional” is also not defined. Article 12 also references national  records.

The treaty will create larger government requiring millions in taxpayer  dollars for the system and staff. The government will grow another “arm” essentially.

Could this become a national database extending to weapons held by private,  law-abiding citizens? Possibly. Article 10 may hint at this. “Each State Party  shall take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking  place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).  Such measures may include requiring brokers to register or obtain written  authorization before engaging in brokering.” It’s unclear.

The other problem is how changes are adopted to the treaty after a state  becomes part of the treaty. This is highlighted in Article 20. Once the treaty  takes effect, no changes can occur for six years. After that, changes could be  made every three years. Once an individual states sign onto the treaty, that  state’s governing body is out of the picture, permanently. In other words,  though the US Senate would have to originally ratify the treaty for it to become  effective for the United States, after that, any amendments would be done by  vote of the member states, not their governing bodies.

Six years from becoming effective, should member states pass an amendment  making private gun possession illegal for all member states’ citizens, that  would become law for America. America’s 2nd Amendment would be  infringed/eradicated by this treaty. The left says this can’t happen, but what’s  to stop it?

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/what-if-obama-signs-the-un-arms-trade-treaty/#ixzz2UCYgdAlA

3 thoughts on “What If Obama Signs the UN Arms Trade Treaty?

  1. We must stay on top of and keep in touch with our senators for a third time repeal! Perhaps obama will understand 3 strikes you’re out moron libterd socialist commie shithead!

  2. Oh he can try to take them, but all that will do is put multiple more sets of crosshairs on him from all around this country. He thinks he may have problems now, wait till Americans- REAL Americans, are told they have to give up their guns. Ooooohhhhhh Buddy!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s