Are Foreign Troops Given Authority To Enforce The UN Small Arms Trade Treaty On US Soil?

Freedom Outpost

As Barack Obama prepares to sign the United Nation’s Small  Arms Treaty when Congress concludes its summer session, some have wondered  whether or not it gives authority to use foreign troops on US soil to enforce  the treaty.

If you wish to understand just what is entailed in the Arms Trade Treaty  (ATT), you need look no further than Article 15 of the treaty (Click  here for a downloadable PDF or click here for the online version).  Article 15 reads:

Article 15 International Assistance

In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may  seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical  assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial  assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance.  States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist  requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the  Treaty.

States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of  assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems,  in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the  violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under  of the provisions of this Treaty.

Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia,  through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national  organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such  assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of  assistance as needed, upon request.

It provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and it mandates  that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member  nations.  Notice this includes legal, financial, technical, as well as  “material” assistance to enforce the treaty.

Should the US sign onto the treaty and it be ratified, it would make us  responsible for helping in the implementation in states that request such  assistance.  It’s not like we don’t have enough going on without having to deal  with this nonsense.

Dave Workman of the Examiner wrote back in July 2012, “Julianne  Versnel-Gottlieb with the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation reports  from the U.N. headquarters in New York that the head of the U.S. delegation,  Thomas Countryman, was quick to point out that provisions in the proposed treaty  will run into trouble with existing law.”

Workman then pointed out, “However, Versnel-Gottlieb notes that the proposed  treaty is still getting support from the United Kingdom and the French  delegation let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned  “weapons.” Gun rights activists will quickly note that this has not  worked too well for the British.”

We are already aware of the United Nations sordid history of attempting  general and complete disarmament, including individual arms that are legally  owned.

The United Nations treaty from 2001, known as the “SADC Protocol: Southern  African Development Community” is, according  to the UN’s own disarmament website, a “regional instrument that  aims to curtail small arms ownership and illicit trafficking in  Southern Africa along with the destruction of surplus state weapons. It is a  far-reaching instrument, which goes beyond that of a politically binding  declaration, providing the region with a legal basis upon which to deal  with both the legal and the illicit trade in firearms.”

The treaty specifically recognizes only “lawful private ownership and use of  conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia,  recreational, culturalhistorical and sporting activities for States  where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.”

We already know that American troops were used to disarm victims of Hurricane  Katrina.  You can see the video evidence here and here.  At least Staff Sergeant Joshua May refused  to confiscate guns from people during Hurricane Katrina.

However, Article 15 of the ATT makes one wonder whether or not foreign troops  would be sent in to confiscate law abiding American citizens’ weapons.

First thing is first though. Barack Obama must sign the treaty and then it  must be ratified, which a Senate  resolution has already been passed stating that will not happen, thanks in  part to the work  of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT).  Also, 130 members of Congress recently  sent a letter to both Obama and Kerry opposing the treaty.  More than that,  we must find a way to ultimately kill this treaty even if it is signed by Obama.  Otherwise it lingers in the background waiting for an opportune time to be  ratified by a completely radical leftist Senate.

With that said, I’m sure if Congress wouldn’t put an end to such a thing,  that many Americans would be more than willing to welcome foreign troops, under  the UN banner, in a hailstorm of bullets of various calibers.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/are-foreign-troops-given-authority-to-enforce-the-un-small-arms-trade-treaty-on-us-soil/#ixzz2ZpJXuzy8

2 thoughts on “Are Foreign Troops Given Authority To Enforce The UN Small Arms Trade Treaty On US Soil?

  1. Biil Nelson of Florida signed it. But, he has been a traitor to the U. S. for a long time. He needs another face lift,this one is to tight,

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