Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/13/2012 12:56:30 PM PDT by neverdem
The National Rifle Association (NRA) warned the United Nations on Wednesday that the effort to craft international rules for weapons sales will go nowhere in Congress if it includes civilian arms.
Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the powerful lobby group, said 58 senators have pledged to oppose the treaty if it covers civilian weapons, fearing an infringement of America’s gun rights.
“I am here to announce NRA's strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens' right to self-defense. No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteed to us,” LaPierre said at the UN Arms Trade Treaty Conference in New York.
“The only way to address NRA's objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty. That is the only solution. On that, there will be no compromise.”
The UN will be negotiating the treaty throughout the month of July. If the members involved in the effort all agreed on the final product, it would still need to garner a two-thirds majority in the Senate to be binding on the United States.
Proponents of the treaty say the NRA’s concerns are unfounded, and argue excluding civilian weapons would gut the effort to keep deadly arms out of the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes.
Advocates say the treaty would bring much of the world in line with U.S. standards without affecting the rules that govern domestic sales. And they say gun enthusiasts are wrong to worry about their Second Amendment rights, since the Constitution trumps international law.
“This is where we part ways,” Scott Stedjan, a senior adviser for Oxfam America, said at a recent press briefing by treaty proponents. “What is a civilian arm is a real concern. I don't think anybody wants the United Nations to define what is a civilian weapon is, what a military weapon is, because different countries have different views. That would never happen, plus small arms and light weapons are the weapons that … are wreaking the most havoc, and that we most need control over.”
The Obama administration has not ruled out supporting a treaty that covers civilian weapons. The issue was not included on a list of red lines published by the State Department, although the administration does vow to oppose “restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.”
“The Arms Trade Treaty will not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense,” Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said in a tweet last week.
On Tuesday, the State Department's assistant secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation informed the UN that the administration would oppose efforts to include ammunition in the scope of the treaty unless it hears regulatory proposals that are both “practical and effective.”
“Ammunition is a fundamentally different commodity than everything else we have discussed including within the scope of an [Arms Trade Treaty],” said Thomas Countryman. “It is fungible, consumable, reloadable, and cannot be marked in any practical way that would permit it to be tracked or traced. Any practical proposal for ammunition would need to consider the significant burdens associated with licensing, authorizations, and recordkeeping for ammunition that is produced and transferred in the billions of rounds per year.”
Those restrictions don't go far enough for many lawmakers, however.
“Already, 58 senators have objected to any treaty that includes civilian arms,” LaPierre said at the UN, referring to senators who have signed on to letters from Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.). While those letters to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aren't unequivocal in their opposition, they do suggest a tough slog in the Senate if civilian arms are included in the treaty.
The letter from Moran expresses the signatories' “grave concerns” about the treaty and goes on to say that earlier proposals to cover “all types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology and related materials … would be completely unenforceable.”
The signers of the GOP letter vow to oppose a 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.”
The letter from Tester opposes “any inclusion of small arms, light weapons, ammunition or related materials that would make the treaty overly broad and virtually unenforceable.”
58 senators recognize the meaning of the Second Amendment. IMHO, we're closer to the magic 60 in the Senate than most people appreciate. How many pols are correct on the Second Amendment, but otherwise liberal? They are few and far between, IMHO.
Tester is making noise for a reason. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), the state's only Congressman, is going after his seat this November.
Anyone here believe this?
Anytime George Soros throws his funding to support something - I this case the UN small arms treaty - warning flags should be all over the place. Keep the pressure up with our representatives - these people cannot be trusted.
Anytime George Soros throws his funding to support something - I this case the UN small arms treaty - warning flags should be all over the place. Keep the pressure up with our representatives - these people cannot be trusted.
Anytime George Soros throws his funding to support something - I this case the UN small arms treaty - warning flags should be all over the place. Keep the pressure up with our representatives - these people cannot be trusted.
I'll warn you again, in a nation that once employed privateers with full military capability, a nation that once counted its defense as every able bodied male and not a standing army, a nation that now bans hand-held weapons, there is no room for the ambiguity as to what constitutes "civilian arms." Do not let this quote become the defining meme in this debate.
Consider what will happen when hand-held military weapons and high tech body armor make firearms irrelevant. Are you willing to allow the Second Amendment be degraded from "arms" in general to "civilian firearms"?
Oh don’t worry says the UN. We wouldn’t dare infringe on your gun rights. Just let us pass this treaty and see what’s in it.
Between this and the LOST treaty, we are in deep trouble FRiends. While 58 Senators say they will not agreeto this 18 Republicans —enough to pass the LOSTY treaty say they will vote for it.
IMO TRAITORS. I don’t care if one of them did serve in Vietnam , He is a TRAITOR if he votes away our rights to our own water.
If anyone does believe this, contact me. I have some great swamp land for sale for future condo development.
Why the qualification regarding “civilian arms”?
The NRA should vehemently oppose this socialist, Nanny-State, one-worldism in its entirety.
It shouldn’t be phrased “civilian arms”, it should be phrased “citizen OWNERSHIP of arms”.....ANY arms. But IMO there should be no treaty, period.
A point to be made is that, an objective review of the past 300 years shows that people have generally been better behaved with weapons than have governments. If either party should be disarmed, it should certainly be the worlds governments rather than the worlds people.
Posted on the site:
Make no mistake: Gun registration really means that you will need to get governmental permission to be able to defend yourself.
Don’t believe me?
Envision a DMV style gun registration office in the near future.
After waiting a hour or two in line to register you means of self-defense……
[And paying the heavy taxes on such means therein]
……It’s finally your turn with the uncaring bureaucrat behind the counter, you step up and detail what you have.
They will then enter your data and if there is any reason why you shouldn’t possess your guns they won’t allow you to register them and most likely they will be confiscated on the spot.
Perhaps those in favor of such a scam can tell me how that couldn’t happen…
Rose Gottemoeller needs to be thoroughly vetted. I suspect/believe she could well be a shill to disarm USA citizens no matter what her words.
This is because if a civilian wants to start a war he has to take his personal weapons, go somewhere, and risk his life. If he does that you can be sure that he has a pretty good reason.
However when a government wants to start a war it has power to send someone else to die for their interests. Bureaucrats are perfectly safe from consequences of their actions; that's why they cannot be trusted with any such thing.
Of course. Remember how the Obamacare “penalties’ were declared by all, up to and including the illegal himself, not to be “taxes.” The HORROR OF IT. How could you even think the Obamunists lie??
I am convinced that this was the intent with the National Firearms Act of 1932 (taxing full autos) and the highly unethical amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986 that ambiguously banned manufacture of full autos in the US for other than police and military.
Good for the NRA. The fact that there are less than 60 senators that don’t respect the 2nd Amendment is frightening....and the ones that don’t need replacing!
We shall see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.