U.N. arms treaty a direct threat to American gun ownership

The Hill ^ | 06/03/13 | Chris W. Cox

[neverdem]

Oxfam America has long served as a reliable cheerleader for nearly all misguided United Nations policy. However, Oxfam America President Raymond Offenheiser’s Friday op-ed (“President should ignore fear mongering and sign arms treaty”) is an exceptional illustration of this blind allegiance. Offenheiser wants us to simultaneously believe the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is both the single most important tool to cracking down on war crimes and that the treaty has absolutely no teeth whatsoever. That’s twisted logic for sure. Here’s the truth.

The Arms Trade Treaty directly threatens the Second Amendment rights and privacy of American gun owners. Article 12 of the treaty “encourages” signatory nations to compile “records” of all “end users” of firearms imported into their county — and to supply this sensitive personal information to the government of the exporting country.

In other words, if you bought a shotgun made by an Italian manufacturer, the U.S. government would keep a record of your purchase and provide your information to the Italian government. This is gun registration on an international level, plain and simple.

Should the U.S. refuse to take part in this international gun registry, other nations could be required to ban the export of firearms to the United States. This would drive many foreign firearms manufacturers out of business and significantly increase the cost of perfectly legal firearms. The fundamental right to self-defense would become unaffordable for many law-abiding civilians around the world.

Signing this treaty would be a clear indication that President Obama wants to resurrect his failed attempt to implement backdoor gun registration. It would also show his clear contempt for American supremacy and sovereignty.

Cox is executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action.

[Resolute Conservative]

I have plenty I just need to be able to restock ammo as used...

[unixfox]

U.N. arms treaty a direct threat to American gun ownership

COME AND TAKE IT!

[piytar]

Blue helmets on American soil BAD. Blue helmets conducting gun confiscation in the Republic of Texas STUPID and SUICIDAL. Ditto Oklahoma, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, the rest of the South, Ohio, et al.

All that said, even obastard wasn’t stupid enough to sign on. He has effectively pocket vetoed the treaty.

[dinodino]

Blue helmets in TX for gun confiscation? Pop some popcorn and sit back and enjoy!

[TangoLimaSierra]

It would also show his clear contempt for American supremacy and sovereignty.

What's new?

[Axenolith]

Leave some BH’s for the rest of us if that happens! LOL!

Might have to put a limit on em...

[familyop]

It would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. If so (unlikely), it still wouldn't be enforced here.

"This 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).

Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
Justia.com
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

Excerpt:
“As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.”

TREATIES DO NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/Treaties.htm

[familyop]

America is pretty much stocked up to the gills anyway.

[Myrddin]

One way to solve the import problem is the manufacture them here. The only export at that point is profit on the sales back to the home country. The firearm doesn't cross an international boundary between manufacture and sale. The foreign producers keep their market and still generate sales.

[LachlanMinnesota]

I’m sorry, but this is an interpretation of the Constitution in one of its early incarnations, you know, before it was shocked into a breathing, living document that is meant to keep up with the times without the need to actually amend the thing in accordance with its terms. S/

Now, it is more like the Pirate code, more a set of guidelines than rules...

[familyop]

"Now, it is more like the Pirate code, more a set of guidelines than rules..."

Political/regulator lefties won't do so well, when others use such a code.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Another question to ask Republican candidates for president: will you abrogate this treaty?