Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UN Gun Grab Enters New And Dangerous Phase
Townhall.com ^ | October 15, 2014 | Bob Barr

Posted on 10/15/2014 5:42:49 AM PDT by Kaslin

Those wild and crazy bureaucrats on the banks of the East River are at it again. The United Nations – a bureaucracy so bloated and byzantine that it makes the United States Senate appear efficient by comparison – is poised to begin tossing legal monkey wrenches into international firearms transactions; and indirectly affecting firearms policies in the United States.

This new phase in international gun control began September 25th when the 50th country ratified the infamous Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that was adopted formally by the United Nations a year and a half ago (and signed by our own Secretary of State Kerry in September 2013). The process itself began more than a decade ago – in the summer of 2001 – when the UN began formally debating a “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.”

Since the UN officially launched that piously-named, multi-year and costly “programme” shortly before the world was turned upside on September 11, 2001, the international anti-gun cartel led by the United Kingdom, Japan, Mexico and other “allies” of the United States, have waited patiently for this day. With the ratification by the governments of at least 50 supporting nations, the deeply anti-Second Amendment ATT now will be subject to implementing conferences and actions with very real consequences.

Those of us in this country who understand and support the concept of “the right to keep and bear arms,” might defer any concern because the Senate has not and likely will not “advise and consent” to the ratification of this thoroughly rotten document. Problem is, the mere fact that John Kerry lent his John Hancock to the ATT makes the United States a “signatory” to it, and is cause for real concern.

The problem is two-fold.

First, virtually all of the ATT-ratifying countries (a number that already has grown to 53, and which will continue to increase as more countries succumb to the siren song of “security through gun control”) engage in trade with the United States; many receive military assistance from us and purchase armaments. Others are countries in which American hunters travel for their sport. Still, other countries in this group might at some point serve as a base in which individuals or groups hostile to the United States hide, and against which we might legitimately seek to take action. Our options in all these circumstances might be severely limited if the ratifying countries comply fully with the myriad terms of the ATT.

American firearms and ammunition manufacturers could in many instances be barred from exporting to, or importing from such countries. American hunters might no longer be able to bring firearms into those countries. And, future administrations might find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide defensive armaments to freedom fighters with such countries.

Secondly, because John Kerry signed the treaty on behalf of the United States, according to its terms we are obligated not to “act contrary to” its terms and its referenced and underlying documents. These foundational materials include some of the most blatantly anti-Second Amendment screeds available. Those provisions include numerous detailed gun control measures, including a mandate that all civilian-owned firearms be registered with the national government, severe restrictions on who could possess firearms and what types, and many other deeply anti-freedom restrictions.

The danger is obvious. An anti-Second Amendment administration, such as the current one led by President Barack Obama, could cite such interpretation of the ATT as a pretext for quietly ordering various gun control measures to be undertaken by agencies under its control (such as the State Department and ATF). We all are painfully familiar with the Obama Administration’s penchant for taking substantive actions without benefit of, or in actual contravention to, lawful authority. In its tortured view of executive power, citing an international treaty such as the Arms trade Treaty as justification for limiting Second Amendment rights would be easy.

Notwithstanding the fact that a majority of Senators already are on record committing that they would never vote to ratify the ATT, they and their colleagues in the House of Representatives must take proactive steps to ensure that this Administration – and any future administration – be stopped from implementing any provisions of or supported by the ATT. Our congressional committees must be far more vigilant than they have in the past to monitor ATF, the State Department, and all other federal agencies to ensure they do not take any steps through regulations or other means to implement or enforce any provisions lurking in the ATT. Failure to do so runs the very real risk of surrendering many aspects of our precious Second Amendment-guaranteed rights to a cadre of faceless bureaucrats at the United Nations and in far-flung capital cities around the globe.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: armstradetreaty; banglist; johnwhowasinnamkerry; uselessnarions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: Kaslin
Once obama or the next democratic president replaces a pro 2nd amendment justice the court will be flipped anti gun. What could stop the court from rubber stamping a clearly unconstitutional executive order banning say, semi automatic rifles?
21 posted on 10/15/2014 6:56:53 AM PDT by hardspunned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45
First, Im not a blowhard,

Of course you are. All talk and nothing else.

22 posted on 10/15/2014 6:58:09 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 556x45
-- This country is governed by the consent of the people. --

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...
Governments exist, period. The truism in the Declaration of Independence, relating to consent of the governed, pertains to "just" powers, not all powers.

I submit that the notions of "just powers" and "consent of the governed" have become bastardized , like much of the constitution. The government and courts (but I repeat myself) point to the vote, and equate it to consent. The logic goes something like this -- If everybody has the right to vote, then the government is one operated by consent of the governed. By implication, as long as consent is there, the people find the government action to be legitimate, or just.

The people aren't quite as dense as their government pretends: 19% Think Federal Government Has Consent of the Governed - April 2014.

I personally think the federal government operates so far outside of its constitutional boundaries, that it is reasonable to view it as mostly illegitimate.

23 posted on 10/15/2014 7:01:24 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

You dont know that. As I said, enjoy your chains. You deserve them!


24 posted on 10/15/2014 7:06:59 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Thanks for posting! Perhaps some on this forum could learn from it.


25 posted on 10/15/2014 7:09:02 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Ted Cruz has the popular standing to declare that such treaties, signed or not, are invalid and should be declared “abrogated” (formally revoked) by the United States.

This would be done by a vote of the US senate, and affirmed to the UN by the Republican POTUS.

There are any number of “sub-treaties” that presidents have joined, pretending they aren’t “important” enough to be affirmed by the senate, and this broom should sweep them away as well.

Cruz should announced this, because by doing so it will get “a place on the stove” of future senate business.


26 posted on 10/15/2014 8:05:18 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maddog55

Incorrect. Signing a self-evident piece of garbage, if it is a “treaty”, has genuine legal implications. Clinton used treaties to handcuff conservatives repeatedly in the ‘90’s — Bob Bar should know, he was in Congress and watched Krinton do it.


27 posted on 10/15/2014 8:16:43 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("If America was a house, the Left would root for the termites." - Greg Gutfeld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Worse, evidence keeps surfacing that ObamaJarrettAyersDohrn is building a Red Army of Holder’s People using reformatory and other Yute programs, and enrolling as many Prog constituencies in the Armed Forces as possible. His ultimate goal you can guess at.


28 posted on 10/15/2014 8:25:08 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("If America was a house, the Left would root for the termites." - Greg Gutfeld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

We disagree. Treaties can not override the US Constitution even if the Senate did ratify it. What the current president “thinks” he can do and actually do are two different things and how congress reacts is the same way but the Constitution has specific requirements for treaties.


29 posted on 10/15/2014 9:24:13 AM PDT by maddog55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

obama had no trouble sending 2,000 automatic weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico. The terrorists received their weapons from the democrats thru Libya. Gee I hope the UN can stop the democrat party....


30 posted on 10/15/2014 9:26:20 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We don’t give one ratsa$$ what the UN does or what obligations Obola thinks he can commit the US to internationally. The Constitution rules. Period!


31 posted on 10/15/2014 10:45:21 AM PDT by SgtHooper (Anyone who remembers the 60's, wasn't there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson