Posted on 07/16/2011 11:42:16 AM PDT by DTogo
Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- A UN committee wrapped up a week-long series of meetings on a massive treaty that could undermine both U.S. sovereignty and the Second Amendment.
This is the third round of meetings by the so-called “preparatory committee” on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as the UN gears up for final negotiations in 2012.
The most comprehensive treaty of its kind, the ATT would regulate weapons trade throughout the world on everything from battleships to bullets.
And as information trickles out of Turtle Bay in New York City, it is obvious the UN is getting more clever about taking the focus off of “small arms.”
With an eye cast in the direction of the U.S. —in particular, toward the U.S. Senate which must ratify the treaty— the most recent Draft Paper for the Arms Trade Treaty recognizes in its preamble “the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.”
That statement, taken by itself, is troubling. Americans’ right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not it is “recognized” by some UN committee. The right enshrined in the Second Amendment predates our own Constitution, and does not need an international stamp of approval.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
The sooner we boot the UN off of our soil and quit funding them the better off we will be.
Under NO circumstances does ANY UN treaty trump the constitution.
The Blue Hats just want the military, cops, terrorists and street thugs to have guns.
US out of the UN, and UN out of the US!
Either way, MOLON LABE !!
Way too much backdoor with this Administration?
They wouldn't get them, not by a long shot!
Would this treaty apply in the wild parts of the world, where everyone is armed, like Afghanistan, or Yemen, or Sierra Leone? Or is it just aimed at the U. S., where the citizens are armed but well enough off to be worth controlling better and fleecing?
I think the answer is obvious. The only way it can be enforced is if the national governments are strong enough to enforce it in their countries and also wish to.
This could result in turning a good many law abiding citizens into Felons. I would become one.
Molon Labe.
This sort of action would certainly qualify as that "under the radar" stuff that Hussien Obeyme was whispering in Sarah Brady's ear.
No, it still requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to go into force, so it doesn't work as a way to do an end run around the legislature, and besides some experts say that a treaty conflicting with the Constitution would be null and void, i.e. a treaty is not interpreted as a mini-amendment if there is a Constitutional conflict.
Spot on. They can ratify it all they want to. I am an American citizen and not a Global Citizen.
People who wear blue helmets BLEED red.
People who wear blue helmets BLEED red.
Because the rats smell a turnover in the senate in 2012, they know they’ve got to hustle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6XOxduodKU
Your name came up again....
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.