Posted on 12/28/2014 3:31:30 AM PST by HomerBohn
Among the terms of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) are the following mandatory provisions:
1.) Civilians are not permitted to “own, buy, sell, trade or transfer” “[any] means of armed resistance including handguns.”
2.) Also prohibited is the ownership of ammunition/munitions.
3.) All countries participating in the Arms Trade Treaty “shall establish and maintain a National Control System” with a list of all weapons including “their current owners.”
This makes the registration of all firearms–that is, the National Arms Registry dreamed of by American liberals–a Treaty requirement. The registry will be used to enforce the prohibition against civilian ownership of firearms by making certain all gun owners have surrendered their firearms to the state. What the far left has been unable to accomplish at either the state or federal level has become possibly by means of International Law applying to all nations which have ratified the ATT. Should the U.S. Senate ratify the Treaty, each provision would ostensibly assume the force of law in the U.S. as well.
However, just as Harry Reid made it clear that the present Democrat-controlled Senate would not ratify the ATT, a particularly important fact will also prevent any future anti-gun Senate ratifying the Treaty. Two centuries of precedent and the decision in a number of Supreme Court cases have determined that no law may be passed in the United States which conflicts with or serves to change the Constitution. The terms of the Arms Trade Treaty obviously disagree with the 2nd Amendment. That being the case, the Constitution must either be radically altered or the Treaty rewritten. Neither of these is likely to take place.
But why would Barack Obama send delegations to 5 years of Treaty conferences, making certain the document language met Administration approval, if the Treaty terms could not be imposed on the American public even if the document were at some point ratified?
“The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is a treaty concerning the international law on treaties between states.” Sometimes described as the Treaty of Treaties, it was adopted in May 1969 and entered into force in January of 1980.
Under Article 18 of the Convention, “…a State which has signed or ratified a treaty has the obligation to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of that treaty prior to its entry into force.”
The written Object and Purpose of the ATT:
Object and Purpose: The Object of this treaty is to—Establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms. Prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion;
For the Purpose of—Contributing to international and regional peace, stability and security; Reducing human suffering; Promoting cooperation, transparency and responsible action by States Parties in the international trade in conventional arms, thereby building confidence among States Parties.
The question is whether the signature of Barack Obama or his agent John Kerry binds the United States by International Law “to not defeat the object and purpose” of the Arms Trade Treaty?
If so, could this entail a calculated scheme by which Obama might claim to be “compelled” to implement the terms of the treaty so as to avoid defeating the treaty’s object and purpose? For example, could Obama bring into play the treaty term calling for a national arms registry, claiming it was absolutely necessary to avoid doing harm to the purpose of the treaty?
I don’t know the legal answer to question. But I do know that, as the most corrupt president in the nation’s history, Barack Obama is capable of implementing any underhanded or illegal scheme he believes he might get away with. And he would undoubtedly go to any lengths to manufacture a method by which he could undermine the 2nd Amendment.
Will this administration spend the next months working to impose terms of an unconstitutional treaty on the American public?
Shouldn’t the UN’s helmets be pink in keeping with the LGBT initiative tho?.../s
So, how many divisions does the UN have?
The treaty is non enforceable
By trying, the president is treasonous
Any Leftist who thinks a treaty could override the Constitution should be asked “Would you think that way about a treaty with the Vatican which banned abortion?”
The author seems to quote verbatim from the treaty. Can you provide a link to the treaty or provide a source to show his quotes are not true?
That f*****g bastard will certainly try or set the stage for later approval.
Between this issue and the attacks on Israel by the UN, it no longer is enough to merely contest this issue.
It’s time to hold Congress’ feet to the fire.
We need to pull out of this monstrous world version of the EU, stop funding it, and kick all these bastards out of the US?
WE CAN SETTLE FOR NO LESS. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!
“It’s long past time to get out of the United Nations and to tell the organization to find a new home for it’s headquarters”.
bingo! If there were a general understanding of how much control and negative economic effect the UN’s AGENDA 21/Sustainable Development is having on this country the above would be a reality.
Dream on. Boner and McConnell gave him funding for Obamacare and amnesty and they will give him this too if he wants it.
They are feckless quislings.
“Is there any legal way in which we can get from under the treaty?”
It does not have to be ratified. When Clinton saw the Senate refuse to vote on the Agenda 21 treaty (Convention on Biological Diversity) he created The Presidents Council On Sustainable Development and directed them to find ways to incorporate it into domestic policy. That was in ‘92 or’93.Today, every federal agency operates per the UN’s Sustainable Development Plan For The 21st Century/Agenda 21.
If you read my post again, you will notice I never mentioned that the GOP would stop Obama.
I think in this case, it will be the people that stop Obama.
I wonder what other nations are signatories..Russia, China, Iran? Probably 3rd world and progressiveness”friends?”
Would he use a criminal false-flag operation between his own attorney general and Mexican cartels to create a crisis leading to a demand for severe restrictions on gun purchases? Uhm...yeah.
“Once he nationalizes law enforcement he can control the little people.”.......
He may TRY to control the “little people” as you call them but he will definitely have a very difficult time doing so. I would expect HE will be one of the first to “expire” in that campaign.. (Just saying)
#8 - Lol...Think of it as a “Blue Helmet Special”...
The UN doing anything is the last thing I’d be worried about.
No treaty can override the Constitution period.
KGB Major: Do you want to see me?
Colonel Ernesto Bella: Yes... yes. Go to the sporting goods store. From the files obtain forms 4473. These will contain descriptions of weapons, and lists of private ownership.
No treaty ratified or not, can usurp the constitution
I hope so.
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.