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?
Just watch him.
I will die defending my right and the right of every man and woman in this world to defend themselves. If Obama signs this and tries to enforce it, the world’s largest standing citizen army will rumble to life in a way never seen before in human history.
Just try it Barack.
Every now and then the Liberty Tree needs a good “watering.”
Obama knows this will never fly. Nor does any lib pol believe this will ever fly. All it does is whip the base into a frenzy. Nothing more, nothing less.
save
I don’t doubt that Obama will keep trying to get at those weapons.
Thing is, he isn’t liked so much anymore. His true colors are out there.
This would be the bridge too far for Obama.
YES.
Open question to Barry Soetero couched in terms you would understand: how is colonialism by the UN any different from the “British colonialism” that your father decried?
I am ready to die defending this right. He has almost made it preferable to the hell on earth he’s created for me anyway.
The treaty does not become law unless it is ratified by the senate.
We all know how much this halfrican, mooselimb, communist prick respects the law.
We will find out how the administration responds to armed citizens refusing to turn in their lawful guns.
If it comes to that, so be it.
I suppose the left sees treaties as having the force of constitutional amendments. Has a court ever declared a treaty unconstitutional?
This time those rifles would/will be aimed just under those blue helmets.
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.
For that matter the United States needs to stop funding it and let others step up and do so. China comes to mind right off as it is now the world’s biggest economy.
Once he nationalizes law enforcement he can control the little people.
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 is not accurate, and none of the language in quotes is actually from the treaty. The treaty is bad, yes, but repeating falsehoods about it doesn't help anyone.
This is a plot to allow the world elite to remain and transfer power without resistance from it’s people by confiscation.
El Douche will end up like il Duce if he keeps this nonsense up.
Is there any legal way in which we can get from under the treaty? For good, assuming this gets ugly, which it may.
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.