UN Arms Control Treaty to be signed by Kerry

[GunnyGene]

This thing just won't go away. It's like a damn zombie. :x

Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation on Wednesday, a senior State Department official told Fox News -- despite warnings from lawmakers that the Senate will not ratify the agreement.

A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

"The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents," the official said.

U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed that the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, sent a letter to Kerry declaring it "dead in the water," since a majority of senators has gone on record against the agreement.

"The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats," he wrote.

Kerry, who is in New York attending the U.N. General Assembly session, announced earlier this year that the administration planned to sign the treaty.

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.

More; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09 ... pposition/

 

[OhioArcher]

Yeah, eff 'em all and feed 'em beans...no way he is not going to sign it...

 

[carbinemike]

no way he is not going to sign it...

Yeah, is was a done deal the moment B Hussein Obama put his hand on the bible and lied through his teeth.

 

[OhioArcher]

no way he is not going to sign it...

Yeah, is was a done deal the moment B Hussein Obama put his hand on the bible and lied through his teeth.

Right then and there he should have burst into flames...

 

[John A.]

I always expected that he would sign it.

They've put it off and rescheduled it for years while Bush and the Republicans were in charge OR until just the right fools came along that were actually willing to sign it (if the shoe fits).

But I don't expect the US will ratify it anytime soon regardless of what Obama wants.

But if Kerry signs it, Congress can put this on the books and do not necessarily have to act or ratify it for even another generation if that's what they want to do (the zombie reference).

Incrementalism is a very scary thing that maybe someday eventually they would have the majority to make it happen.

 

[GunnyGene]

I also doubt that it will be ratified anytime soon, if ever, but it will be used by the anti's, including Obama, as a political club in upcoming elections. And in any case Obama has previously stated his willingness to bypass Congress whenever he feels like it.

Here's the official copy of the treaty. The first 20 pages of the PDF are in Chinese, so just scroll down till you get to the English translation. http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/201 ... df#page=21 .

Note the portions of it that addresses National control systems for firearms, ammunition, and parts (the first 3 Articles starting on page 5 of the English portion (page 25 of the PDF).

This is something that I'm sure Obama will continue to push for regardless of the status of treaty ratification. If California, Chicago, or DC type rules become National we will have a de facto imposition of the treaty rules, and ratification becomes moot. Virginia's gov. is already trying to implement CA rules.

 

[John A.]

Virginia is pretty pro gun.

Less DC, which doesn't really count as part of VA.

 

[carbinemike]

We once had great men put their lives on the line to sign the Declaration of Independence and now we have a lame &%$#@& like John Kerry trying to sign away our national sovereignty to the equally lame UN. It's just pathetic.

Edit - Virginia is a bad govenors race. They are working on the lesser of two evils with both candidates fighting off corruption rumors. The democrat leads and recently announced he would attempt to get Colorado style laws in place if elected. A libertarian candidate has 9% of the vote and that's probably the difference to get the democrat over the top. Virginia is like many states, politics is dominated by the population areas while the vast square miles is filled with regular people that will get screwed over.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...1-mcauliffe-widens-lead-in-va-governors-race-

 

[GunnyGene]

Virginia is pretty pro gun.

Less DC, which doesn't really count as part of VA.

I thought so also, but McAuliffe seems to be in front in the Gov. race.

Terry McAuliffe Pledges Colorado-Like Gun Control if Elected http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... If-Elected

 

[Huntallyeardownhere]

Guys,
Please forgive me if my understanding of the situation is different from yours, much of the work behind this treaty was, I thought, intended to control the manufacture and sale of munitions such as land mines and other such indiscriminate devices. I would have thought that any tactical need for such things would have been long since replaced with proximity sensors and the like, that along with the carnage we have all suffered with IED's would have had us all on common ground. I also find it interesting that up until a couple of years ago when we gave up and gave them away we had a number of A4 Skyhawks for sale, several bidders, most from the USA, were turned down by the US State Department, we had brought the planes back in the 60's, interference from such a distance is a little hard to understand, then we have the instances where, apparently agencies such as the CIA, supported governments only to find that things needed to be "sorted out" later, if I remember correctly Panama was one such case. Given some of these things some form of control would seem to be a good idea.

Looking at the other side, in my 3 score years I have lived in a country that has gone from almost having to need official permission to use tissue paper for it's intended purpose to one of the freest places around, sure we have some controls on firearms but then we do not feel the need to have armed groups trying to dictate how the place should be run, maybe we see the difference between a patriot and a terrorist to be only a matter of degree and/or perception.

As I said this is written from a different place in the world than most of the readers of this forum and if it runs contrary to a readers beliefs and as such they find it offensive then I most humbly apologize, additionally I do not intend nor want to enter into major debate for in a truly free world we are each entitled to our own opinions however, just maybe, ever so often, we may all have to operate in a new norm in the interests of the greater good and if it requires a small personal impingement to prevent some innocent kid suffering for the rest of their life then so be it.


Rant over

 

[carbinemike]

Looking at the other side, in my 3 score years I have lived in a country that has gone from almost having to need official permission to use tissue paper for it's intended purpose to one of the freest places around

Huntallyeardown here, this is great for you and I'm glad that some places in the world have become more free. In my last 20 years I have watched the US Constitution and personal rights be eroded away. It is painful to watch.

As I said this is written from a different place in the world than most of the readers of this forum and if it runs contrary to a readers beliefs and as such they find it offensive then I most humbly apologize, additionally I do not intend nor want to enter into major debate for in a truly free world we are each entitled to our own opinions however, just maybe, ever so often, we may all have to operate in a new norm in the interests of the greater good and if it requires a small personal impingement to prevent some innocent kid suffering for the rest of their life then so be it.

Please feel free to state your opinion even if it goes against what others are posting. Opinions are like butts, we all have one. It's how the opinion is posted and if the poster is insulting. You did just fine.

I don't recall anything in the treaty about land mines but I could be wrong.. I believe it is to regulate the sale of small arms on a global basis. It does require certain things inside of ones border to comply and many of those things go against our second amendment right to bear arms. Other parts require the government track ownership which is viewed by many here as a step toward gun confiscation. Also, many Americans, especially those on a place like this board, do not like or trust the UN and their aim of eliminating national sovereignty.

Here is a link to a good article the lists the concerns of many here on this treaty.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/wolfe130404.html

 

[OhioArcher]

No need to apologize. Good to have dissenting opinions thrown out there.

But one the provisions buried in all the mumbo jumbo of the treaty is that each country must come up with a way to register and track every weapon within it's borders, something we have been fighting against for years. Look at the UK, Australia and even Canada. Gun registrations lead to gun confiscations eventually. Right now the one powerful card in our hand is that the government does not know who has them or how many (at least not to the extent that a full blown registration would show).

We also do not like having an inept, anemic and castrated organization like the UN telling us how to lives our lives. The US pumps more $$$ into the UN than other countries and we also seem to do most of its dirty work. Trying to tie us all together into some global harmonization BS is not what "We The People" want. We do not want to see the UN unilaterally shred our Constitution in order to appease the few powerful mega-billionaires of the world. We also do not want to be told when to eat, use the bathroom, go to sleep, etc. It goes against every grain of our American fiber ('cept maybe the Liberals who seem to want to be told how and when to do such things).

It is also going against the will of the people and the Senate to sign this treaty...but our current administration doesn't care what we want...they've been stepping on our necks for the past several years...

 

[OhioArcher]

Looks like we were typing at the same time, Mike.

 

[MikeD]

Slowly and incrementally we as a country are giving away every single thing that once set us apart as a shining star of freedom, innovation and prosperity. This is just one more small nail in that crate that will hold what we once were.

 

[GunnyGene]

Guys,
Please forgive me if my understanding of the situation is different from yours, much of the work behind this treaty was, I thought, intended to control the manufacture and sale of munitions such as land mines and other such indiscriminate devices.

If you haven't read the treaty yet, you should. I posted a link to it up thread. It sounds like what you may have heard about the treaty, is a far cry from what it actually says.

 

[GunnyGene]

A letter sent yesterday to Obama from Sen Corker about this treaty. It will be interesting to learn what Obama's response might be. I suspect he will ignore it.

Dear President Obama,

It is my understanding that Secretary of State John Kerry will sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on behalf of the United States. The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be inconsistent with the United States Constitution, law, and practice.

As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.

Moreover, even after the Senate provides its advice and consent, certain treaties require changes to United States law in the form of legislation passed by both the House and Senate. The ATT is such a treaty. Various provisions of the ATT, including but not limited to those related to the regulation of imports and trade in conventional arms, require such implementing legislation and relate to matters exclusively reserved to Congress under our Constitution.

Because of the concerns discussed above, as well as the fundamental issues the ATT raises with respect to the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is my view that you may not take any executive action to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, unless and until: (1) the United States Senate has provided its constitutionally required advice and consent to its ratification; and (2) the Congress has passed any and all required legislation to bring this treaty into effect under United States domestic law.

Sincerely,

Senator Bob Corker
Ranking Member

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ran ... nd-consent

 

[John A.]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw[/youtube]

 

[GunnyGene]

Kerry signed it this morning. Here's an interesting loophole that Obama may well use to circumvent Congress' Advise and Consent.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s signature of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Wednesday was a serious error, one that will have far-reaching consequences for American foreign policy and American sovereignty. Those consequences will be even worse because the Senate, which has signaled many times that it is opposed to the treaty, will likely have no real opportunity to reject it.

It’s commonly said that the Senate has to provide its advice and consent to any treaty – commonly known as ratifying it – before it can take effect. That’s true, but there’s a loophole. Once the U.S. signs a treaty, we hold ourselves bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.”

In other words, we obey in practice treaties that the Senate has never ratified.

This rule is an old one, and it used to make some sense. It would be dishonorable to sign a treaty with another country, do all the things prohibited by the treaty, and then ratify it. But that was a different era.

Today, treaties are not just about international conduct. They seek to regulate how we raise our children, how we treat the disabled, and how we manage our firearms market.

As a result, the old requirement not to violate the “object and purpose” of a signed treaty has become a way to evade the need for Senate ratification. And in the case of the Arms Trade Treaty, the problem is even worse. The administration will argue that it already has all the powers it needs to enforce the treaty.

In the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Arms Export Control Act, Congress gave the Executive Branch the power to control both the import and export of firearms – indeed, of weapons of all kinds. This power is virtually unfettered. All the president has to do is to assert that a particular firearm is not suitable for “sporting” purposes and, under the 1968 Act, he can ban its import.

We have recently seen an example of this with the executive actions banning the import of Korean War vintage M1 Garand rifles, which the White House justified as a gun control measure. And since many U.S. gun manufacturers rely on imported parts and components, or financing and insurance from abroad, the Treaty also gives other countries new opportunities to affect the U.S. firearms market.

But it is the Treaty’s vague norms that pose the biggest long-term problem. At the heart of the Treaty are terms like “international humanitarian law” and “international human rights law.” By committing itself to uphold these terms, the U.S. is binding itself to meet requirements that it does not define. That will affect not only our domestic firearms market but our foreign policy.

Over the coming years, the treaty’s proponents will seek to expand what those vague terms include. Since the U.N. has already defined gun control as a human right, they will not have to work very hard to make it part of the treaty. By signing the Treaty, the U.S. has tied itself to a conveyor belt: it is no longer in control of where it is going.

Opponents of the treaty are not powerless. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and other colleagues, along with Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.) in the House, have made it clear that Congress is deeply skeptical about the treaty.

They can continue to voice their opposition, including by calling for hearings. In the end, a U.S. president can ‘unsign’ the treaty.

All of those actions are wise responses to a serious error by the Obama administration, one that will be a menace for years to come.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/ ... s-to-come/

 

[MikeD]

He should be charged with treason for this act.

But we all know that's not going to happen.

 

[GunnyGene]

He should be charged with treason for this act.

But we all know that's not going to happen.

There's a lot of very naive people in this country that think we are immune from the kind of popular rebellion/insurrection/revolution that has plagued every culture and country since the time of the Pharaohs and before, and continues to this day. We are not immune.