International Arms Treaty vs. the Second Amendment
 

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Larry Bell - The Bell Tells for You - Forbes

What do you make of this?

Is this about reducing international crime or is it international cooperation on domestic arms control?

Mind you, this article is an op-ed piece, but I'm wondering how this treaty actually works and how it's being sold. But in a general sense, what do you think?

I'm torn. I don't have an issue with reasonable arms control. However, this does strike me as a bit heavy-handed. It seems that this sort of thing should be handled domestically, rather than as an international treaty. At the same time, it would be of benefit to have nations on the same page with regard to how to handle arms regulations. I suppose I simply view the small arms trade as something rather unsavoury and that maybe it would be of benefit to have some kind of international regulatory agreement.

I have yet to find an actual sourced reference better than an editorial article, and all searches for "Small Arms Treaty" lead to articles about it, rather than text of it. I call BS.

Perhaps it's just underreported.

United Nations Disarmament

Or maybe it's a non-issue. I don't know the status on this thing.

Maybe it's being pushed through all secret-like. The above is in reference to trade, not the host of other issues. And the op-ed said the terms are yet to be made public.

/two-steps-away-from-Tilted-Paranoia

This started out as a scare-mail last year and is resurfacing again.

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

So this guy in the column, without having seen even a draft of the treaty, claims a UN treaty to control the ILLEGAL trafficking of small arms:

.. will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Talk about jumping the gun.

Not to mention the fact that treaties cannot supersede the Constitution.

http://www.poa-iss.org/BMS4/Documents/A-RES-63-72.pdf

All political scare tactics.
There ARE people trying to take away your 2nd amendment rights, but this isn't it...

Damn it, Forbes. WTF?

Now, I understand that treaties are secondary to the Constitution, but you have the argument that not everything going on the U.S. is constitutional. Does the actual U.N. thing have any chance of interfering with the Second Amendment? If so, how?

I dont think so.

A US Supreme Court decision made clear that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.

According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty..."
Reid v. Covert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not in the new America. Obama almost seemed proud he was following through with the UN resoultion to bomb Libya with out consulting with Congress.

The Constitution is just a small speedbump on the path to total gun control.

Obama did no more or less than Reagan did with Grenada or GHw Bush did with Panama....they resorted to the War Powers Act that gave then authority to act initially w/o Congressional approval.

There will be no total gun control in the US, but the fear mongering does make for great fundraising for the NRA

Not that it really matters. America is already a police state, right?

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

That seems sensible. But considering that there are the arguments that the Second Amendment is/has already been infringed, what's to say that some result of this treaty wouldn't do the same?

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

And he and his administration didn't seem to lie too much about it. Though I guess only time will tell.

The other safeguard is that treaties require 2/3 vote in the Senate, not just a simple majority.

That certainly wont happen given the current make up of the Senate. In the future, only if the Senate has 67 hard core ultra left liberals, who, even then would be hard pressed to justify a treaty that goes beyond the current interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I guess the point I was trying to get at with the Libya thing is that Obama may just enforce the treaty through the ATF, FBI, TSA w/o bothering with an actual treaty.

Sometimes I think the UN should worry more about the humanitarian tomahawk love bombs it drops all over the world.

http://bittenandbound.com/wp-content...-president.jpg

"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

from the viewpoint of the united nations, which has to address the carnage caused by the international small arms trade, it's hardly surprising that such actions would be underway. i have no specific information about the treaty itself however.

turns out not to exist. never mind.


if it exists and has provisions like those noted above, though, i would be fine with it.
nation-states are already de facto relics.
it's seemed to me for some time that the nra is more a chamber of commerce-type organization for the small arms manufacturing industries in the united states as a membership organization and that the interests of the former are protected by manipulating the latter in the direction of the black helicopter set.

but as an international traffic the consequences of which are simply overwhelming levels of carnage because so many of these weapons go to arm militias in war situations---something has to be done. the issue has only tangentially to do with nra claims about all these eminently sensible american sportspersons and their inalienable rights to imagine themselves safe from harm and free because they own gun commodities.

there is a conversation to be had about the international small arms trade and the ways in which seeing gun questions through that optic dissolves almost everything about the nra's merkin-politik.
i can muster a lot of data about the international small arms trade if it'd be helpful later.

It should be easy now.
Charlton Heston dead at 84 - Entertainment - Celebrities - TODAY.com

//one ticket to hell please. ;)



If you really want to get into the mess of international arms handling, try carrying a gun on a private cruising boat. Just about anywhere outside of the USA, you have to give it to customs when entering the country and get it back on your way out.

I will be in good company.

http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ%202%20436X500.jpg

If you folks ever want to charge me with using talking points, this is the time. Others have said what I believe much better than I ever could. Good luck with this topic, but understand the idea of a UN arms treaty is meaningless.

Yes, I suppose if the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention is any indication. (In addition to, to some extent, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)

A UN treaty is only as good as the sum of the ability of members to enforce the treaty. The UN has no track record of independently enforcing any treaty they have ever made. Who would enforce a violation made by the US?

Another point, at risk of being told I am "flipping the script", but the question begs to be asked here.

Some here have called for giving arms to Libyan rebels, so on one hand guns are bad, on the other guns are needed for a worthy cause - who do you put in charge of when it is o.k. and when it is not for people to have guns?

Hell, Libya is even in the UN Human Right Council - how on earth do you think a person like me would give up my rights to such a comical organization? It won't happen. Any US politician who seriously entertains such an idea will be voted out of office.

It's not only about enforcing the treaty; it's also about ratification and fulfillment. The U.S. is notorious for following treaties only as far as it's convenient to them.

As for the Libyan thing, the treaty is about the wider arms trade, regarding corruption and legal channels, etc. I don't think that governments who actively and publicly distribute arms are the target. I think the targets are illegitimate groups.

Well, there's the whole fiasco with Medellin and the idea of a 'self-executing treaty' and the president's implied power to enter the USA in to a treaty through 'executive agreement' (which does not require senate ratification, but is subject to court challenge.) Although I doubt Obama can legally enter the US in to the International Arms Treaty without running afoul of the Constitution, he technically can enter in to an executive agreement to implement some form of small arms legislation (although implementation itself would probably be problematic).

I tend not to give much credibility to international law, for even though it purports to act in the ends of justice, it is more of a political tool to emphasize legitimacy, rather than a body of law that arises from the will of the people. In other words, International Law is subject to the Whims of the politically powerful parties (i.e. USA, China, UK, Germany).

Consequently, with Libya--who determines who is a 'good country' and who is a 'bad country?' It seems wholly political there. Not to mention, despite treaties--like in the UN charter--there is the right to let countries settle their own domestic affairs (but nevertheless bombing Libya) and I conclude that: Given it's political nature, International law is not a body of law fit to regulate domestic affairs of countries--that is, I'd rather see international law playing more of a role in commerce between countries, wars between countries and other things of an international nature, rather than sticking their finger in to countries' domestic affairs, as we see in Libya.

....I'll stop bullshitting now.