search
top

Arms Trade Treaty

The left is busy trying to debunk Chuck Norris’s assertion about the UN Arms Trade Treaty. It’s also being covered by a blog UN Dispatch. You can find a source of documents here.

All I know is this: we do not yet have any formal treaty, but the parties involved with this are people I did not vote for, nor had a chance to vote for and  I do not trust them or their intentions. So as far as I’m concerned, they can take their treaty and shove it where the sun don’t shine, whether Chuck Norris is right or wrong. But everything I’ve seen suggests there’s much to worry about. From the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (the name of which should raise eyebrows immediately):

In considering problems relating to the unregulated circulation of small arms, it remains essential to focus on integrated policy approaches. The changing nature of armed violence, including where the United Nations has been active in peace operations, post-conflict reconstruction or development assistance, has blurred the line between armed conflict and crime, and between politically motivated and economically motivated violence. Peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities and development assistance require planning for small arms control and armed violence reduction as a priority. In such contexts, it is vital that traditional arms control measures be integrated into interventions that target the demand for weapons and enhance the ability of security providers and governance authorities to strengthen community security, manage conflict and mitigate violence.

Also from this document here:

The draft Bill establishes a principle that has developed globally in the last decade, and is a core objective of many government’s efforts to strengthen their national legislation: “the possession and use of weapons is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.”

[…]

Policies targeting specific SALW typically do so because of certain features – such as lethality or easily concealable firearms – that make them particularly dangerous for civilian use. Specific SALW may also be prohibited because they are not only extremely deadly, but appear to serve no legitimate civilian function.

[..]

Licence applicants may be required to provide a good reason, justifying why they need to possess a firearm. Legislation may prescribe the circumstances under which possession of a firearm may be justified.

If‘personal protection’is permitted as a good reason, applicants should prove to the police that they are in genuine danger that could be avoided by being armed. Research from UNDP in El Salvador indicated that when firearms were used in self-defence, the person was four times more likely to be killed than when firearms were not used in self-defence.

Sorry, given the supporting documents for this Treaty, it’s hard for me to say that Chuck is wrong. In fact, given that the United States accounts for about 1/4 of the UN budget, I would suggest pissing off the most powerful lobbying group in the country is a bad idea if you want to continue to occupy significant space on some of the most valuable real-estate in our country.

Don’t let the left fool you. There’s plenty to worry about from the UN. While we have the votes to prevent ratification of this treaty, it could wreak havoc with arms and ammunition from countries that do sign on. Take a look at some of your favorite cheap ammo, and see where it comes from. Them do the same for your guns. This is a big deal no matter what they tell you.

13 Responses to “Arms Trade Treaty”

  1. GMC70 says:

    Let’s see the treaty before we get too worked up. However, color me very skeptical.

    We need not wait to make our views known, however. I’d suggest every American gun owner get out a paper target (one with some sort of bullseye, not a figure of a person), place a nice tight group on it using their firearm of choice, note the caliber and range, and send the target to the UN, with these words written prominantly: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall Not be Infringed.”

    No threats. No hysterics. Just a clar message: We will not disarm, we will not register, we will not submit.

  2. 45er says:

    Also, seeing how DOJ is handling the deal with Gibson guitars, don’t tell me this kind of stuff doesn’t mean anything.

  3. Roberta X says:

    45er, the difference is that the imported-wood fiasco is based on U.S. laws.

    All my research indicates foreign treaties do not and cannot trump the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

    That doesn’t mean the treaty is a no-worry, but the threat is more creeping and insidious, rather than immediate. In some ways, that’s even worse; but it does mean it’s not time to bury your guns. (Of course, if it’s time to bury guns, it’s time to dig ’em up!)

  4. Sage Thrasher says:

    As a responsible global citizen, the US should oppose any and all attempts to disarm private citizens no matter where they live. Death by government or government-backed goon squad is still a leading cause of death in this world, not to mention the basic enabler of world-threatening crackpot dictators. The UN could better serve the world by requiring each member state to provide one firearm and a box of ammunition to every adult within its borders.

  5. Voolfie says:

    The UN fancies itself a Supranational governing body. It needs to be disabused of that idea. Further, in the wake of Irene, I am in favor of being safe, rather than sorry – so, while I may not take Mr. Norris at face value, I am inclined to accept that there is a threat and respond appropriately by eliminating it before any damage can be done.

  6. ParatrooperJJ says:

    Actually the whole basis of the Lacey Act is to enforce foreign laws no matter how wacky they are.

  7. Chas says:

    The UN is a club for governments. Respect for private citizens is a joke there.

  8. mobo says:

    A treaty is to be considered as part of the constitution itself, as I understand it. I fear that treaties CAN be used as a back door way of amending the constitution. It’s a good thing that they’re almost as hard to ratify as amendments!

  9. mobo says:

    It appears that SCOTUS hasbfound otherwise. That, and a quick reading of the supremacy clause leads me to believe that they intended it to be read as such:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [OF EACH STATE] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    It seems they were referring to state constitutions, not the federal constitution…..

  10. IllTemperedCur says:

    The biggest beneficiaries of this arms treaty, if it goes through? The illegal arms merchants who sell to terrorists, drug lords and criminal organizations. Prices would go through the roof.

  11. aeronathan says:

    One thing I’m thankful for is there is a pile of longstanding SCOTUS case law that says treaties do not in fact trump the US Constitution for the very common sense reason that treaties over ruling the Constitution gives the Executive and the Senate basically unlimited power to bypass the amendment requirements of the Constitution…

  12. emdfl says:

    I am beginning to suspect that the batfe and state department have already begun to impliment their own version of this treaty. Anybody here tried to buy 7.62X25 ammo lately? Doesn’t seem like any distributor/importer has any available. Unless they are all in cahoots and holding out for higher prices.

  13. Jusuchin (Military Otaku) says:

    It’s a treaty. We’re gonna have to say no. Look where firearms tend to be restricted in the third worl- I mean, ‘developing’ nations. Crackpots and dictators and a populace that had to resort to a lot of blood shed or buying arms from third parties who want to exert control on the next regime.

top