US Officially Signs UN Arms Treaty

Say it with me now: Elections have consequences.

While the chance of Senate ratification is effectively nil at this point, gun control supporters can still cheer the victory of the first step of the treaty process here in the US. It also makes Senate seats a much more desirable target for both treaty purposes and domestic gun control efforts.

We all knew this was coming as soon as the treaty was agreed to and Obama was re-elected. Now, we have to make sure that there’s never a chance for the Senate to ratify it. The Senate could take it up at any time, as it doesn’t have to be ratified in this administration once it has been initially signed. International gun control groups would be happy to wait us out.

36 thoughts on “US Officially Signs UN Arms Treaty”

    1. Since the Senate hasn’t ratified it, presumably just a new administration formally withdrawing from it. However, it could easily be forgotten as an issue in a new administration that might not hate us to the same degree Obama’s does. The argument will be made that there’s just no need to worry at all since the Senate has to act first.

      1. Except the left will argue we have an obligation to act under it. And then they will also use it as a legal wedge for years down the road showing a commitment to act and as a basis for filing suit over administration actions that fail to comply with it. Or for supporting executive actions that do align with it.

        And some courts will see it as a valid excercise. And of course, it will also be used as a tool to pressure the domestic industry to turn on the NRA and the gun owners of this country if they want the abilty to export arms to US partners.

      1. There was no incentive for him to sign it. I don’t think he would have, and I’m saying that as someone who really does not trust Romney on guns. But, looking at the political motivators, he simply would not have had any to screw us at this point.

      2. You go to war with the weapons you have. Not the weapons you dream you have.

        Romney won the primary. He wasn’t my preferred candidate (neither was McCain or Bush before him) but in both cases, he was better than the alternative in almost every regard. Sitting at home and not voting is the same as voting for the other guy.

        The left learned that lesson with Al Gore and Ralph Nader.

        I don’t think the right (or libertarians) are intelligent enough to get it.

        1. I disagree. I don’t think they were substantially different. Sitting at home is only the same as not voting for anybody. You can’t make any other logical argument.

          After everything, what did we get from Obama on guns? A bunch of meaningless EOs, and a treaty that has no force and never will. It will be like the Kyoto Treaty- DOA.

          I don’t regret my decision, and seeing Obama flail is actually better for our rights and the GOP.

          1. I bet you took your ball and left the playground more days then you played ball. You’re never going to have you ideal candidate, unless it’s you running for office. It comes down to picking the one you most agree with. Then there are guys who find every reason to sit out an election.

            Economy – Romney
            Guns – Draw or leans Romney
            Taxes – Romney
            Foreign policy – Sure has hell can’t do worse than BHO
            So tell me again why it was so attractive to sit out an election. Wait, I know. You’re a single issue voter.

            1. I don’t need an ideal candidate. I really don’t. But I want one that is at least a little different than the other.

              Economy- Draw
              Guns- Draw
              Taxes- Draw

              1. It astounds me to know that you believe Romney and Obama were identical on the issues. No point in discussing this with someone like you, your mind is made up.

                1. Its clear they were so close on the issue that its moot to choose between them. Remember- Obamacare came from Romneycare.

                  But it sounds like you choose to ignore the facts, so I’ll let you be.

        2. I voted for Johnson.

          But I also live in Oregon, which had zero chance in hell of going to Romney, or I’d have held my nose and voted for him, like I did for McCain in’08.

          After all, someone also has to tell the GOP establishment that they suck and need to change.

          1. Can’t disagree with that logic. I’ve voted Libertarian more times than not. Though living in Rhode Island and in Vermont it was clear that the state was going to elect Clinton. And it was equally clear that Bush was going to beat Gore in Virginia. But the last couple of elections have been frightenly close. If your in a state where there’s even some chance of a close election (and I’d say that a 3-4% margin of victory) than you have to make mature strategic choices.

    1. Or even worse, when people who know better get played for fools and decide not to vote for Ken Cuccinelli but instead to vote for some pure as the driven snow Libertarian Party candidate and Terry McCaulife gets elected governor of Virginia clearing the way to tweak the state to make it easier for Hillary to win the White House . . . . then we will absolutely lose the right to bear arms as Hillary will get 8 years to replace much of the Supreme Court with the Clinton version of it.

  1. If I owned a gun that I bought under the assumption that cheap russian surplus ammo would always be available, I’d be a bit worried at this point. There may be a lot of AK paperweights for sale real soon.

      1. The treaty isn’t ratified here yet, but I noted that it doesn’t have to be ratified this session of Congress, or even in this administration. It’s on the table now for any time when the gun control groups want to pull it out.

        1. I understand that… but we seem to have some chicken littles amongst us.

          1. If you’re implying that Countertop’s concerns about how the mere signature status will be used against us in courts, policymaking, and lobbying, then I wouldn’t count that as chicken little-type concerns. We’ve covered before how the anti-gun groups were already using this strategy before we even signed the treaty.

            1. And all you guys are missing that it’s not a one party treaty. Now what happens when other countries sign this treaty and stop exporting arms and munitions to this country? Have you forgotten about that angle.

              Or, does anyone remember the executive order that banned Russian and Chinese firearms from import?

              1. No, we’re not missing that. However, we don’t control those other countries. There’s nothing that we can do as American voters once the UN came up with a final treaty.

                1. And that’s my point. Lets stop complaining over stuff we have no control over. Did we have a vote on this?

                  Let’s follow it up with action. Stuff like this should keep othe gun rights side fired up to 2016.

                  Oh, wait, there is no action on this since its not ours to act upon. It’s as useless as the Kyoto treaty.

                  Nothing changes. Ammo, imports, nothing changes unless by act of congress or EO, and we couldn’t do anything about the latter, either.

                  They don’t get the momentum unless we let them.

                  What are we doing to keep the fire going to 2016?

    1. 7.62×39 won’t vanish, it’ll just become “not ultra cheap”.

      Even 5.54×39, though if you bought one of those you deserve what you get…

  2. This is what happens when you seek to experiment with communism. The Soviets have won the Cold War, and now all that there is to be done is wait for October, 2017. 100 years later, it will be complete. Just a matter of time before Obamacare is implemented, and your Doctor becomes apart of the new NKVD style secret police. I expect obamacare to cause a Holodomor type of event, as those who have been profiled by the NSA and IRS to be opposed to communism and the Communist (democrat) party, will be denied healthcare and be murdered off nice and slow. Pray to got none of you here get cancer, because no one on this blog will be getting treatment or the needed surgeries to treat it. Research the Holodomor and see that the Soviets made the Nazis look like fruit cakes.

  3. Anyone have a link to the treaty itself? Don’t have time to search for it. but want to read it on a plane ride tonight.

  4. Sounds like a good pretext for the admin to use if they want to revisit the definitions of what imported arms are “sporting.” EO could very easily affect importation of just about any firearms, accessories, or ammunition.

  5. I want all of those gun-grabbers to apologize to us for saying that the POTUS was not coming for our guns. Yet more proof that he really is.

  6. It is one thing to speak out against such activism and try to convince others to engage in more effective advocacy, it is quite another thing to fall into the trap of calling for the outlaw of X thing that doesn’t sit well with you personally given the current circumstances. Don’t fall into that trap, no matter how much it pisses you off to have to defend these jackasses. The second you undermine the practice of stupidly exercising a right, you have undermined the right in and of itself. The sensible among us need to walk a fine line on this stuff. There is nothing inconsistent about saying this is unquestionably stupid and at the same time defending the legality of doing it. A right that can only be exercised in agreeable ways isn’t a right.

  7. I feel pity for those who still believe the republicans are here to help. It’s a false dichotomy.

    No one in elected government with an “R” next to their name cares about you personally any more than than those with a “D” next to their name.

    Failure to understand this is a major reason things suck today in our country.


  8. I’ve been thinking about this and I think the right thing to do might be for pro-gun Republicans in the Senate to try to introduce ratification of the U.N. arms treaty. Try and get every senator on record on where they stand. On top of that a failure to ratify will send the message that the U.S. rejects this treaty despite what the Obama administration may say.

Comments are closed.