Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NRA Takes Aim at Weapons Treaty
U.S.News & World Report ^ | July 9, 2012 | Kira Zalan

Posted on 07/10/2012 11:23:33 AM PDT by neverdem

The powerful American gun lobby worries about the reach of a global pact on conventional arms.

Delegations from almost 200 countries convened at the United Nations this month to come up with a new treaty that would regulate international trade in conventional weapons. The effort, supported by the Obama administration, has very vocal opposition: the American gun lobby.

Proponents of the Arms Trade Treaty argue that inadequate controls over the international arms market result in armed violence against civilians by human rights violators, criminals, gangs, warlords, and terrorists. The treaty would require governments to deny weapons transfers to states that fit certain criteria, and to develop national laws and regulations governing imports and exports.

[READ: Russia's About-face Could Mean Syria's Assad Is on His Way Out]

The United States, the world's top importer and exporter of conventional weapons, already has a comprehensive tracking and export control system. "We're simply bringing other countries up to our standards," says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "This treaty, in all likelihood, will not require the United States to do anything more than it is already doing."

But the American gun lobby says the ATT represents a threat to the Second Amendment.

"Depending on the scope of this treaty, it could impact gun registration requirements in the United States, it could enact a ban on commonly owned firearms, it could require tracking and registration of ammunition purchases, and it could create a global gun control bureaucracy within the U.N.," says Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs at the National Rifle Association. Arulanandam says the NRA will lobby the Senate to reject ratification if the president signs the treaty.

Kimball says the regulation of domestic gun possession is totally outside the scope of the treaty. Sarah Parker, senior researcher with the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey and an adviser to the Australian delegation to the ATT talks, agrees. "There is no attempt in the Arms Trade Treaty to control the internal regulation of weapons, only international transfers," she says. Both experts say there is misinformation about the effort.

Still, the Senate and House Appropriations committees have voted to restrict government funding for advancing the ATT. And last month, 130 House members sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, arguing that the treaty must not cover small arms, light weapons, or firearms ammunition. They also say it should recognize the individual right of personal self-defense and the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities.

[M.E.K. Pays Big to Make History Go Away]

Conventional arms is a broad category, ranging from military systems like tanks, aircraft, and missiles to civilian firearms. Leaving out civilian arms would create a big loophole, experts say. "You have a very big problem making a firm distinction between military and civilian in a legal context" because different states define and regulate arms differently, Parker says.

For example, in the United Kingdom, only military personnel are allowed to have handguns, while in the United States an individual may even own a semiautomatic rifle. Parker says it would be impossible to come up with a universal definition for military arms that would be comprehensive or effective in preventing irresponsible transfers—the ultimate goal of the treaty.

But the NRA vows to keep the pressure on, and observers are waiting to see whether that will affect the U.S. delegation's position on key issues over the next three weeks of negotiations.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; att; banglist; bloat; cwii; democrats; guncontrol; gunregistration; liberalfascism; liberals; molonlabe; obama; progressives; treason; tyranny; un; unconstituional; ungunban; unguntreaty; unweaponstreaty; waronliberty; youwillnotdisarmus

1 posted on 07/10/2012 11:23:45 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Senators in all but the bluest of states who run afoul of the NRA can count on extreme difficulty getting reelected. They’d be very well advised to give a resounding thumbs-down on this treaty.


2 posted on 07/10/2012 11:29:20 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Proponents of the Arms Trade Treaty argue that inadequate controls over the international arms market result in armed violence against civilians by human rights violators, criminals, gangs, warlords, and terrorists.

Who can blame them? The BATF gave thousands of high-powered rifles to the drug lords of Mexico, killing thousands of legitimate Mexican citizens. H*ll, if 2,000 Mexican illegals were shot in the USA, all hell would break out amongst the liberals.

Fast and Furious is simply state-supported terrorism. It's a disgrace.

3 posted on 07/10/2012 11:30:01 AM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
More UN control and an even bigger market for illegal gun dealers.
Neither of those should be on our wish list.

Why don't UN go defend the pyramids and show us that it can do something right.
It's relatively limited in scope. If they can't do that, then why does anyone think that UN can, or should, control the whole world.

4 posted on 07/10/2012 11:34:04 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

“This treaty, in all likelihood, will not require the United States to do anything more than it is already doing.”

Fine, no use getting involved in superflous treaties, just say no.


5 posted on 07/10/2012 11:37:18 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
'Kimball says the regulation of domestic gun possession is totally outside the scope of the treaty. Sarah Parker... agrees. "There is no attempt in the Arms Trade Treaty to control the internal regulation of weapons, only international transfers," she says. Both experts say there is misinformation about the effort."

This is boldest leftwing lie since "peaceful coexistence" and here's why.

First, a link to the text of the treaty as it stands now: "The Arms Trade Treaty (A/RES/64/48)"

Excerpted below is the section of this Treaty that calls on States{nations} for an implementation:

"Calls upon all States to implement, on a national basis, the relevant recommendations contained in section VII of the report of the Group of Governmental Experts (See A/63/334)."
Next is a link to the text of the referenced report: "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms (A/63/334)"

Excerpted below is the only one of three section (27-29) in above referenced "section VII" ("Conclusions and recommendations") dictating the responsibilities and required actions of signatory States:

29. The Group acknowledged the respective responsibilities of exporters and importers. In order to begin improving the current situation, the Group recognized the need for all States to ensure that their national systems and internal controls are at the highest possible standards, and that States in a position to do so could render assistance in this regard, upon request. {Emphasises added.}
How can America agreeing to implement UN requested "internal controls" of our "nation system" of gun regulations not be surrendering American 2nd Amendment rights?

Once signing such a treaty, what should Americans expect if the UN should "request" a tighter "standard" of US "internal controls" on guns and America's elected government officials refuses to comply?

All out LAWFARE, financed by the same leftist front groups (Soros' included) to force compliance through US courts! Note the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution which provides that the “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 or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” {Emphasis added}

6 posted on 07/10/2012 11:46:28 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Parker says it would be impossible to come up with a universal definition for military arms that would be comprehensive or effective in preventing irresponsible transfers—the ultimate goal of the treaty.”

He’s probably right. So the solution is to ban-em-all


7 posted on 07/10/2012 11:47:26 AM PDT by saleman (!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

“This treaty, in all likelihood, will not require the United States to do anything more than it is already doing.”

If ever there was a bladface lie this is it. The reason the treaty is necessary is b/c this is a lie.

At some point the American people must refuse this lunacy.


8 posted on 07/10/2012 11:48:27 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Obozo has a lotta nerve supporting international gun control when his bro, Holder, advances it.


9 posted on 07/10/2012 11:51:38 AM PDT by grobdriver (Proud Member, Party of NO! Nobama, No Way, No How!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
just say no

Absolutely. Any more power to the UN or any treaty that limits our rights, no matter how little, will set a precedent for the next more aggressive treaty.

10 posted on 07/10/2012 11:52:13 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

I think youre missing the point though. This treaty isnt about regulating govt behavior its a tool by which govts regulate their populations. So, nothing in DC will change exc the ATF/FBI/DEA/local sheriff/local PD will have more excuses to take property and commit murder.


11 posted on 07/10/2012 11:52:33 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“The treaty would require governments.....to develop national laws and regulations governing imports and exports.”

Wait. I thought Parker said “nothing would change in regards to the United States.” Require..develop laws...govern imports and exports..

Nothing to see here folks. Move along..move along.


12 posted on 07/10/2012 11:52:45 AM PDT by saleman (!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Obozo has a lotta nerve supporting international gun control when his bro, Holder, advances international gun transfers.


13 posted on 07/10/2012 11:53:00 AM PDT by grobdriver (Proud Member, Party of NO! Nobama, No Way, No How!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Even SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles!!!! Pretty scary. Just think maybe even your neighbor has a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle.

When will the media ever bother to learn anything about guns? Or maybe they do know but they figure that 3/4’s of the idiots in this country don’t know anything and can be easily swayed by BS.


14 posted on 07/10/2012 12:43:26 PM PDT by zagger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

GOA is likewise going after these anti RKBA UN zealots! Just another reason to turn the UN building into a homeless shelter and ship those slugs back to whatever Turd-World lash-up they came from!


15 posted on 07/10/2012 12:55:51 PM PDT by donozark (Col. C.Beckwith:I'd rather go down the river with 7 studs than with a hundred shitheads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If you've never stood in front of this sculpture funded by Yoko Ono, in memory of her husband, that stands at the entrance of the UN plaza, NYC...take a good look and ponder it's significance.


16 posted on 07/10/2012 1:28:40 PM PDT by Daffynition (Our forefathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
17 posted on 07/10/2012 2:16:21 PM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saleman

ping!


18 posted on 07/10/2012 3:03:04 PM PDT by basil (Second Amendment Sisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

Ping!


19 posted on 07/10/2012 3:05:10 PM PDT by basil (Second Amendment Sisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Over their dead bodies.


20 posted on 07/10/2012 3:32:54 PM PDT by Noumenon (I will not pay the Obama jizya.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Please someone post the picture of the blue helmet

It says everything I would like to say about this

TT


21 posted on 07/10/2012 3:44:05 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (Radical islam is islam. Moderate islam is the Trojan Horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant

22 posted on 07/10/2012 6:48:37 PM PDT by Daffynition (Our forefathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
This treaty, in all likelihood, will not require the United States to do anything more than it is already doing.

Even if the treaty would not require the federal government to do more, would the treaty permit the federal government to do more than it is currently allowed to do? Read Missouri v. Holland.

23 posted on 07/11/2012 9:06:41 AM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

It’s time to stop the secular, progressive commies in their tracks!

Be Ever Vigilant!!

Wake up America!!


24 posted on 07/11/2012 9:18:33 AM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Good for the NRA...

ping


25 posted on 07/11/2012 9:21:21 AM PDT by GOPJ (Marion Berry: 'If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“it could impact gun registration requirements in the United States,”
The NRA is in denial of gun registration. Guns in America have been registered since 1968 GCA.


26 posted on 07/11/2012 11:27:08 AM PDT by DMG2FUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson