Watch out for the ‘small, print’ in U.N. arms trade treaty

Seattle Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 10 July, 2012 | Dave Workman

[marktwain]

Pro- and anti-Second Amendment advocates are drawing clear lines of battle as the United Nations continues negotiations this week over the proposed Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), an agreement that is opposed by gun rights organizations including the National Rifle Association and the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, currently attending meetings on international gun rights in Europe, will be back just in time to turn around and head for New York. He was the cornerstone to creation of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) and has been involved with the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities.

As this column previously reported, CCRKBA staff helped craft legislation designed to protect the Second Amendment from the ATT, sponsored by Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) and Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS). The grassroots organization has been sounding the alarm about global gun control efforts for some time.

Likewise, the NRA has been alerting its members, who are, in turn, contacting the U.S. Senate, where such a treaty faces ratification before it could officially be adopted. Chances are poor for the Senate’s approval if the ATT comes even remotely close to threatening the Second Amendment. If someone at the U.N. timed these talks to occur during a federal election year, it was a monumentally stupid idea, because few issues rally the troops like a perceived attack on the right to keep and bear arms.

Coverage of these negotiations has been pretty good so far, and predictably partisan. The anti-gun New York Times supports the treaty, while Investor’s Business Daily labeled it a “global gun grab.” Here’s how the latter publication explained the degree of opposition in the firearms community:

“Private ownership of firearms is a cornerstone of American

[marktwain]

Small print could include the requirement for a national registration system, the type of serial numbers allowed(which many think should not be mandated), restrictions on the ownership of many types of firearms by non-government actors, and many other things.

[scooby321]

needs 67 votes in the Senate

DOA

[Joe Brower]

When it comes to U.N. treaties, particularly when it deals with 'small arms', it's ALL small print.

[philman_36]

needs 67 votes in the Senate
NO, 67 votes aren't needed.

@ PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

S10667

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A division has been requested.
Senators in favor of the ratification of this treaty, please raise their hand. (After a pause.) Those opposed will raise their hands.
With two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Presiding Officer, the Senator from West Virginia, and the clerk.
By the way, just for information, these treaties were all approved by the Foreign Relations Committee on October 4 and 5.

2/3 of Congress wasn't there. Those present voted for the ratification. The quorum call was rescinded with no objection.

[arthurus]

The kenyan will sign this thing.the Senate will not likely ratify it. The kenyan will enforce its provisions by regulation and EO after he is re-elected.

[SampleMan]

And the LARGE print will ensure no more foreign surpluss weapons ever see the light of day, e.g. M1 Garands from Korea.

[353FMG]

Why should the US make any treaty with the UN?

Are they a sovereign country?

[Flintlock]

When they come for the guns........

JUST GIVE THEM THE BULLETS!!!!!!!

[EQAndyBuzz]

“needs 67 votes in the Senate.”

Executive Priviledge.

However, more in line of Obama holding a news conference and declaring that NEVER will America succumb to the forces of the UN.

Then under the table he will sign it.

[wax wing]

It seams that our right to keep and bare arms is getting harder and harder.All of our rights and freedoms are being attacked by our own people and others from who have no business telling us what we can or can’t do. Someday our country will be attacked from overseas or within. Our GUNS will be the difference of being overthrown or a victory repelling the enemy. Our enemy knows that. Whatever they do now won’t make a pimple on obamas ass,because I don’t give up my guns to anyone.period.

[ModelBreaker]

But did you know that even just the signing by the President obligates us under a different treaty to not interfere with the unconfirmed in the Senate treaty? Romney needs to revoke our signature to this and LOST right off the bat.

[Myrddin]

It seams that our right to keep and bare arms is getting harder and harder.

You can wear a t-shirt if that's all you want.

[ModelBreaker]

“Small print could include the requirement for a national registration system, the type of serial numbers allowed(which many think should not be mandated), restrictions on the ownership of many types of firearms by non-government actors, and many other things. “

They won’t be that obvious, even in the small print. It will come in vaporous generalities such as “nations shall take measures to prevent arms from entering illegal interational trade.” Then a UN Bureaucrat will issues regulations or a left wing judge interprets that language to mean that guns have to be registered, that magazines must be limited etc.

Also, so many guns are manufactured elsewhere (CZ, some springfields and many others). They would have to track those guns for statistics on international trade.

This treaty will be a constant menace for a century unless (1) The senate does not ratify and (2) President romney revokes the US signature on the treaty. Until both of those things happen, the treaty is a timebomb waiting to explode. It’s like the Law of the Sea Treaty. Rejected 95-0 in the Reagan administration. It’s about to be ratified during the next lame duck session of congress by vengeful lame ducks ousted by the tea party. Lugar et al.