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

Skip to comments.

NRA draws red line on UN arms treaty
The Hill ^ | 07/11/12 | Julian Pecquet

Posted on 07/13/2012 12:56:30 PM PDT by neverdem

The National Rifle Association (NRA) warned the United Nations on Wednesday that the effort to craft international rules for weapons sales will go nowhere in Congress if it includes civilian arms.

Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the powerful lobby group, said 58 senators have pledged to oppose the treaty if it covers civilian weapons, fearing an infringement of America’s gun rights.

“I am here to announce NRA's strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens' right to self-defense. No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteed to us,” LaPierre said at the UN Arms Trade Treaty Conference in New York.

“The only way to address NRA's objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty. That is the only solution. On that, there will be no compromise.”

The UN will be negotiating the treaty throughout the month of July. If the members involved in the effort all agreed on the final product, it would still need to garner a two-thirds majority in the Senate to be binding on the United States.

Proponents of the treaty say the NRA’s concerns are unfounded, and argue excluding civilian weapons would gut the effort to keep deadly arms out of the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes.

Advocates say the treaty would bring much of the world in line with U.S. standards without affecting the rules that govern domestic sales. And they say gun enthusiasts are wrong to worry about their Second Amendment rights, since the Constitution trumps international law.

“This is where we part ways,” Scott Stedjan, a senior adviser for Oxfam America, said at a recent press briefing by treaty proponents. “What is a civilian arm is a real concern. I don't think anybody wants the United Nations to define what is a civilian weapon is, what a military weapon is, because different countries have different views. That would never happen, plus small arms and light weapons are the weapons that … are wreaking the most havoc, and that we most need control over.”

The Obama administration has not ruled out supporting a treaty that covers civilian weapons. The issue was not included on a list of red lines published by the State Department, although the administration does vow to oppose “restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.”

“The Arms Trade Treaty will not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense,” Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said in a tweet last week.

On Tuesday, the State Department's assistant secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation informed the UN that the administration would oppose efforts to include ammunition in the scope of the treaty unless it hears regulatory proposals that are both “practical and effective.”

“Ammunition is a fundamentally different commodity than everything else we have discussed including within the scope of an [Arms Trade Treaty],” said Thomas Countryman. “It is fungible, consumable, reloadable, and cannot be marked in any practical way that would permit it to be tracked or traced. Any practical proposal for ammunition would need to consider the significant burdens associated with licensing, authorizations, and recordkeeping for ammunition that is produced and transferred in the billions of rounds per year.”

Those restrictions don't go far enough for many lawmakers, however.

“Already, 58 senators have objected to any treaty that includes civilian arms,” LaPierre said at the UN, referring to senators who have signed on to letters from Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.). While those letters to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aren't unequivocal in their opposition, they do suggest a tough slog in the Senate if civilian arms are included in the treaty.

The letter from Moran expresses the signatories' “grave concerns” about the treaty and goes on to say that earlier proposals to cover “all types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology and related materials … would be completely unenforceable.”

The signers of the GOP letter vow to oppose a treaty that “in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition, and related items.”

The letter from Tester opposes “any inclusion of small arms, light weapons, ammunition or related materials that would make the treaty overly broad and virtually unenforceable.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: att; banglist; tester; unatt
“Already, 58 senators have objected to any treaty that includes civilian arms,” LaPierre said at the UN, referring to senators who have signed on to letters from Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.).

58 senators recognize the meaning of the Second Amendment. IMHO, we're closer to the magic 60 in the Senate than most people appreciate. How many pols are correct on the Second Amendment, but otherwise liberal? They are few and far between, IMHO.

Tester is making noise for a reason. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), the state's only Congressman, is going after his seat this November.

1 posted on 07/13/2012 12:56:38 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
'The Arms Trade Treaty will not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense,' Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said in a tweet last week.

Anyone here believe this?

2 posted on 07/13/2012 1:06:29 PM PDT by Bon of Babble (The Road to Ruin is Always Kept in Good Repair)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Anytime George Soros throws his funding to support something - I this case the UN small arms treaty - warning flags should be all over the place. Keep the pressure up with our representatives - these people cannot be trusted.


3 posted on 07/13/2012 1:08:36 PM PDT by Chainmail (Warfare is too serious to be left to the amateurs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Anytime George Soros throws his funding to support something - I this case the UN small arms treaty - warning flags should be all over the place. Keep the pressure up with our representatives - these people cannot be trusted.


4 posted on 07/13/2012 1:08:43 PM PDT by Chainmail (Warfare is too serious to be left to the amateurs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Anytime George Soros throws his funding to support something - I this case the UN small arms treaty - warning flags should be all over the place. Keep the pressure up with our representatives - these people cannot be trusted.


5 posted on 07/13/2012 1:09:06 PM PDT by Chainmail (Warfare is too serious to be left to the amateurs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The only way to address NRA's objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty. That is the only solution. On that, there will be no compromise.

I'll warn you again, in a nation that once employed privateers with full military capability, a nation that once counted its defense as every able bodied male and not a standing army, a nation that now bans hand-held weapons, there is no room for the ambiguity as to what constitutes "civilian arms." Do not let this quote become the defining meme in this debate.

Consider what will happen when hand-held military weapons and high tech body armor make firearms irrelevant. Are you willing to allow the Second Amendment be degraded from "arms" in general to "civilian firearms"?

6 posted on 07/13/2012 1:22:22 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Oh don’t worry says the UN. We wouldn’t dare infringe on your gun rights. Just let us pass this treaty and see what’s in it.

Between this and the LOST treaty, we are in deep trouble FRiends. While 58 Senators say they will not agreeto this 18 Republicans —enough to pass the LOSTY treaty say they will vote for it.

IMO TRAITORS. I don’t care if one of them did serve in Vietnam , He is a TRAITOR if he votes away our rights to our own water.


7 posted on 07/13/2012 1:26:14 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble

If anyone does believe this, contact me. I have some great swamp land for sale for future condo development.


8 posted on 07/13/2012 1:49:26 PM PDT by antidemoncrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


9 posted on 07/13/2012 2:05:06 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Why the qualification regarding “civilian arms”?

The NRA should vehemently oppose this socialist, Nanny-State, one-worldism in its entirety.


10 posted on 07/13/2012 2:07:24 PM PDT by Iron Munro (Ayn Rand: "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It shouldn’t be phrased “civilian arms”, it should be phrased “citizen OWNERSHIP of arms”.....ANY arms. But IMO there should be no treaty, period.


11 posted on 07/13/2012 2:43:53 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A point to be made is that, an objective review of the past 300 years shows that people have generally been better behaved with weapons than have governments. If either party should be disarmed, it should certainly be the worlds governments rather than the worlds people.


12 posted on 07/13/2012 2:44:35 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Legalize Freedom!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Posted on the site:

Make no mistake: Gun registration really means that you will need to get governmental permission to be able to defend yourself.

Don’t believe me?

Envision a DMV style gun registration office in the near future.

After waiting a hour or two in line to register you means of self-defense……

[And paying the heavy taxes on such means therein]

……It’s finally your turn with the uncaring bureaucrat behind the counter, you step up and detail what you have.

They will then enter your data and if there is any reason why you shouldn’t possess your guns they won’t allow you to register them and most likely they will be confiscated on the spot.

Perhaps those in favor of such a scam can tell me how that couldn’t happen…


13 posted on 07/13/2012 2:49:02 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble

Rose Gottemoeller needs to be thoroughly vetted. I suspect/believe she could well be a shill to disarm USA citizens no matter what her words.


14 posted on 07/13/2012 2:57:17 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
A point to be made is that, an objective review of the past 300 years shows that people have generally been better behaved with weapons than have governments.

This is because if a civilian wants to start a war he has to take his personal weapons, go somewhere, and risk his life. If he does that you can be sure that he has a pretty good reason.

However when a government wants to start a war it has power to send someone else to die for their interests. Bureaucrats are perfectly safe from consequences of their actions; that's why they cannot be trusted with any such thing.

15 posted on 07/13/2012 3:14:14 PM PDT by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble

Of course. Remember how the Obamacare “penalties’ were declared by all, up to and including the illegal himself, not to be “taxes.” The HORROR OF IT. How could you even think the Obamunists lie??


16 posted on 07/13/2012 3:40:39 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
There is only ONE "red line" to be drawn with regards to the 2nd Amendment: Lexington and Concord.
17 posted on 07/13/2012 3:45:55 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
“Consider what will happen when hand-held military weapons and high tech body armor make firearms irrelevant.”

I am convinced that this was the intent with the National Firearms Act of 1932 (taxing full autos) and the highly unethical amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986 that ambiguously banned manufacture of full autos in the US for other than police and military.

18 posted on 07/13/2012 3:46:54 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good for the NRA. The fact that there are less than 60 senators that don’t respect the 2nd Amendment is frightening....and the ones that don’t need replacing!


19 posted on 07/13/2012 4:15:50 PM PDT by LUV W (Never forget...WE have THEM surrounded! ~ Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We shall see.


20 posted on 07/13/2012 4:44:23 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail
I hope George Soros dies of a long slow dibelitating disease. The man is a pox.
21 posted on 07/13/2012 5:51:23 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You make a very serious point about not being ambiguous as to ‘civilian firearms’. Recent history shows how much misconstruction can be made from undefined verbiage. I refer especially to the words ‘natural born’ in our Constitution as to eligibility for POTUSA. The Founders evidently believed from their discussions that such simplified wording was precise and adequate. Years later it comes that usurpers like Obama and his enablers can use the lack of definition as a means for ‘change’. Citizens of the USA, especially veterans and sports people must not allow sucs chicanery by words to remove our Constitutional rights. This is even more critical when the USA would lose sovereignty to a bunch of never-do-well nations. This issue calls for another call to all free people to protect their inalienable rights..


22 posted on 07/13/2012 6:25:25 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Only 2/3 of senators present are needed to pass it.


23 posted on 07/13/2012 8:23:50 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

It seems like anybody with a known name always seems to forget the ‘arms’ part, and substitutes it with ‘firearms’.

I see arms as small mortars, artillery, rail-mobile artillery, crew-served weapons, launchers of all types, etc etc.

I would even go so far as to say coastal cities should have a modern Davy Crockett should any nation try to invade from the sea.


24 posted on 07/13/2012 8:27:28 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Only 2/3 of senators present are needed to pass it.

The Constitution specifies "two thirds of the Senators present," which could be as few as 34.

Yet the government claims it has the option pursuant to "customary international law" to enforce a treaty UPON SIGNATURE.

No, I'm not kidding. To learn how this happened, read this article.

25 posted on 07/13/2012 8:38:47 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
Recent history shows how much misconstruction can be made from undefined verbiage.

That was the horror show that drove George Orwell away from the Communists after 20 years of easy, lazy fellow-traveling. He saw the intellectual dishonesty and savagery of the Communists in action in Spain, when they turned on friends and allies (seeking control of the Republic) and actually tried and executed people in shambolic, lying "show trials" that mirrored what Stalin was doing in Russia.

Ever afterward, Orwell was a stickler for "words have meanings and consequences", an idea Ronald Reagan took up and rebroadcast. It was one of Orwell's most important themes.

26 posted on 07/14/2012 4:06:38 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Travis McGee; ATLDiver; Joe Brower

Well said, Carry_Okie.

Letters of Marque are embedded in the Constitution and are another point supporting your theme.


27 posted on 07/14/2012 5:26:41 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

I really could give a flyin’ fart what the NRA opposes (vehemently, or aggressively) on this issue...

I believe it is MORE important to what YOU, the American citizen is going to do about this...

The U.N., and progressive elements within our elected cadre of elitist bringers of crapola would NOT even be entertaining the lobbying of this effort if there was not a good chance of it passing...

The fix is in, I would say the time is now to make sure you do not waste time burying what you got...The time is now to be cleaning, lubricating, practicing and preparing fir the day they start confiscating...

I would not trust anyone with the knowledge of your possessions, not even family members...Sell a few things (junk) off, if anything, keep that paperwork to deflect scrutiny when they do start going around looking for hardliners like us...

Might as well get started now...

The clock is ticking...


28 posted on 07/14/2012 2:43:55 PM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LUV W; neverdem

>> The fact that there are less than 60 senators that don’t respect the 2nd Amendment is frightening...

neverdem said: “58 senators recognize the meaning of the Second Amendment.”

I guess the implication is there are 42 traitorous scumbags misrepresenting the citizens of the United States — indeed a number less than 60.

The NRA could definitely earn some renewals if it leans appropriately on the vermin jeopardizing our sovereignty.


29 posted on 07/14/2012 2:54:22 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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