UN arms treaty aims at terror, but puts Second Amendment in crosshairs

FoxNews.com ^ | July 21, 2012 | Steven Edwards

[neverdem]

Inside the UN, world leaders take aim at gun rights, say critics.

UNITED NATIONS – American Second Amendment rights and U.S. foreign policy interests could be directly threatened by the latest wording of a United Nations draft treaty seeking control over international trade in conventional weapons, FoxNews.com has learned.

A U.S. delegate argued against the provisions during closed-door talks Friday, but insiders close to the proceedings say UN approval of a final document by the self-imposed July 27 deadline remains likely.

The development comes just days after Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, warned there should be “no compromise” on the issue of a U.S. citizen’s right to own a firearm.

“We will not stand idly by while international organizations, whether state-based or stateless, attempt to undermine the fundamental liberties that our men and women in uniform have fought so bravely to preserve – and on which our entire American system of government is based,” LaPierre told the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

The latest draft bars weapons transfers to “non-state actors” – which, by definition, include private citizens.

“The ATT will not limit the ability of terrorists to acquire arms." - Ted Bromund, Heritage Foundation

While treaty supporters say the provision speaks to a long-stated goal of denying weapons to terrorists, many experts warn of wider consequences.

“The ATT will not limit the ability of terrorists to acquire arms. The reason for this is simple: The UN has never defined terrorism, because some member states insist that terrorist groups like Hamas are struggling against so-called foreign occupation,” Ted Bromund, senior research fellow with the Washington-based Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, told the conference last week.

Implementation of the latest draft risks restricting U.S. foreign policy because it could limit Washington’s...

[kitchen]

That's an awfully big hole in the ground. How long do you think it took them to back fill to the original contour?

[lentulusgracchus]

The legal challenges would be overwhelming and that would include state nullification on a large scale, like we’re beginning to see with the Obamacare ruling.

Nullification is a non-starter. Look up Jefferson Davis's Inaugural in 1861 (he was inaugurated twice, once to the presidency of the provisional Confederate government, and once to the permanent one). It was already a dead idea. That's why the South seceded instead. There is no method or resource for interposition of the States between federal law and the Citizenry, save the 10th Amendment and the People in convention assembled.

[Travis McGee]

They don’t bury them there, it’s just an execution wall created with a bulldozer. They “harvest” the organs in waiting ambulances just behind the firing line. No kidding.

[kitchen]

Two tenets of socialism juxtapositioned for all to see: government health care and gun control. How did these true believers let a profit motive slip in?

Just for a moment, mind you, I wondered if it would be possible to volunteer for Hell, only to be in charge of tormenting these bastards for all of eternity.

[Travis McGee]

You packed a lot of great questions into a few succinct lines.