BREAKING NEWS: UN Arms Trade Treaty – Full Proposed Document

International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights ^

[Neil E. Wright]

PREAMBLE             

The States Parties to this Treaty.

1. Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
2. Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;
3. Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;
4. Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;
5. Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;
6. Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;
7. Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
8. Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;
9. Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
10. Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;
11. Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;

[Joe Bfstplk]

>>What section of the document are they trying to take
our right away? ... Post it ...

We don’t NEED any of it. We don’t NEED the UN. We would be far
better off to act unilaterally in our best interests without the
global hoax called UN.

[xzins]

See below — the NRA and its battery of lawyers says this treaty IS AWFUL and IS AN ATTACK on the right to keep and bear arms.

NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty

Posted on July 14, 2011

National Rifle Association’s Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership. LaPierre said in his remarks, “The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.”

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
Preparatory Committee - 3d Session
New York, July 11-15, 2011

Statement of the National Rifle Association of America

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne
LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle
Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million
members, America’s 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans
throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations
and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The
NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some
members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of
millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely
monitored this process with increasing concern. We’ve reviewed the statements of the countries
participating in these meetings. We’ve listened to other NGOs and read their numerous
proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced.
We’ve watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident
and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it
is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in
order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago
rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual
citizen - not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they’ve proven to
be unworthy of that trust.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms.” Yet, the
proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most
importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms.”
Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms.” But then we’re told
that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.” Yet, there are
numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual
destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy.” Well, that’s
exactly what is now being proposed — with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a
SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in
civilian firearms.” But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same
regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling
internationally with firearms.” However, he would have to get a so-called “transit permit”
merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned.
Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our
objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the
proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the
complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is
critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this
there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second
Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections,
supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails
and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about
respecting anyone’s right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal
freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss i f I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States
to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not
realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to
negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.

To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is
already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds
majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is
currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete,
this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is
tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it’s even
submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has
become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling
for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the
constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any
other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of
Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian
firearms within its scope.

Thank you.

[RC one]

I think there’s a potential for significant gun control and I oppose it for that but, as much as anything, I oppose it because it clearly undermines US sovereignty and I have had enough of that. We are a sovereign constitutional republic ruled by free men and women. Such a thing is rare and abhorrent to an organization like the UN which is largely comprised of various dictators, communists, socialists, islamofascists, and criminals who would like nothing more than to eliminate all notions of US sovereignty.

[KittenClaws]

Hint: “self-defense” is not a “recreational, cultural, historical or sporting activity.”

__________________________

I'd have to disagree with any blue helmet or traitor who tried to deny my rights:

This looks pretty cultural and historical to me. And in some cases, it could be rather sporting...

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

First off, this treaty is a piece of shit, designed to control the legal gun owners in this country. Only we have the 2nd Amendment and the proliferation of arms among ‘We the People’. And neither the UN nor DC can control us until that is no longer true. All U.S. Senators voting for this should be held in contempt of the U.S. Constitution, and should be arrested and tried for Treason; also all in the State Dept and the President himself.

Now, a question...This is titled “UN Small Arms Trade Treaty” - does this prevent the importation of Glocks, SA XD’s etc etc etc? Or the exportation by the manufacturing countries?

If so, guess we better buy anything we want that comes from outside this country while we still can...at that point it would be easier to keep what we have than to get what we do not have.

[I_Publius]

People keep saying that if anyone came knocking at their door asking about firearms, they would just say...they were stolen or they disappeared. I don’t think that would fly and here’s why.

Have you ever had an energy audit done on your home and seen the infrared, handheld scanner they use to show the inside of the walls and roof of your house?? I have and have seen what the consumer scanning tool can do. There’s no hiding anything in the house. They can drive by homes in a van equipped with a scanning device and see everything inside your home, not to mention the technology that we all use. Pretty impossible to hide all the firearms that you guys own...

I, of course, wouldn’t own one of those evil devices.

;)

[marktwain]

Dartuser posted:

14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;

If you posted a few more points you would see it excludes what you seem to be concerned about ...

marktwain replies:

Notice how they very pointedly excluded self defense or defense against the state? This is the essense of eliminating the right to arms that the british followed in eliminating that right in England.

Once you do away with the right to use arms in self defense, all else follows.

Here is an old but good post that explains it all:

GUN REGISTRATION IS GUN CONFISCATION (old but good)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608785/posts

[TribalPrincess2U]

Gun Purchases Denied for Mental Health Reasons Up Almost Sixfold

http://cnsnews.com/

Just as I predicted. All of a sudden, we have a lot of mental reasons to ‘deny’?

‘Mental Health Reasons’ in a dimocRAT world could mean ‘a denial for anyone’.

[DTogo]

When gun registration begins, the Second American Revolution begins, just like the first one on April 19th, 1775.

Hiding behind an international treaty will not be excused.

[RacerXSpeedRacer]

If this trash is passed by our elected officials, this basically says that we will no longer be able to purchase foreign-made “equipment” (I can’t type the “g” word here). That will not sit well with the majority of hobbyists, hunters and owners.

[teeman8r]

for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;

right there.

the have turned it into a man made right and not a God given right.

defeat it.

teeman8r

[The Duke]

I read up to point 14 (which the original poster skipped) and that was enough for me to conclude this is not worth getting all wee-weed up about ...

So, you were able to magically infer all the details of the document from the first 14 points(?)

[smoothsailing]

Thanks for the ping, xzins.

I loathe the UN, it’s another reason to never vote for a Democrat.

We’ve seen this particular gun confiscation scheme coming down the pike for a while now.

Part of the blowback will be an explosion of unregistered gun ownership, not that there is anything wrong with that.

[xzins]

I agree, smooth.

See #82 from the NRA

[Carry_Okie]

Unanimously defeated in the Senate, and never abided by. You need better sources.

We had a full carbon market. We have started regulating coal plants out of existence. And you say we have never abided by it?

If a signature was so meaningless, why do you think Bush rescinded Clinton's signature on the International Criminal Court treaty?

[Carry_Okie]

Unanimously defeated in the Senate, and never abided by. You need better sources.

BTW, my "source" is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which was also never ratified but has been respected as "customary international law" ever since.

[smoothsailing]

That’s a strong statement, Wayne LaPierre did well.

“The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.”

That settles it. Resistance by all means necessary.

[gwjack]

If inter alia includes self defense, then why didn’t they include the language? BECAUSE ITS NOT INCLUDED. I would rather have it spelled out than left to the whim of legal interpretation.

But, that having been said,there is no action accomplished by this treaty. Armaments to foreign countries is already regulated.

Gwjack

[liberalh8ter]

What is about Sovereign that Clinton, Obama and the U.N. don’t understand? The founders would be constructing the gallows after reading this.

[Boogieman]

Not when they say “exclusively for” right in front of it. If “inter alia” covered any old use, then it could not also be “exclusively for”.