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!
Posted on 07/25/2012 7:46:44 PM PDT by marktwain
The United Nations‘ drive to gain control of the international arms trade is a mixed bag. The bad news is that it has the potential to infringe on the legitimate rights of American gun owners. The good news is that the treaty drafting process has been so dysfunctional that whatever emerges has little chance of getting through the U.S. Senate.
The proposed United Nations Arms Transfer Treaty seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer” of the billions of dollars of conventional arms traded annually. It would regulate tanks, military vehicles, combat aircraft, warships and missiles.
Any mention of the U.N. and gun control in the same sentence is bound to raise red flags. Not surprisingly, American firearms advocates strongly oppose the agreement. They believe the treaty’s language would be so loose that activist judges or overzealous federal enforcers would find ways to use the agreement to override the Second Amendment. Treaty backers scoff that this would be impossible since the measure applies only to international arms transfers.
Gun owners are right to be wary. The Constitution’s interstate Commerce Clause has been stretched to include all manner of trade that it was not originally intended to cover, and the same logic could be used regarding international commerce. It would not be much of a stretch to suppose activist judges could claim a gun manufactured in the United States that used some foreign components would satisfy a nexus requirement under the treaty. Such an expansive interpretation would be well beyond the stated purpose of the agreement, but that sort of technicality has never stopped determined government regulators.
Another concern is the current fad in liberal legal circles to read international laws, norms and standards into American jurisprudence.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
If States (governments) see it as more restrictive of their options than it is protection against insurgency, it will not pass.
The problem with that plan is: what if Dems find a way to PASS it in the Senate?
Seriously. They only need a minority, one time.
I would not put it past them.
Bears repeating.
No. the bad news is that decision makers in the Senate have so little regard for the Constitution that they even sat at a table and talked about this sludge.
Truly brave men, aren’t they.
There’s nothing in this treaty that is good for America. It weakens our soverignty, provides a potential pathway for a gun registration in America, and restricts our ability to arm our allies and requires us to trust nations like Iran and Russia to abide by the terms of the treaty.
“There’s nothing in this treaty that is good for America.”
By intent and design. And do not be surprised if our Socialist Autocrat-in-Chief imposes significant elements of it on us by Executive Order, to the accompaniment of much hand wringing on the part of the Congress..
They need 67 votes for a treaty, assuming they can get it to the floor. It’s not likely.
9. We resolve therefore:
• To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.
As a Senator, Obama was a HUGE proponent of this UN Declaration as witnessed by his Global Poverty Act of 2007
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.