Harrison
US Veteran
Mr. Kerry is set to sign the U.N. Arms control Treaty today. What will it mean? Is it a good thing? Doesn't it affect our rights?
UN Army Treaty
- Thread starter Harrison
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
LoboGunLeather
US Veteran
From what I have read about the UN Treaty on Small Arms there are some disturbing provisions.
1. Requires a national database registering all firearms owners, all firearms, and all (or most) ammunition.
2. Requires permits for firearms and ammunition acquisitions.
3. Limits types of firearms and ammunition, as well as quantities, that may be in possession.
4. Requires licensing of all ammunition manufacturing and reloading equipment, along with limitations on production, reporting requirements, etc.
5. Makes all of these data readily available to UN authorities, and perhaps even to any interested party who may choose to inquire.
6. Places in the hands of UN officials the authority to regulate further (i.e.: firearms types, ammunition types, quantities, etc).
Others may think differently, but I don't doubt for a minute that there will be substantial fees imposed on gun owners who elect to comply with such requirements, and that both the restrictions and the fees will rise exponentially and rapidly.
I, for one, will never comply. Period. End of discussion.
Estimates that I have read indicate that there are roughly 100 million firearms owners in the US, and between 260 and 400 million firearms in private hands.
I estimate that if only 1/2 of 1 percent of US gun owners (500,000 M/L) stand firm in their refusal to comply they will never be able to enforce such laws. There aren't enough cops to arrest half-a-million people, there aren't any empty jail cells to put them into, there aren't enough courts in the country to hold all the trials, and there certainly aren't any empty beds in any prisons I have heard about lately.
Concerned citizens need to start thinking about organizing, going public with a complete refusal to comply, developing a network of legal representation to flood the courthouses with every possible motion, argument, trial, etc, then follow through with civil actions to further inundate the legal system until prosecutors and judges are begging legislators to do away with this stupid law.
Peaceful civil disobedience combined with intelligent use of the justice system and effective PR work will be the keys to overcoming such measures. It will not be easy and it will not happen overnight. The Canadian national firearms registry (owner licensing and firearms registration) was overturned only after some 14 years of such actions.
1. Requires a national database registering all firearms owners, all firearms, and all (or most) ammunition.
2. Requires permits for firearms and ammunition acquisitions.
3. Limits types of firearms and ammunition, as well as quantities, that may be in possession.
4. Requires licensing of all ammunition manufacturing and reloading equipment, along with limitations on production, reporting requirements, etc.
5. Makes all of these data readily available to UN authorities, and perhaps even to any interested party who may choose to inquire.
6. Places in the hands of UN officials the authority to regulate further (i.e.: firearms types, ammunition types, quantities, etc).
Others may think differently, but I don't doubt for a minute that there will be substantial fees imposed on gun owners who elect to comply with such requirements, and that both the restrictions and the fees will rise exponentially and rapidly.
I, for one, will never comply. Period. End of discussion.
Estimates that I have read indicate that there are roughly 100 million firearms owners in the US, and between 260 and 400 million firearms in private hands.
I estimate that if only 1/2 of 1 percent of US gun owners (500,000 M/L) stand firm in their refusal to comply they will never be able to enforce such laws. There aren't enough cops to arrest half-a-million people, there aren't any empty jail cells to put them into, there aren't enough courts in the country to hold all the trials, and there certainly aren't any empty beds in any prisons I have heard about lately.
Concerned citizens need to start thinking about organizing, going public with a complete refusal to comply, developing a network of legal representation to flood the courthouses with every possible motion, argument, trial, etc, then follow through with civil actions to further inundate the legal system until prosecutors and judges are begging legislators to do away with this stupid law.
Peaceful civil disobedience combined with intelligent use of the justice system and effective PR work will be the keys to overcoming such measures. It will not be easy and it will not happen overnight. The Canadian national firearms registry (owner licensing and firearms registration) was overturned only after some 14 years of such actions.
627 city hunter
Member
I reallllly hope this doesn't pass the Senate...
1) It means nothing until it passes the Senate by a 2/3 vote. I highly doubt it will happen.
2) Treaties do not trump the Constitution. I fail to see a provision in the Constitution that allows the govt to forfeit our sovereignty to a foreign body.
2) Treaties do not trump the Constitution. I fail to see a provision in the Constitution that allows the govt to forfeit our sovereignty to a foreign body.
Google it and read the provisions very scary indeed. Obama n companies end around to national registration data base
25elk
Member
I wouldn't bet my life on it not passing a vote in the senate. And there are myriad ways around the 2/3 majority vote as in look what is happening today in the senate re: obamacare. As for treaties trumping the constitution...nowhere in the constitution is the power given to the president to selectively choose what parts of law to enforce either, but you see what is happening. All should read the post by LoboGunLeather very carefully. I concur 100% and will be one of those standing with what he proposes. I am a patriot and not a martyr but if they want to draw a line in the sand I know which side I am going to stand on.
I'd bet on it not passing and Obamacare was reviewed by the Supreme Court before it was implemented.
Whether you or I agree with SCOTUS on it or not, the system was followed, just it will have to be in this case. Obama care was ruled Constitutional, end of story. I wish it had been overturned, but it was not.
I'm not getting into the sky is falling mode over a treaty that will never pass. I'll contact my Senators, support the NRA and watch this one go the way of the Kyoto Treaty/Protocol.
Whether you or I agree with SCOTUS on it or not, the system was followed, just it will have to be in this case. Obama care was ruled Constitutional, end of story. I wish it had been overturned, but it was not.
I'm not getting into the sky is falling mode over a treaty that will never pass. I'll contact my Senators, support the NRA and watch this one go the way of the Kyoto Treaty/Protocol.
Last edited:
Shooter6br
Member
Stop the U.N and Kerry from destroying the 2nd ammendment I did
Stop The UN Arms Trade Treaty! | Dickmorris.com
OR CRY TO YOUR CHILDREN LATTER
Stop The UN Arms Trade Treaty! | Dickmorris.com
OR CRY TO YOUR CHILDREN LATTER
Folks, this is not a one-time Senate vote problem. Mr Kerry's signature is on the UN treaty as the USA representative. The Treaty is signed.
Now Senate ratification is another matter. This Senate won't ratify it, but what about the Senate after the next election? Unfortunately, someday we may have a group of 67 Senators that respond to anti-gun political pressure and ratify this treaty.
Carry on.
Now Senate ratification is another matter. This Senate won't ratify it, but what about the Senate after the next election? Unfortunately, someday we may have a group of 67 Senators that respond to anti-gun political pressure and ratify this treaty.
Carry on.
Last edited:
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,820
All ill say is im also NOT, going to follow UN rules. Ill have to leave it at that so I dont get permanently banned. Also, a lot of what I hear around here locally from Vets, active Military as well as Law Enforcement--the govt will have a seriously hard time in getting any cooperation from the listed groups--as well as will not have the manpower to enforce it--like Lobo/ above said.
I took an oath to defend the Constitution--and im going to defend it.
I took an oath to defend the Constitution--and im going to defend it.
Good idea here, it's a fine idea to make sure your Senators hear from you on this. I signed it and it automatically generated letters to my Senators and House Rep from me, in my name.
bluegrassarms
Member
It doesn't have the force of law, but the US is obliged, by signing alone, to "not defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty. US courts have upheld that view in principle and cited the Vienna Convention that established the language as authoritative.
What that means is completely unclear, but it can definitely be used by the Obama Administration to at least justify actions they have the power to take, like banning imports of certain types of weapons, etc. The GCA already gives the ATF broad power to regulate guns based on "sporting purpose", Obama would be aided in a bid to ban for example all handgun imports if the UN were to rule in his favor under the treaty even if the treaty itself lacks force of law in the US.
This is why Bush un-signed the Rome Statute treaty, to remove us from the obligation to not defeat the object and purpose of the International Criminal Court. Prior to that it was unclear at law just how much the US had to do to comply with ICC rulings. By un-signing we got rid of any legal obligations at international law to do so.
Once this treaty goes into effect the President of Mexico can go to the UN and argue the US is defeating the object and purpose of a treaty to which they are a signator by allowing civilian weapons sold here to get to Mexican cartels. The UN and international courts can rule the US in breach of the treaty, and while they can't send in troops to force anything it gives the anti-gunners a strong PR position for which to argue their case for registration or an assault weapons ban. "We signed the treaty, we have to follow it" will sound reasonable to a nation where 25% or more of voters probably can't name the Vice President.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with those who have said that it doesn't have force of law here, thank goodness, but it will be a thorn in our side until we can get a President in office who will un-sign this nightmare. Without ratification we avoid the full blown nightmare, but this will be a tool used to chip away at the 2nd Amendment as long as we are a signator.
IMO it will be used against us not just domestically with the fight for the 2nd Amendment but abroad in our foreign policy. The reason Iran/Sudan/Cuba all want this thing is b/c it basically bans giving arms to rebels and non-government groups, wiping out a big part of US foreign policy and entrenching those regimes.
there's a clause that weapons should not be exported that could be used to "attack schools or hospitals". That covers about every weapon to every civilian market but also to any rebels or non-government forces. Theoretically Obama just signed away a huge part of America's overall global influence, and it's barely raised an eyebrow here at home b/c people are so clueless and simply don't pay attention to these kinds of events.
Obama himself has armed Libyan rebels, then he signs a treaty making it illegal to arm rebels? Think any of those weapons could have been used to attack a school or hospital? It's a horrible document on every level, crafted by nations like Iran to tie the US's hands and supported by the dogmatic Left of this country b/c it can be used to leverage their anti-gun goals and restrict our ability to arm people abroad.
It doesn't really give Obama extra legal powers, but it will provide blessing to his use of the powers he has now to limit imports and constrain the market in innumerable ways. The US has followed, at least partially, a LOT of UN laws and requirements that never have had the force of law here. Kyoto was never ratified yet is still cited in EPA and other agency proposals and regs. It becomes an international standard of behavior to which we have in some part agreed, and will be held up as the way we ought to behave. it has influence in Washington policy and in elections.
The good news is that without ratification a president with an iota of sense can undo it just as easily as it was done.
What that means is completely unclear, but it can definitely be used by the Obama Administration to at least justify actions they have the power to take, like banning imports of certain types of weapons, etc. The GCA already gives the ATF broad power to regulate guns based on "sporting purpose", Obama would be aided in a bid to ban for example all handgun imports if the UN were to rule in his favor under the treaty even if the treaty itself lacks force of law in the US.
This is why Bush un-signed the Rome Statute treaty, to remove us from the obligation to not defeat the object and purpose of the International Criminal Court. Prior to that it was unclear at law just how much the US had to do to comply with ICC rulings. By un-signing we got rid of any legal obligations at international law to do so.
Once this treaty goes into effect the President of Mexico can go to the UN and argue the US is defeating the object and purpose of a treaty to which they are a signator by allowing civilian weapons sold here to get to Mexican cartels. The UN and international courts can rule the US in breach of the treaty, and while they can't send in troops to force anything it gives the anti-gunners a strong PR position for which to argue their case for registration or an assault weapons ban. "We signed the treaty, we have to follow it" will sound reasonable to a nation where 25% or more of voters probably can't name the Vice President.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with those who have said that it doesn't have force of law here, thank goodness, but it will be a thorn in our side until we can get a President in office who will un-sign this nightmare. Without ratification we avoid the full blown nightmare, but this will be a tool used to chip away at the 2nd Amendment as long as we are a signator.
IMO it will be used against us not just domestically with the fight for the 2nd Amendment but abroad in our foreign policy. The reason Iran/Sudan/Cuba all want this thing is b/c it basically bans giving arms to rebels and non-government groups, wiping out a big part of US foreign policy and entrenching those regimes.
there's a clause that weapons should not be exported that could be used to "attack schools or hospitals". That covers about every weapon to every civilian market but also to any rebels or non-government forces. Theoretically Obama just signed away a huge part of America's overall global influence, and it's barely raised an eyebrow here at home b/c people are so clueless and simply don't pay attention to these kinds of events.
Obama himself has armed Libyan rebels, then he signs a treaty making it illegal to arm rebels? Think any of those weapons could have been used to attack a school or hospital? It's a horrible document on every level, crafted by nations like Iran to tie the US's hands and supported by the dogmatic Left of this country b/c it can be used to leverage their anti-gun goals and restrict our ability to arm people abroad.
It doesn't really give Obama extra legal powers, but it will provide blessing to his use of the powers he has now to limit imports and constrain the market in innumerable ways. The US has followed, at least partially, a LOT of UN laws and requirements that never have had the force of law here. Kyoto was never ratified yet is still cited in EPA and other agency proposals and regs. It becomes an international standard of behavior to which we have in some part agreed, and will be held up as the way we ought to behave. it has influence in Washington policy and in elections.
The good news is that without ratification a president with an iota of sense can undo it just as easily as it was done.
Last edited:
wildenout
Member
I have a negative feeling that it's going to further the ammo shortage.
UN Small Arms Treaty
I want to applaud those who are aware of the underhanded methods this administration has employed to make things happen that we were so sure would never happen. To add, I am not so smug as to believe that we could never have an entire elected body full of idiots instead of just the majority as we have now. I will do all I am able to do to defeat this and any other attempts to undermine my freedoms and my children's and grand children's freedoms and to preserve what's left of the America most of us served to protect.
Thanks to LoboGunLeather,bluegrassarms and others who I failed to mention for holding our attention to these facts and making explanations so we continue our vigilance.
I want to applaud those who are aware of the underhanded methods this administration has employed to make things happen that we were so sure would never happen. To add, I am not so smug as to believe that we could never have an entire elected body full of idiots instead of just the majority as we have now. I will do all I am able to do to defeat this and any other attempts to undermine my freedoms and my children's and grand children's freedoms and to preserve what's left of the America most of us served to protect.
Thanks to LoboGunLeather,bluegrassarms and others who I failed to mention for holding our attention to these facts and making explanations so we continue our vigilance.
Last edited:
If you smug is directed at me, it has nothing to do with being smug and everything to do with focusing time and resources on the most critical threats to our liberties.
I doubt anyone who's a gun owner has not heard about this UN gun grab attempt, it's been a high point of discussion for awhile now.
IMO. We as a group can't afford to shotgun our resources and political capital on what is at this point in time, not a controllable issue. Obama was going to have this signed, no matter what. The Senate has already stated they will not ratify it. Until we have an administration in that will "un-sign" it, what else would you have done besides writing your Senators and Congressman?
I've already written all of my representatives, supported the NRA and bring this up in discussions when I can, what else should I do?
I'm focused right now on working to help unseat those who oppose our rights, so we don't have more idiocy like this treaty or enough idiots in place to ratify it. What are you doing?
P.S. I'm not trying to be negative, but if you were addressing me, you were ascribing a thought process to me that was not accurate.
Last edited:
bluegrassarms
Member
I foresee a gun shortage as well. We're lucky, gun making is one of the few industries left where most of our product is made in the USA, but we still import a lot of guns for the civilian market. As those other countries ratify this treaty they will be bound by it. With a clause like disallowing any export that could be "used to attack a school or hospital" will Germany or Belgium or Italy take steps to curb exports to the US market? Clearly the Treaty will give them the justification, and Obama can use it as leverage with them to constrain exports to the US without ever passing a single new reg or issuing a single executive order.
Will Obama try to block a move by the Mexican President in the UN to cut off exports to the US b/c we don't regulate our market enough? The treaty requires they not export to markets where guns will fall into illegal hands. He'll make the case that the US market qualifies and if the US doesn't fight against it the UN could rule that the US market is off limits for exports.
Now, there's a LOT of money on the line for those nations, they won't be chomping at the bit to lose the US market, but could it be used to curb certain kinds of weapons or would some countries still do it? Those nations also have strong anti-gun feelings, so I could see this impacting the US market by cutting down imports even if Obama never has to do a thing domestically.
of course as already discussed the treaty will only embolden efforts to take those domestic actions as well, many of which like the M1 re-import won't require Congressional approval. The M1 situation proves he'll take those actions to constrain the US market.
that can also directly impact ammunition I'm sure. Relations aren't all that great with Russia right now anyway, and while I haven't read the treaty I bet ammunition has plenty of language in there that it could be used to support banning imports of Russian ammo for example. No more Wolf/Tula/Bear equals big price jump and shortage of some key calibers.
This thing has endless negative possibilities for us. In the long term US production can increase to replace lost imports of guns and ammo, but it takes years to get those plants up and running. This could end up having no effect at all as nations sign on but then ignore it b/c they are making too much money otherwise, or they could jump on board with it hook line and sinker and it have big impacts on the US gun and ammo market as well as possibly domestic gun control.
We all know which way Obama would LIKE for it to go, which is what really is the biggest risk of all. It's not like he's going to use US influence to talk anyone out of restricting sales to the US is he?
To All Present
Nothing in my original post was directed at anyone, in fact I hope the preaching is going to the choir, that we are all on the same page here and that we all are making contact with those in authority or who have voting privileges making our wishes known to them, sorry if I was interpreted as having pointed a finger at anyone!
Nothing in my original post was directed at anyone, in fact I hope the preaching is going to the choir, that we are all on the same page here and that we all are making contact with those in authority or who have voting privileges making our wishes known to them, sorry if I was interpreted as having pointed a finger at anyone!
Don't even give it a second thought then. I hope you have a great afternoon. My apologies for being touchy today.
smokindog
Member
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Musings on the M1 carbine- Latest: Glenn R. McMannly
-
-
-
-
Marlin 336SC, What’s it Worth?
- Latest: Fullmetaljacket
-
-
-
-
The only one - A 4" K-22 target revolver Stainless steel Model 65
- Latest: walkin' trails
-
-
