Sec of State John Kerry to sign UN Arms Trade Treaty on Wednesday

[actaeon277]

Sorry, I stopped believing Snopes a while ago.

Some alternate sources.
Kerry Signs Arms Treaty?That Has Almost No Chance of Being Ratified - ABC News
Exclusive: Secretary of State Kerry to sign Arms Trade Treaty - diplomats | Reuters
John Kerry To Sign U.N. Arms Treaty: Diplomats

But I'm trying to figure this part out, (and no, I don't have time to read the whole damn treaty)
"It merely helps other countries create and enforce the kind of strict national export controls the United States has had in place for decades,..."

If it is for other countries, they why did we need to sign it?
How good can it be, when most of the countries that supply guns directly to the groups targeted, didn't sign it?
What are these controls?

 

[threedhuntr]

Jeremiah ...... I totally agree with you.

And to everyone who does not think this is a stepping stone ...... wake up!!!

 

[afcolt]

Anything that has the likely effect of boosting the price of milsurp arms and ammo isn't good, whatever folks think of the other parts of this treaty.

Senator Donnelly already came out against this treaty in March (along with 6-7 other Dems, I think), but I still wrote him a letter last night, to help make sure it stays that way.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Answer these questions - came up with them all buy myself!


How many countries signing the treaty have laws protecting personal protection laws allowing the use of firearms?

Of those signing countries, how many have gone on the record that personal ownership of firearms is "a violation of human rights" (hint: you'll need more than your hands and feet to count)?

If the treaty truly does not intend to ever infringe on that huge number of countries with national laws protecting individual rights to own personal firearms (hint: you can count it on one hand), then why doesn't it state it explicitly in the language of the treaty? And since the treaty never intends ever to infringe on that personal right of individual citizens, then why not make those clauses irrevokable or ammendable?

The UN is fully aware of these concerns by the American public. They refuse to write in any protection for your personal freedom to own and trade/sell - firearms within the borders of the US. They also know if they did write in such a protection that the odds of a US ratification would reach the "possible" realm. Then, why not do it? Why not get the US on board with ratification to put the pressure on Russian and China (together they out sell the US in international firearms trade)?

 

[afcolt]

I'll cross-post this here, but folks can check out the treaty for themselves here:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ATT_text_(As_adopted_by_the_GA)-E.pdf

Check out Article 5:

Article 5 General Implementation
1. Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and
non-discriminatory manner, bearing in mind the principles referred to in this Treaty.

2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system,
including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the
broadest range of conventional arms. National definitions of any of the categories
covered under Article 2 (1) (a)-(g) shall not cover less than the descriptions used in
the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms at the time of entry into force of
this Treaty. For the category covered under Article 2 (1) (h), national definitions
shall not cover less than the descriptions used in relevant United Nations
instruments at the time of entry into force of this Treaty.

4. Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national
control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties.
States Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.

 

[Chewie]

No, you have no grasp. You've not even read a non-Rush Limbaugh summary of this treaty I bet.

Well here's a summary to help you out


When you're done with the homework assignment come back and talk to me. The treaty makes it explicit that sovereignty and Constitutional rights would not be overridden with this treaty. That's not to say the treaty is good or bad, just that you've not bothered to do a damn bit of research and you have the audacity to claim that I don't know what's going on here.

I haven't stated my ****ing opinion on this treaty, I'm just merely pointing out lies, bull****, and misunderstanding. So don't tell me I don't know what is going on. And btw, the UN will NEVER be stupid enough to seriously claim that one of their biggest donators and a large part of their peacekeeping force is a human rights violator.

Streak, Problem is that the treaty says anyone with a "legitimate" reason may have a gun, in case you haven't figured it out by not defining "legitimate" they can change the meaning to meet their needs whenever they want. Reminds me of "Obamacare", just keep adding to it as you go along.
As for the Rush Limbaugh comment, most people can read the treaty and with out putting on blinders figure out where this is headed. If certain Democrats maintain that this is a good thing that will not impact our rights all you need to do is look at their past history of voting and you will quickly see that they are telling untruths.
As for the UN, of course they will, they hav ein the past and they don't give a darn, they are truly impressed with their self proclaimed importance.
And hurling insults tends to reduce my impression of your intelligence level since if you can't handle a differing opinion the best defence is to deflect by insult (a liberal tactic by the way).
I am sure you will do your best to find fault with my spelling or punctuation in an effort to increase your self esteem so fire away. I am old enough and been through enough in my life to call a fart a fart and not worry about it.

 

[Streak]

Streak, Problem is that the treaty says anyone with a "legitimate" reason may have a gun, in case you haven't figured it out by not defining "legitimate" they can change the meaning to meet their needs whenever they want. Reminds me of "Obamacare", just keep adding to it as you go along.
As for the Rush Limbaugh comment, most people can read the treaty and with out putting on blinders figure out where this is headed. If certain Democrats maintain that this is a good thing that will not impact our rights all you need to do is look at their past history of voting and you will quickly see that they are telling untruths.
As for the UN, of course they will, they hav ein the past and they don't give a darn, they are truly impressed with their self proclaimed importance.
And hurling insults tends to reduce my impression of your intelligence level since if you can't handle a differing opinion the best defence is to deflect by insult (a liberal tactic by the way).
I am sure you will do your best to find fault with my spelling or punctuation in an effort to increase your self esteem so fire away. I am old enough and been through enough in my life to call a fart a fart and not worry about it.

The treaty does not supersede Constitutional rights. The laws of the country are still respected per the treaty -- the "legitimate" reason becomes "because our country's laws allow it". In fact..

The Arms Trade Treaty
Preamble
The States Parties to this Treaty,
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,


Recalling Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations which seeks to
promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with
the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources,

Underlining the need to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional

arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use
and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts,

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial
interests of States in the international trade in conventional arms,

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control
conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or
constitutional system,

Acknowledging that peace and security, development and human rights are
pillars of the United Nations system and foundations for collective security and
recognizing that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked
and mutually reinforcing,

blah blah blah

Principles
– The inherent right of all States to individual or collective self-defence as
recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations;

blah blah blah


Text of the treaty

I count at least 3 times that before we even get to the terms of the Treaty, it's stipulating that America has the right to regulate and control firearms HOWEVER it wants within it's own territory. This means precisely that the 2nd Amendment STILL applies.

I'm not saying the treaty is a good thing or a bad thing. I'm simply saying that even the UN is saying that it will NOT interfere with our rights.

 

[Chewie]

Just remember, all it takes is 67 liberal Senators to screw us big time one way or another. They have done it so many times in the past that I have very little faith in them. Would it happen in the next year or two? I doubt it but again lack of faith kicks in.

 

[cwillour]

Streak,

Notice something missing from this section on Pg.2?

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain
conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where
such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,

While you correctly state that the treaty contains several clauses similar to the gem below, I am certain you also realize that many in the administration do not see a gun registry as an infringement of our rights. The real question is whether the treaty can be used as cover to implement such a registry, bypassing the normal need for congressional approval. The second and third quotations below (from Article 5 - General Implementation and Article 8 - Import) would seem to imply such a registry should be created.

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control
conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or
constitutional system,

5. Each State Party shall take measures necessary to implement the provisions of
this Treaty and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an
effective and transparent national control system regulating the transfer of
conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) and of items covered under Article 3
and Article 4.

1. Each importing State Party shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and
relevant information is provided, upon request, pursuant to its national laws, to the
exporting State Party, to assist the exporting State Party in conducting its national
export assessment under Article 7. Such measures may include end use or end user
documentation.

To be blunt, if the current administration really believed in this treaty they would not even consider arming rebels in Syria as it is reasonably evident that doing such would violate Article 6 - Prohibitions as there are numerous UN reports citing crimes-against-humanity and civilian attacks by various rebel groups and it is unreasonable to assume that the arms we supply would not move between groups as tactical and strategical requirements fluctuate over the course of the conflict.

3. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered
under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has
knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the
commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva
Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected
as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a
Party

 

[Streak]

Streak,

Notice something missing from this section on Pg.2?

No. Not every single section is going start with a phrase like "Except as permitted by a State's Laws, Constitution, and Sovereignty". You've read the intent of the treaty, what powers are enumerated to the Signatories (including the right to moderate/legislate/control guns within a country's own territories), so what exactly are needing? Legitimate use = "My country says I can." That's legitimacy.

While you correctly state that the treaty contains several clauses similar to the gem below, I am certain you also realize that many in the administration do not see a gun registry as an infringement of our rights. The real question is whether the treaty can be used as cover to implement such a registry, bypassing the normal need for congressional approval. The second and third quotations below (from Article 5 - General Implementation and Article 8 - Import) would seem to imply such a registry should be created.

No where does the Constitution state it cannot have a registry. Your right to own a gun isn't inherently infringed by a registry...that's not to say it can't be, but the simple OBJECT of a registry is not infringing your right to own the weapon.

To be blunt, if the current administration really believed in this treaty they would not even consider arming rebels in Syria as it is reasonably evident that doing such would violate Article 6 - Prohibitions as there are numerous UN reports citing crimes-against-humanity and civilian attacks by various rebel groups and it is unreasonable to assume that the arms we supply would not move between groups as tactical and strategical requirements fluctuate over the course of the conflict.

And none of that has anything to do with the topic on hand -- I don't know what this administration really believes in -- I cannot and will not speak for the tens (or more likely hundreds) of people with any authority in his administration. I'm simply trying to point out the inaccuracies in the understanding of what this treaty does. I'm not offering an opinion of this treaty nor of the Obama administration's desire to have the treaty.

 

[Streak]

Just remember, all it takes is 67 liberal Senators to screw us big time one way or another. They have done it so many times in the past that I have very little faith in them. Would it happen in the next year or two? I doubt it but again lack of faith kicks in.

How would you be screwed by this treaty?

 

[Chewie]

Just sit back and watch as this is used to slowly erode our 2nd amendment rights in the future.
Obama himself has said we need to be more like Europe, this is additional support for a liberal agenda to slowly slide in.
So slow that if you don't pay attention you'd never notice.
Put a nice scope and furniture on a pig, it's still a pig.
My opinion based on continued observation of our gov't at work (all parties).

 

[Bummer]

No where does the Constitution state it cannot have a registry. Your right to own a gun isn't inherently infringed by a registry...that's not to say it can't be, but the simple OBJECT of a registry is not infringing your right to own the weapon.

Could you be so kind as to tell me the exact phrase in the Constitution that grants the Federal Government any authority to have so much as an opinion on weapons, much less a registry. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions. The Constitution is a grant of limited authority. Where, in the Constitution, are they granted that authority.

And while you're at it, I'm curious about one thing: Why should we sign this treaty?

 

[cobber]

How would you be screwed by this treaty?

Because some day Iran will chair the GA Committee on the Arms Trade?

Because our Constitution should not be subject to international palavering or fiddling?

I'm simply trying to point out the inaccuracies in the understanding of what this treaty does.

What is the compelling rationale for this treaty? My favorite is still the Kellogg-Briand Pact which, in essence, outlawed war basically. It was a resounding success, paralleled only by the astonishing effectiveness of the League of Nations.

 

[Bennettjh]

How wouldn't you be screwed by this treaty?

FIFY

 

[cwillour]

No. Not every single section is going start with a phrase like "Except as permitted by a State's Laws, Constitution, and Sovereignty". You've read the intent of the treaty, what powers are enumerated to the Signatories (including the right to moderate/legislate/control guns within a country's own territories), so what exactly are needing? Legitimate use = "My country says I can." That's legitimacy.

Actually, I was referencing the absence of self-defense from the list of recognized "legitimate" reasons for civilian firearms ownership. The treaty does spell out the recognition of a state's right to use arms for self-defense, but not an individual's right.

No where does the Constitution state it cannot have a registry. Your right to own a gun isn't inherently infringed by a registry...that's not to say it can't be, but the simple OBJECT of a registry is not infringing your right to own the weapon.

I am not certain where the constitutionality of a registration is relevant to my comment. I merely stated that I feel any such registry should be established via direct congressional action (i.e. passage of law) and not via executive declaration that the action is necessary to implement a treaty previously approved by congress. I also stated that their is language in the treaty that would appear to give this or a future administration a basis upon which to make such an declaration and implement a registration without congressional action.

FWIW, I happen to disagree on whether the act of requiring registration of individual firearms meets the standard of infringing on my rights to keep and bear arms, but I already stated that my view is not held by all and I recognize that it is certainly possible the Supreme Court would decide in their favor.

And none of that has anything to do with the topic on hand -- I don't know what this administration really believes in -- I cannot and will not speak for the tens (or more likely hundreds) of people with any authority in his administration. I'm simply trying to point out the inaccuracies in the understanding of what this treaty does. I'm not offering an opinion of this treaty nor of the Obama administration's desire to have the treaty.

If this is true, then we disagree on the relevance of inconsistencies between actions and declarations. In talking about the administration's current actions regarding Syria, I am pointing out an apparent inconsistency within the administration's approach to international arms transactions. By signing the treaty, he declares a belief in the principles of the treaty, but his actions appear to run counter to this stated belief. If his actions indicate he does not really intend to live up to the terms and principles of the treaty, I believe it is reasonable to question his actual motives in signing the treaty.

As far as "falsehoods", the comment I see the most is that the treaty could be used to justify significant limitations on the import of arms and ammo for civilian use. Nothing I see in the treaty appears to be designed to prevent this from happening and there have actually been numerous reports generated domestically claiming that US civilian "gun-violence" constitutes an ongoing human rights violation. This does not mean that the treaty calls for such limitations currently, but should such an opinion on US civilian "gun-violence" be declared by a future administration (or the UN) the treaty would seem to call for such restrictions.

From the language in the treaty, such a declaration would not affect foreign transfers for government (federal, state, or local) use, but only transfers of arms and ammo intended for the civilian market.

I do agree that the treaty itself directly calls for absolutely no changes to the rules/laws/regulations regarding civilian firearms ownership in the US. My point is that I see it as creating new avenues for an administration to implement changes while bypassing the normal need for congressional action.

 

[cbhausen]

I got this from the NRA earlier today. Call it fear-mongering to raise funds or whatever you want. I call it a harbinger of things to come if we let our guard down. I signed the petition and made a donation and I encourage everyone to do the same.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama SIGNED the U.N. gun ban treaty. You know what this means. Now Obama and the U.N. are one BIG step closer to wiping out our Second Amendment freedom, our national sovereignty, and our American rule of law...once and for all. Only you and I can stop Obama and the U.N., but we have to act NOW. Please sign NRA-ILA's Emergency Petition to the U.S. Senate as soon as you can. Only the Senate can ratify treaties, so it's up to you and me to convince an overwhelming majority of U.S. Senators to vote NO on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. And we have to do it RIGHT NOW. We need to line the halls of the Senate with boxes and boxes of these petitions. We need to make it clear to every Senator if they team up with Obama and the U.N. to destroy our gun rights — there will be a heavy political price to be paid at election time. That's why every petition counts, starting with YOURS. So please, sign your petition TODAY. And after you sign your petition, I need you to make a much-needed contribution to NRA-ILA so we can make certain that U.N. bureaucrats never get the chance to trample our constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. With your help now, NRA-ILA can launch a BLISTERING ad campaign that exposes Obama's treachery. We can blanket the Senate with hundreds of thousands of these petitions. We can put every critical NRA-ILA campaign tool to work and stop this dangerous treaty before it becomes the law of the land. But we can't do ANY of it without a generous commitment from you TODAY. So after you sign your petition, I urge you in the strongest way possible to make an emergency contribution of $15, $25, $50, $100, or any other amount you can afford to NRA-ILA today. Only NRA-ILA has the proven track record to win a battle this big. And every dollar you give RIGHT NOW will be spent stopping the U.S. Senate from ratifying the U.N. gun ban treaty. Please take action as soon as you possibly can. And please forward this email to every freedom-loving patriot you know. We need as many signed petitions as possible!!! Thank you. ChrisChris W. Cox Executive Director www.NRAILA.org ​

 

[Dead Duck]

Obama likes this treaty -

John Kerry likes this treaty -

Dianne Feinstein likes this treaty -

Hillary Clinton likes this treaty -

Harry Reid likes this treaty -

Chuck Schumer likes this treaty -

Barbara Boxer likes this treaty -

Canada likes this treaty -

The U.N. likes this treaty -




I didn't even read this treaty and I don't want anything to do with it.

 

[cbhausen]

It's been said if you listen a man will tell you his intentions. And in this case if you read the U.N. will tell you theirs. I think the banner on their web page says it all:

The Arms Trade Treaty - UN Office for Disarmament Affairs

Now, how many U.N. apologists are going to step up in support of this insidious Trojan Horse at our gate?

And Dead Duck, Canada has NOT signed the ATT.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Could you be so kind as to tell me the exact phrase in the Constitution that grants the Federal Government any authority to have so much as an opinion on weapons, much less a registry. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions. The Constitution is a grant of limited authority. Where, in the Constitution, are they granted that authority.

^^^^^^This^^^^^^

The only way it is allowed to happen is when the people don't hold their representatives to their oath of office.

Streak has stated his liberal background in previous posts. It is clear by remarks such as these that s/he still holds to many of them.