• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

U.N. passes global arms treaty that faces opposition in Senate

C

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
For those who actually want to discuss this topic. There are some articles laying out the issues here and here.

At this point I am not even sure what the objection is here, other than the GOP generally disliking the UN.
 
Last edited:
Should we allow another country (treating the UN as equiv to a country) to dictate our life style and rules?
 
I agree with what the treaty says, but it seems pointless. The US already does this, there is really no treaty needed.
 
Those who face the loss of big money will ignore it, and most if not all such treaties have language that can infringe on our domestic Second Amendment rights, so I start out firmly against it. The only way I'd switch to supporting it is if I read every single line and satisfied myself that it could not possibly be used against us AND if the NRA said the same.
 
Charles Kozierok said:
For those who actually want to discuss this topic. There are some articles laying out the issues here and here.

At this point I am not even sure what the objection is here, other than the GOP generally disliking the UN.
Click to expand...

After a short search here is one specific objection:

"Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the 'end user' of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an 'end user' and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S."[22]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

IDK if it's an accurate criticism, but if it is I would oppose the treaty not only because of the database but also because who wants to fund this? I believe it would be expensive and I don't really see any point. Does anyone really think that in countries where this may have some merit, like Somalia, Yemen or Afghanistan, there would be compliance with such record keeping requirements? Accurate records in those countries?

At this point I don't see any value in the treaty. If illegal arms shipments are already illegal, what's the point of another piece of paper saying they're illegal?

Fern
 
Per your link Charles,

But on this international agreement, she stands with her party in opposition. Senator Murkowski signed a letter to President Obama saying she worries the treaty will enforce international arms regulations on Americans.

Senator Mark Begich is one of the few Democrats who signed that letter.

“It’s going to be a problem if can’t differentiate between domestic trade and international trade. That treaty melds it all together. Therefore it does infringe and jeopardize the Second Amendment rights of this country,” Begich said.

The National Rifle Association has maintained that argument as well.

Oxfam America’s Scott Stedjan said the treaty clearly lays out its boundaries, noting that the preamble states domestic regulations will be handled within the country.

“The treaty does not undermine the Second Amendment in anyway whatsoever,” he said. “The treaty is only about the cross border trade of armaments.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like the debate is laid out for us. Republicans don't trust the text of the treaty, while Democrats are attempting to reassure us that it does not infringe.

I think, as Americans we can all appreciate being weary of something intended only to regulate "international trade" just as our Constitution only allows Congress to regulate "interstate commerce". While a nice limitation, we've clearly found ways to bend the definition to include just about anything and everything.

The crisis of our Federal government largess directly relates to us not trusting or wanting to even entertain or encourage the UN. For we've been down that path before with a limited government of enumerated powers only to find ourselves burned by limitless powers.

I will recognize the intention of this treaty as noble, but until I read the treaty, and until it is written in short and simple language unlike our 2,000 page bills, I cannot simply accept it on blind faith. Nor condone my representatives to support it either.

Bring it to the people if you want to win our trust. Bring us something that reassures us with strong, clear language pertaining to our immunity. We want protections from it now and forever. Not to be undermined by uncertain language, sleight of hands, or other trickery. For once you ring this bell it cannot be undone, as history with our own government has proven.
 
Fern said:
After a short search here is one specific objection:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

IDK if it's an accurate criticism, but if it is I would oppose the treaty not only because of the database but also because who wants to fund this? I believe it would be expensive and I don't really see any point. Does anyone really think that in countries where this may have some merit, like Somalia, Yemen or Afghanistan, there would be compliance with such record keeping requirements? Accurate records in those countries?

At this point I don't see any value in the treaty. If illegal arms shipments are already illegal, what's the point of another piece of paper saying they're illegal?

Fern
Click to expand...

this.

far to much in this treaty. i don't like it myself and wonder how its going to play out.
 
Bring it to the people if you want to win our trust. Bring us something that reassures us with strong, clear language pertaining to our immunity. We want protections from it now and forever. Not to be undermined by uncertain language, sleight of hands, or other trickery. For once you ring this bell it cannot be undone, as history with our own government has proven.
Click to expand...

Yep. History has shown that it's foolish to trust the government blindly.
 
ivwshane said:
Does or has there been a treaty that has dictated our life style or rules? If so which ones?
Click to expand...

I think that Koyoto (sp) was the one that tried to control energy use penalize the first world and pay funds to third world countries. While ignoring the up and coming culprits
 
EagleKeeper said:
I think that Koyoto (sp) was the one that tried to control energy use penalize the first world and pay funds to third world countries. While ignoring the up and coming culprits
Click to expand...

Those treaties are not self executing, they require legislation to implement.
 
I just wanted to post the actual treaty and call BS on those that don't support it for the above mentioned reasons.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf

Right in the preamble it states:

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,
Click to expand...

So with this new info and an 18 page treaty that's pretty plainly written what are some valid reasons for rejecting it?
 
ivwshane said:
I just wanted to post the actual treaty and call BS on those that don't support it for the above mentioned reasons.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf

Right in the preamble it states:



So with this new info and an 18 page treaty that's pretty plainly written what are some valid reasons for rejecting it?
Click to expand...

This section is a huge red flag for me:

Article 8 Import
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.


I see no reason why my information on my ownership of any weapon should be made available to any other country.

It may be that end user documentation is meant to apply to the importer of weapons and not the actual individual purchasing the weapon but that is not at all clear in this section. In either case, this section alone would be enough for me to not support the treaty.
 
I don't have the requisite background to judge if the current text really is worth objecting to, but I highly doubt that that preamble statement means anything one way or the other. It's not really part of the text of the treaty, and is incredibly vague.
 
dphantom said:
Article 8 Import
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.


I see no reason why my information on my ownership of any weapon should be made available to any other country.
Click to expand...

Right.. the real question is what I bolded. Does that mean that if we have a national law saying you can't have any end user information, that we can sign this treaty and not violate it? I have no idea.
 
I like the idea of the treaty but not the end user requirement. I suppose one could create legislation which explicitly forbids it based on the preamble.
 
Charles Kozierok said:
Right.. the real question is what I bolded. Does that mean that if we have a national law saying you can't have any end user information, that we can sign this treaty and not violate it? I have no idea.
Click to expand...
I think so. It was probably added to make everybody happy.
 
Murloc said:
I think so. It was probably added to make everybody happy.
Click to expand...

The question I have is whether we will create legislation that protects the end user. For all the talk of Republicans and the NRA, I suspect there is grounds for concern on this point. "Full auto Joe" Biden as I like to call him doesn't seem like one to worry about such issues and IMO would use it as a justification because we "had" to do this.
 
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,
Click to expand...
Alright... that preamble is nice. I question if they are legally intended to hold a higher standing than the text of the treaty? Does it have any legal standing at all?

I could see not objecting IF the passage of the treaty was, in our country, directly tied into a bill that "protects the end user".
 
Jaskalas said:
Alright... that preamble is nice. I question if they are legally intended to hold a higher standing than the text of the treaty? Does it have any legal standing at all?

I could see not objecting IF the passage of the treaty was, in our country, directly tied into a bill that "protects the end user".
Click to expand...

This treaty isn't self-executing. What that means is that the US would have to pass legislation in order to implement the clauses of the treaty. There's no additional legislation that would somehow pass because we're signatory to this treaty that wouldn't have passed otherwise.
 
eskimospy said:
This treaty isn't self-executing. What that means is that the US would have to pass legislation in order to implement the clauses of the treaty. There's no additional legislation that would somehow pass because we're signatory to this treaty that wouldn't have passed otherwise.
Click to expand...

i read a article that said diffrent. BUT there are supposed to be exclusions for the US because of the constitution.
 
waggy said:
i read a article that said diffrent. BUT there are supposed to be exclusions for the US because of the constitution.
Click to expand...

What article would this be? I haven't read the full text of the treaty but based on the wording I have read I find this highly unlikely. There's no statutory language in it that I've seen and generally treaties like that don't include it.
 
eskimospy said:
What article would this be? I haven't read the full text of the treaty but based on the wording I have read I find this highly unlikely. There's no statutory language in it that I've seen and generally treaties like that don't include it.
Click to expand...

it's been a while so i don't have a link. but im sure i read it correctly (though im not going to say 100% heh).

now i won't disagree the article may have slanted it. I didn't do a ton of research on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top