UN Treaty May Threaten The 2nd Amendment

This is the first, and hopefully last I’ll ever hear about this:

I don’t keep my ear to the domestic gun law streets (much less the international ones), so I didn’t even know this was on the horizon until Ryan emailed me.  I don’t like the idea of some international body dictating laws in any country.   This particular treaty really bothers me obviously.

Looks like there’s been some talk of this since about 2009, but is outlined nicely in this June article in Forbes magazine.   All the fun stuff such as confiscations, international registrys, bureaucratic red tape etc… it’s a good article to get your blood boiling.

Thoughts?

Hat tip: Ryan H.

42 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Poppy October 3, 2011 at 12:34 am

HATE.

LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I’VE COME TO HATE THE UNITED NATIONS SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 150 TRILLION METERS OF DNA IN THE CELLS THAT COMPRISE MY BODY. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH CHROMOSOME OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS OF METERS IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-TRILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR THE UNITED NATIONS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT.

HATE.

HATE.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE.

Reply

Dillankid October 3, 2011 at 07:52 am

I approve this message of hatred.

Reply

DaveP October 3, 2011 at 09:31 am

Ellsion FTW.
Especially as ol’ Harlan is antigun.

Reply

Chrontius July 7, 2012 at 03:37 am

Very nice – “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream” reference, unless I am mistaken?

Reply

Ski October 3, 2011 at 01:32 am

I don’t… I just can’t believe this would actually happen. I think Fox is kinda blowing the issue out of proportion here. I haven’t heard about this anywhere else other than this particular news story, but what the UN seems to be trying to do is to limit the sale of weapons between nations. That’s a whole different animal than your average citizen buying a gun from a guy who owns a gun store down the street. They’re attempting to stop the spread of ever more advanced weapons into countries like North Korea, Iran, Sudan, etc. They’re talking about people buying large quantities of firearms to arm huge numbers of people with military grade equipment. That’s just my take on it though. According to wiki, the font of all knowledge (lol), the treaty has yet to actually be written and the vote was simply for a binding resolution which would say “We’re gonna write a thing, that limits the import and export of arms in some way.” (I’m pararphrasing there and I’ll link my source at the bottom of my post.) In fact the original vote took place already, in 2006, and it may surprise some of you to know that the US government voted against the resolution to create a treaty. Recently the Obama white house has reversed this position. That said I’m not going to get into Obama bashing here because dammit, the guy is not all bad and everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, I’m sure the man has at least one valid reason. That said, if the resolution were to pass, a treaty would need to be created.
I hope you’re still following along, because here’s the first opportunity for Fox’s news story to be incorrect. The treaty would be INTENDED (I.E. the language is not set in stone and when it is it may be so weak as to be unenforceable) to “ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to: be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity; facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime; violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes; be diverted from its stated recipient; adversely affect regional security; seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development.” Which to me sounds more like they don’t want first world nations selling weapons to third world nations so that they can fight proxy wars, and less like they want to close down “Honest Bob’s Gun Shop” and take everything out of your safe. Now, let’s assume I’m wrong (this has happened more than occasionally) and the UN really does want to confiscate every weapon not controlled by a government, or an individual acting in the name of said government. The treaty which says as much has been drafted, and the language in it is clear (not impossible) and easy to enforce (not bloody likely). The Treaty would then have to be ratified by congress. It would need to pass a 2/3rds majority.
As of September 14th, 2011 more than 50 US Senators (13 of which, it may surprise you to know, were democrats) have voiced strong opposition to this resolution to create a treaty. Not a treaty itself, just the idea of making one. That number ALONE makes it impossible for this to be ratified. Ergo, no one is going to take your guns away. But let’s continue further down the rabbit hole shall we? If you followed me this far you certainly deserve to hear the end of our tale.
Assuming the members of congress act in a manner inconsistent with their previously voiced opinions (that’s never happened before has it? lol) and pass this treaty (which I will remind you, currently does not exist) then the treaty then becomes law. Now, at this juncture we have to follow it, because it’s the law of the land. However, that is not to say that it will stay that way, a lawsuit which I can assure you the NRA would be quick to create, would likely find its way to the supreme court. The very same supreme court which ruled against New York’s handgun ban. But in this case it would not be the second amendment which would be the point of contention. Rather the supremacy clause would be the one to nail our gun loving hopes and dreams on. Granted that clause does point out that treaties created by congress are higher than state law, but the language itself (to my knowledge) does not specify whether a treaty can be held at a higher level than the constitution itself. My assumption here is that we would find rather quickly that the Constitution would overrule the treaty, thereby making the treaty invalid, as said treaty infringes on second amendment rights fairly heavily. So yea, that’s pretty much it folks. Three separate ways this treaty, which once again has not yet been written, is doomed to fail. It doesn’t help (for those who would support such a treaty in the US) that the US is the world’s foremost exporter of arms. We’re not going to shoot ourselves in the foot and lose a $55 BILLION dollar a year industry. Pardon the pun. I don’t see this coming to anything. It’s just Fox blustering to fire up their base before the election. Anyways, I guess all that’s left now is to sit back and watch the endless hate streaming towards me. I really like you guys. You should know that before it starts. Thanks for sitting through my wall of text.

P.S. What scares me most about this… is Fox news guy’s trigger discipline.

Reply

Ski October 3, 2011 at 01:33 am

I forgot to put this in and I can’t edit things.

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

Reply

Heath October 3, 2011 at 09:38 am

Wikipedia isn’t worth the paper it’s not printed on.

I hope you don’t believe that those who support this treaty idea aren’t interested in taking away your gun rights. They are, and they’ll lie about it the entire time as they try and destroy the 2nd Amendment.

Reply

Vhyrus October 3, 2011 at 03:46 am

Your first mistake was to take anything Fox News (or ANY major news outlet) says at honest face value. They literally said at the beginning “…but does this proposed treaty threaten the U.S. Constitution? One person thinks so… AND HERE HE IS!” Dear lord, an elderly white under-informed American doesn’t like an idea? Lets all march on fucking congress! As Ski (very verbosely) stated above, this is aimed at inter government business, not at the private citizen. The fact is, the UN could write whatever the hell they wanted to in their rulebook, I’m pretty sure if the U.S. didn’t want to follow it we would promptly flip them the bird and continue on our merry way, as we have basically done in the past. Even IF the entire industrialized world haplessly lined up and stopped selling small arms (cause THATS gonna happen), this treaty would have absolutely no effect on small arms for domestic sale or arms already circulating in the country. The price MIGHT go up, but there will still be guns to buy.

I honestly don’t understand the UN hatred in general. The UN has been used by the American government to leverage other countries many MANY more times than it has been used against us. Hearing complaints from an American against the UN is on par with listening to a homeowner bitch about his professionally trained guard dog cause he occasionally shits on his good penny loafers. It’s just asinine.

Reply

A2 October 3, 2011 at 05:32 am

The shit on the penny loafers is one of the best analogy’s I’ve read on the internet in a long time.
CLASSIC

Reply

Some Sock Puppet October 4, 2011 at 04:59 pm

Unaccountable bureacrats making up more rules on a global scale and sucking down tax-payer money? What’s not to love?

Reply

Vhyrus October 4, 2011 at 06:42 pm

A lot cheaper than World War 3 I can promise you.

Reply

robert October 3, 2011 at 09:03 am

i believe that even if this gets passed bu the UN the US senate has to ratify it for it to pertain / become law here, and even though democrats my have control of the senate i don’t think they’d ratify it because gun owners would surely, finally, come together and vote them all out and get some people in there that would pass new laws voiding the UN law.

Reply

Heath October 3, 2011 at 09:40 am

I’m pretty sure it is the House that has to ratify any Treaty by a 2/3 majority.

Reply

Josh October 3, 2011 at 10:12 am

I’m pretty sure it is the House that has to ratify any Treaty by a 2/3 majority.

No, actually the President is the one who ratifies treaties. But, it must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The House does nothing in the process.

Reply

Jeff October 3, 2011 at 09:18 am

BS, I’m not going to say another assault weapons ban is going to be reenacted, but the UN will never force US gun owners to give up their arms/confiscate them. That would be playing with legislative dynamite (especially with the myriad of legally purchased firearms that are untraceable, that are floating around the US, how are they going to find them all)

Reply

Dave October 3, 2011 at 09:24 am

The UN is concerned about small arms and light weapons proliferation and every few years this SALW treaty comes up to restrict guns. It’s more targeted to arms dealers like Victor Bout.

Here’s the good news. The USG is certainly not gonna sign off on a UN treaty that restricts our rights on the principle of governed sovereignty and the fact that the NRA would throw a fit and retract all donations to any candidate. Not to mention it would sway some swing voters away. Likewise, the USG can also veto this resolution on the UN Security Council. Furthermore, even if the UNSCR was passed then it wouldn’t matter if the US doesn’t want to follow it anyways. The UN has no enforcement power.

As a further fact, China and Russia would never pass it because, lets face it, they love selling AKMs and Type 59s.

If it does somehow get passed in a total WTF moment then it would only effect the surplus market, which would admittedly suck. We would say goodbye to cheap ammo.

Reply

DaveP October 3, 2011 at 09:33 am

…So y’all are gonna trust that the people who brought us the pseudoepinephrine control laws and Operation Fast and Furious are gonna be stand-up guys when it comes to the Second.

Reply

Cougar October 3, 2011 at 10:31 am

Your points are well made but they know that they can’t make this stick in the US. If they passed it, the 2/3 roll call in the Senate would read like a hit list. We’ve got hundreds of thousands of homegrown hunters who can make long shots out past the standard Secret Service senate protection detail. even if they increased security on the 67 or more Senators you’d see them start dropping. To be clear, that’s not what I’m calling for, but it is a reality that everyone who votes for this would have to realize. The one thing that politicians care about more than getting re-elected is living long enough to get re-elected. They’re not stupid enough to sign something into law that would get them killed en masse.

Reply

Josh October 3, 2011 at 10:38 am

We’ve got hundreds of thousands of homegrown hunters who can make long shots out past the standard Secret Service senate protection detail.

Even worse for those senators – they’re not protected by Secret Service. Unless they happen to be Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates or the spouse of one, or in Hillary Clinton’s case, the spouse of a former President.

Reply

Josh October 3, 2011 at 10:39 am
Cougar October 3, 2011 at 01:35 pm

interesting i thought they had an attache contingent

Reply

Josh October 3, 2011 at 01:42 pm

(a)(6) Other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad when the President directs that such protection be provided(my emphasis).

I suppose that would cover an attache, ambassador, etc. when needed.

Reply

Cougar October 3, 2011 at 01:46 pm

i guess that makes sense in retrospect with the whole gabi giffords thing. I thought i had read somewhere that there was a 100Y protection detail on sens/reps but i must be misinformed.

Reply

mmasse October 3, 2011 at 09:59 am

There will be blood on the streets as soon as this is passed and bought off on by the US. I saw an article a few weeks ago on Wisconsin hunters was classified as the third largest standing army. Now try and collect some of their weapons and see what happens. I guarantee there will be a change in management after that.

here is the article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2638446/posts

Reply

Frank October 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

Didn’t the UN support Pol Pot at some point?

Reply

Poppy October 3, 2011 at 12:00 pm

The UN appointed North Korea to the disarmnament committee.Seriously, fuck those guys.

Reply

Frank October 3, 2011 at 08:47 pm

When you see blue helmets in your neighborhood telling you what you can and can’t do….

Reply

Poppy October 3, 2011 at 09:03 pm

…shoot them in the face. It’s okay, they can’t shoot back. I’d know, I saw it in Hotel Rwanda.

Reply

NotWagner October 5, 2011 at 06:18 pm

In the South, where I live, this is exactly what would happen. We’ve got too many hunters that happen to be amazing marksmen…and we’ve got plenty of ol’ boys who were/are infantry of some flavor.

Personally…doubt it’ll happen. But, if it did, it’d be a cold day in Hell down here, for sure.

Reply

Dontshootmebro October 3, 2011 at 12:56 pm

Treaties entered into by the United States, can not supersede the US Constitution. End of story.

Reply

Jp france October 3, 2011 at 01:00 pm

The only valuable with UN is NATO calibers i guess

Reply

crazy mayfield October 3, 2011 at 01:36 pm

Maybe the UN will throw US out of their organization for non-compliance… I double dog dare them…

Reply

Cougar October 3, 2011 at 01:52 pm

God I hope so

Reply

kevin October 3, 2011 at 05:03 pm

Didn’t anybody read that SOS Hillary Klinton said that if the UN approved “gay rights and gay marriage” that the USA would agree to whatever gun control/banning the UN wanted.
The evil UN is run by third world dictators who hate the USA and hate our Constitution and our Bill of Rights and are doing everything in their power to destroy these documents.
and with guns banned in the USA, it makes it much easier for a foreign country to invade, conquer and takeover the USA.

Reply

Vhyrus October 3, 2011 at 07:08 pm

Politicians say whatever they can to get results. Thats rule #1. If you truly think that the American people would stand by on a gun ban regardless of its origin you certainly dont live in the same place I do. The UN is a mediator between nations; A formal method of addressing grievances and working out non violent solutions. It is no more powerful than the suggestions box at your local Wendys. If a country (ANY country) does not want to play ball theres no direct action the UN can take to force compliance. Dont let our own domestic politicians use the UN as a scapegoat to facilitate their own anti constitutional policies. If the UN ‘takes our rights’ it is because our own government was complicit in the theft. THAT is the bottom line.

Reply

MAC21500 October 3, 2011 at 05:33 pm

Those of you who think that the purpose of the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is to stop arms proliferation are sadly mistaken; illegal arms proliferation will happen whether a government, let alone the UN condones it or not. Laws have not, do not and will not ever stop criminals; these laws and treaties affect only law abiding citizens and companies.

Reply

mmasse October 3, 2011 at 06:29 pm

The day some UN pukes come and try to take our weapons will be the same day civil war numero dos starts.

Reply

SqDb October 3, 2011 at 11:33 pm

In the months following Obama’s election, Americans bought a stupendous amount of guns and ammo for fear of a gun ban that never materialized. He became, in effect, the best arms marketer/advertiser/seller in recent history. The only thing the UN bit will lead to is *maybe* some higher prices on guns/ammo (raised by dealers/sellers in the States) if too many people buy in to this latest Chicken Little scenario. Anyone in the business of selling guns/ammo LOVES when gun/ammo buyers get their panties in a bunch over junk like this.

Reply

DanC October 3, 2011 at 11:56 pm

You want ’em? Molon Labe. Seriously. Math is on the side of the American Gun owner.

Ain’t enough Blue Helmets out there. More accurately, after the first couple of weeks of the gun confiscation program, and thousands of blue helmets are planted in the ground, they might have a small issue with recruiting.

Not going to happen, if we stand strong.

Reply

Ryan H October 4, 2011 at 02:17 am

Even if this isn’t imminent, I’d rather keep my eyes and ears open for more b.s to flow down the pipes. So far, from what I’ve read the U.S hasn’t ratified their membership to the ICC, which is good because their jurisdiction lies in “the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression”. I have read so many anti-gun nut jobs in the UN referring to small arms as the true WMD. No membership in the ICC means their jurisdictional leverage against the U.S and the 2nd amendment is flimsy at present.

Reply

Jon Hutto October 4, 2011 at 09:21 am

I don’t see how it matters. Every other country ignores the UN treaties and sanctions, why not us?

Reply

Lance October 9, 2011 at 03:09 pm

Make. My. Day.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: