UN Gun Treaty

Treedodger

New Member
In 2012 the UN plans to release a final draft of the Arms Trade Treaty and is attempting to get the US to sign on. Senator Clinton has went so far as to declare that the US is agreement with this treaty. If you haven't read about this you need to check it out. The UN is basically attempting to limit our Second Amendment rights in several ways. You would normally think no one in their right mind would sign this, giving the UN control over domestic affairs, but it only has to be voted on by the Democratically controlled Senate. Here is a link giving some background and a bill that is being considered in the House to cut off US funding of the UN if this is adopted.

http://gunowners.org/a12022011.htm

There is an easy link in the above website to send a prewritten email to your House Representative against the UN Arms Treaty and backing the bill to cut UN funding. I wrote to my Rep here in SC (Jim Duncan) and he agreed to cosponsor the House bill to cut UN funding so it is possible to get results by contacting your Congressmen. This has huge potential. Please take just a few minutes and send the automated email. Couldn't be any easier or more important.
 

Tigerstripe

Active Member
ive heard it said that it will be the guys in the blue helmets that come knockin at the door for our guns.

sounds like the begining of our government being able to say " i didnt do it, man " (bart simpson).
 

Treedodger

New Member
For a little more information on this treaty, here is a speech given back this summer by the NRA that voices many concerns over this Arms Treaty:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRA Delivers Remarks at U.N.
Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty


National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership. LaPierre said in his remarks, "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind."



United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Preparatory Committee - 3d Session

New York, July 11-15, 2011



Statement of the National Rifle Association of America



Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern.. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced. We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the

proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned.

Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss if I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.

To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.


Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.
 

Pops

Administrator
I have some pretty strong feelings about this treaty and one thing I've noticed on many occasions is that the ATT is described as an infringement on the constitutional rights of American Gun Owners.
In fact it is an infringement on the constitutional rights of all Americans. Second Ammendment rights belong to everyone even if they choose not to exercize those rights.

Our constitution is being attacked and whittled away on many fronts. For example: the political correct speach initiative we've seen over the past 20 years or so is nothing more than an attack on our first ammendment rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
One example: Federal and state governments are constantly pursuing law suits that ultimately achieve the exact opposite. They seek to stop the free expression of religion over the objection of, in many cases a single Athiest who complains that his sensitivities are hurt by viewing a Christmas tree. (Christams trees are a hold-over from Pagan Europe) The rulings are simply attempts to set legal precidents that can be used over time to remove the power of this law.
Another example: the Fairness Doctrin, used to control what is allowable over the public airwaves.
The examples go on and on.

What we really need is a constituional ammendment that requires all members of Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judiciary Branch to defend and uphold the constitution . . oh . . wait wouldn't that be their oath of office?

I've heard it said that the constitution guarrantees the freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion, but in fact it guarrantees our freedom FROM the government to impose or interfere with any religion. It is exactly this scenario that the first ammendment protects us from religion. Atheists claim they don't partake in religion, therefore they fall along the same lines as a citizen who chooses not to own a gun.

When I say "Merry Christmas" to an atheist he should simply reply "Bah Humbug!".

Pops
:evil:
 

Treedodger

New Member
Well put Pops. I believe, largely through our silence and lack of involvement, we have allowed 2 percent of the population to control 20 percent of our lives and the Federal government to control the other 80 percent, leaving us the remainder to do with as we wish.

Here is the truth about the attack that has already occurred on our Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX41SkKN0tQ
 

fordnut

Active Member
This is the letter I got today from Tim Scott. I sent a letter to his office about this UN FARCE....

Dear Mr. Bales:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the negative impact of the proposed United Nations (U.N.) Arms Trade Treaty on our Second Amendment rights. I am grateful for your input and the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on this very important issue.

As you are already aware, all treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. However, the Second Amendment Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), seeks to defend our constitutional right to bear arms through Congress' power of the purse. Specifically, this legislation cuts off any and all funding to the U.N. if the U.S agrees to any treaty that restricts or infringes upon this unequivocal right.

As Americans, we have the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our property. Our Second Amendment right is a fundamental freedom and a cornerstone of our democracy that should never be undermined by the federal government or any foreign power. You can be assured that I will always fight to uphold the rights that our nation was founded on and will keep your concerns in mind should this bill come before the House for a vote.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me; I hope you will continue to do so in the future. If I can ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of my staff.

For more information from Washington, please visit my website at www.timscott.house.gov and subscribe to my monthly e-newsletter.
Sincerely,

Tim Scott
Member of Congress

Glad I voted for this guy...ANd, Will do it again.

Steve
 

Low Branch

New Member
Pops said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
One example: Federal and state governments are constantly pursuing law suits that ultimately achieve the exact opposite. They seek to stop the free expression of religion over the objection of, in many cases a single Athiest who complains that his sensitivities are hurt by viewing a Christmas tree. (Christams trees are a hold-over from Pagan Europe) The rulings are simply attempts to set legal precidents that can be used over time to remove the power of this law.

I've heard it said that the constitution guarrantees the freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion, but in fact it guarrantees our freedom FROM the government to impose or interfere with any religion. It is exactly this scenario that the first ammendment protects us from religion. Atheists claim they don't partake in religion, therefore they fall along the same lines as a citizen who chooses not to own a gun.

When I say "Merry Christmas" to an atheist he should simply reply "Bah Humbug!".

Pops
:evil:
One argument that can be made concerning these lawsuits is that government entities pursuing the placement of Christmas Trees on government property actually is establishing religion by hoisting one above another, or none. Anyone can and should be able to do what one wills on private property (as long as it harms no other), but clear lines can be drawn on public property with public funds. Part of the Rule of Law put in place by the Constitution is that a majority will not rule at the expense of a minority.
 
Top