Monday, November 2, 2009

UN To Push For A Gun Control Treaty- Obama Agrees

In less than a year the U.S. government has gone from being one of the chief opponents of the proposed UN Small Arms Control Treaty to being a strong supporter. Elections do matter and have consequences.

As many predicted, the United States has changed its United Nations Gun Control Treaty position by joining other countries in the UN’s General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament And Peace, with a resolution calling for the drafting of an International Arms Trading Treaty. This Treaty, which will be up for a final UN vote in 2012, will regulate small arms, as well as other conventional arms.

This treaty will regulate production, supply, transfer, acquisition and storage of small arms by the end user, among others, all U.S. gun owners.

The UN General Assembly voted on a similar resolution in 2006, and George W. Bush instructed US Ambassador to vote against the resolution because he believed the Second Amendment would be infringed by such a treaty. The United States was the only country to vote against the resolution then, and the sole vote against a Treaty resolution killed a new Treaty. But, we have a different President with a different agenda now.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, believes that this proposed Treaty will be a strong one, and that the U.S. government was prepared to use a UN conference to support it.

The UN., in a 2006 Obamaesque “Myths and Facts” Press Statement called “Setting The Record Straight” about the UN and small arms said that,

“MYTH: The Conference is being convened to draft a global treaty to ban ownership of firearms.

FACTS: The Review Conference is not about banning small arms or prohibiting people from owning legal weapons. “

But, a 10/21/09 UN Press Release said,

“Welcoming an arms trade treaty as a globally-binding instrument to regulate the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said that the time between now and the diplomatic conference planned for 2012 on that treaty should be used to ensure that the text addressed the diverse concerns of future States parties regarding the production, supply, transfer, acquisition and storage by the end users. It is entirely reasonable to believe that the UN means to include U.S. gun owners are in the “end user’ category.

Gun control groups are giddy now. A Gun Control Treaty that would be legally binding on US gun owners is in the offing.

Rebecca Peters of IANSA, the International Action Network on Small arms, an organization advocates stronger gun control that played a major role in the Australian gun ban, was reveling in the upcoming UN Treaty.

Peters, the Director of one of the Brady’s favorite groups also said, "All countries participate in the conventional arms trade and share responsibility for the 'collateral damage' it produces -- widespread death, injuries and human rights abuses." said Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms.

"Now finally governments have agreed to negotiate legally binding global controls on this deadly trade."



Kevin said...

From my cold, dead hands.

B. Johnson said...

Regardless that constitutionally clueless Obama wants to prostitute the USA's sovereignty through foreign treaties like the Copenhagen Treaty and a UN gun control treaty, there is a MAJOR Constitutional problem with doing so, IMO. Please consider the following.

First, given that the federal Constitution is silent about climate issues, for example, the 10th Amendment automatically reserves government power to regulate such issues to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. So regardless of Obama's power to negotiate treaties, he cannot use that power as a back door to force US citizens to comply with foreign climate laws.

The same limitation on the federal government's power to negotiate treaties applies to foreign (UN) laws to regulate arms as a consequence of the 2nd A.'s limits on federal government powers, IMO.

And if you don't believe me about the federal government's constitutionally limited power to negotiate treaties, then perhaps you'll believe a constitutional expert.

"...for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." --Thomas Jefferson, Parlimentary Manual, 1812.

Also consider Jefferson's remedy for misguided "leaders" like Obama who unthinkingly exercise powers which have not been delegated.

"Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:386

colleen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
colleen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
thelastpatriots said...

Can you please source the original documentation? I would love to write about this as well....nice find!

jgh said...

Just a few sources listed below... from the UN and the State Department..and an interesting newspaper article.
Note: be sure to read Ambassador John Bolton’s Comments on this treaty in this news story.

Just Google
"UN negotiates global small arms export restrictions"
"UN negotiations on global small arms export restrictions"
and you will get more on this than you will care to read.

Anonymous said...

Look inObama's "Global Poverty" bill(s), (co-sponsored by Snowe), you will find ref to UN convention on light weapons. Outright ban by civilian ownership. Look also at Robert's "Heller" ruling, definition
of "arms", starts "Then, as now",
and you will find the UN definition of arms to be banned adopted.

Can you add 1+1?

The ban would cover military firearms of any age, copies of, OR DESIGNS DERIVED FROM any military firearm. Revolutionary war antique flintlocks, no more pre-98 antiques, and on and on. Remington 700 and win model 70 designs derived from Mauser turn bolt actions.

Anonymous said...

Treaties need to be approved by the Senate by a 2/3rds votes.

Those who are worried about the 2nd Amendment need to understand what the whole Constitution states before making wild, unfounded assumptions.

There is NO UN treaty in the works that ban hand-guns in the US.

There is a treaty in the works to prevent large shipments to troubled areas. The US, like China, Russia and Israel oppose this, and no matter what treaty they sign, they'll be unable to do anything to the Second Amendment.

So, why not admit that this whole "outrage", based on unfounded assumptions is really about the fact that Obama is the US President, and you do not like him.

jgh said...

"So, why not admit that this whole "outrage", based on unfounded assumptions is really about the fact that Obama is the US President, and you do not like him."

What I really don't like is what this man is trying to do to this country in his vision of "basic transformation" of the USA. He is out of his league in this office.

If anyone should know about UN goals and tactics, it's former UN ambassador John Bolton, who said, “There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.”