The UN Arms Trade Treaty, in spite of what you might have heard, is not about gun registration. It states that it, “seeks to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security.” It is not about peace and security. Study this treaty and you will see it is perfectly setup for outlawing gun ownership. I know the overwhelming sentiment is that it will not pass the Senate. However, this is way too important, just to trust that it is not going to pass.
John Kerry has stated; The Arms Treaty will not “interfere with national sovereignty, or infringe on the rights of American citizens, including our Second Amendment rights to bear arms,” and he affirmed that he would sign it.
The administration has quoted from the treaty to indicate that it was not an issue for domestic guns. “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.”
The problem is that this and every other quote they have used to validate their position, in fact is not in the treaty. They have all been quotes from the preamble and are not binding. The preamble is nothing more than the desired “PR”; this is what they want the public to perceive as intent. The preamble ends with the words, “Have agreed as follows” thereafter, is the binding part of the treaty.
The full text of the UN Arms Trade Treaty can be viewed, on the UNODA web site. UNDOA is the “United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs” (Note: English portion of treaty starts pg.22)
This treaty deliberately uses vague language, leaving it open to broad interpretation, which is never good. Let me explain just one of the ways, it would be easy, to go from having Second Amendment rights, to guns being outlawed in a very short time.
Article 2 “Scope” (1.) “This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following (a) Battle Tanks, …(h) Small arms and light weapons.”
(2.) “For the purposes of this Treaty, the activities of the international trade
comprise export, import, transit, trans-shipment and brokering, hereafter referred to
Small arms and light weapons, ok, that pretty much covers everything. They will continue to say that it is just for export, international trade.
Article 5 “General Implementation” (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.”
This is national registration, but not just for guns, Article 3 includes ammunition, Article 4 includes all parts and components. They will maintain that this again is just for the treaty dealing with exports and imports, “international trade” however, according to the treaty we do have to account for everything. I am sure they will show you pictures of child soldiers from some corner of the world, “this is what it is all about, it’s for the children” they will say.
Article 5 & 13 both require that the “national control list” be shared with all Parties of the treaty. You were concerned about our government having a list of all gun owners, what about all the nations that sign the treaty.
Once this is in place where all gun sales, transfers, ammo purchases, all part and component purchases will be part of the “national control system.” Most likely, it will go through FFL dealer or perhaps some new entity, as part of the “national control system, including a national control list.” I am sure they will make the transition easier by drastically reducing cost of processing.
They wouldn’t attempt anything diabolical. You know, like creating an ammunition shortage and then after the “national control system” is in place, cancel all government contracts for ammo. Creating a glut on the market driving prices down, causing increased purchasing. Thereby reduce the time needed to develop the “national control list.” I doubt that it is anything like that, it is probably something simple, the DHS just needed a 1000 rounds more per man than the Army for their dedication to be the best, or killing nonconformist, which ever comes first.
Then they will say, oh, wait a minute. Article 2 (2) states, “For the purposes of this Treaty, the activities of the international trade comprise export, import, transit, trans-shipment and brokering, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”” We now realize that an FFL dealer is functioning as a “broker” therefore domestic guns, ammo, and parts fall under all Articles of the treaty. [bro-ker (1.) One that acts as an agent for others, as in negotiating contracts, purchases, or sales in return for a fee or commission.]
Now we are just one easy step away. They will come up with something like, In view of the fact that we have proof of violations of Article 11 “Diversion” They will perhaps use “Fast and Furious” or something like it that has yet to be detected.
They will almost certainly “double down” with something like, in addition to this our close neighbor to the south has voiced their feelings of “undermined peace and security” due to this diversion and the overwhelming quantity of privately owned guns. The president will declare that in keeping with the spirit of Article 15 and to “facilitate international cooperation” with support and solidarity for the UN Arms Treaty we agree that private ownership of guns, ammo, parts, “would contribute to or undermine peace and security” [Article 7 (a).] Therefore, all possession of guns, ammo or parts is from this point forward illegal. Since we already have the list, expect a visit, if you do not report to reclamation center. How many years has the left has been saying, that the fact we own guns undermines their peace and security?
According to Article 14 “Enforcement” they can only use “appropriate measures to enforce,” I’m sorry what did we decide appropriate measures were again? Oh, yea, Drone strikes, I forgot.
Article 16 “International Assistance” Any Party of the treaty can seek assistance. “Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.” You might want to read that again. That’s just scary.
They will say that I am just perverting the intended meaning, maybe, maybe not. What makes you think someone in power would interpret it any different. Why should they, if this interpretation suits their needs? Of course, if they really have a problem selling this interpretation, Article 20 says they can amend the treaty with just “a three-quarters majority vote of the States Parties present and voting.” Three-quarters majority of those present, oh… this is such a good idea.
We really need to be harrying our representatives, from the highest down, petition the government for a redress of grievances, loudly. We need to be talking to our friends, co-workers, anybody and everybody and get them to contact their representatives.
The Conservative Caucus is a great source for contact information including your representatives, fax, email, etc…
I believe our country stands at great peril on many fronts. The only good solution is if “we the people” wake up and get involved. The culture of lethargy that has been propagated has made our response ruefully late and thus the need is desperately urgent. We must be armed with the truth and than personally campaign to do away with the uninformed and the misinformed. If we are diligent, America might just survive without things turning far uglier than any of us would ever want to see.